Bas delta/ranger update

[bmgarcangel 0]

No offense, I downloaded it, but i only found a few different things about the pack. But most of it seems the same as the last one....don't know perhaps its just that I don't play OFP a ton anymore compared to when I used to play it all the time :-)

Other than that guys, great pack, very kick ass new weapons and nice soldiers!

[ThePara 0]

That doesn't appear to be a regular M4 that you've pictured on the previous page. It appears there is no sign of the step-cut barrel. I've also never heard of the regular M4 having a fixed carrying handle. A large number of regular infantry units are issued the regular M4 and they have detached carry handles.

[dm 9]

That doesn't appear to be a regular M4 that you've pictured on the previous page. It appears there is no sign of the step-cut barrel.

The pics ate not all of M4's unless stated, but they are the best pics to illustrate the different mounting methods etc.

The first and second pics however ARE M4's, however the quality of the 1st pic makes it hard to see the cut - tho it IS there.

@bmgarcangle - we've been over this on the ofp.info forums, why the hell you've diecided to bring it up here too, especially 2 weeks after the first round is beyond me...

[ThePara 0]

What I'm saying is that your statement about the regular M4 having a carry handle as part of the reciever isn't completely true.

According to colts website: http://www.colt.com/mil/M4_2.asp

There are four models of the M4 (M4A1 included)

1. RO977 : Flat top, Safe/Semi/Full Auto

2. RO979 : Flat top, Safe/Semi/Burst

3. RO777 : Fixed handle, Safe/Semi/Full Auto

4. RO779 : Fixed handle, Safe/Semi/Burst

I don't believe the US miiltary uses the fixed handle, maybe in the past they did but I highly doubt they do anymore. I've seen no photos to suggest that they do.

[dm 9]

What I'm saying is that your statement about the regular M4 having a carry handle as part of the reciever isn't completely true.

According to colts website: http://www.colt.com/mil/M4_2.asp

There are four models of the M4 (M4A1 included)

1. RO977 : Flat top, Safe/Semi/Full Auto

2. RO979 : Flat top, Safe/Semi/Burst

3. RO777 : Fixed handle, Safe/Semi/Full Auto

4. RO779 : Fixed handle, Safe/Semi/Burst

I don't believe the US miiltary uses the fixed handle, maybe in the past they did but I highly doubt they do anymore. I've seen no photos to suggest that they do.

Interesting.

I did not know this (handy to look at the company webby eh? )

This will be taken into consideration for the new pack, and will be able to add yet more variation, without adding any more models

[Imshi-Yallah 0]

And Higher ROF?

[ThePara 0]

Do you guys have any plans to make a CQBR M4A1 or a Mark 12 Mod 0/1 SPR?

[Landwarrior87 0]

i actually like Method A with the fixed Carrying Handle and the optics, but whatever makes it in the final pack im cool with.. these are earls models and bas is modifying them so im sure theyll look great.. im not even looking forward to any units because these are so good already.. once the desert guys get a little darker then 100% again.

BTW: its going to be so cool with earls weapons in that desert camo.

Another Question for you military experts: Are M249's painted too?

[ebud 18]

No offense, I downloaded it, but i only found a few different things about the pack.  But most of it seems the same as the last one....don't know perhaps its just that I don't play OFP a ton anymore compared to when I used to play it all the time :-)

Other than that guys, great pack, very kick ass new weapons and nice soldiers!

actually the difference in quality from my end is based on texture details and model details. If you had any idea of how different they really are you wouldn't say that, plus they were made a year ago, lol. There is a post in this thread somewhere that shows the visual differences between the 2 versions, and since I did most all of the work visually on both packs, I KNOW that there is a HUGE difference between the 2 even if most people don't have the discriminating eye to see that

<edit: read the bottom of page 13, and on page 7 is DM's comparison, but the BAS site is down so they won't show)

[4 IN 1 0]

in fact when talking about M4 it would mean the Receiver with fixed handle, but when you talking about M4A1 you are talking about the flat top one, as this is the way NATO name the different M4, also the fire mode are different as the M4 are mainly with semi/brust (Model 720, some of them are having semi/auto which know as Model 727 aka M4 except) while M4A1 are all semi/auto, but these all are not really useful on the M4s BAS using as they are the SOPMOD one mainly made by KAC................

CQBR are mainly used by SEALs so they are going to come with the SEALs pack i think and as for the SPR, well i admin that i also want to see them in the next pack but as they are not using normal M885 rounds i wonder they will use JAM (as the rounds SPR uses are very accurate)

[Grizzlie 0]

I can't find it, but long time ago someone was claiming that has script preventing unit from use sidearm unless no ammo for "main" rifle . Is it possible to implement something like that to your pack? It is a bit annoying to see m.gunner using pistol...

I know i can remove sidearms for each soldier, but it makes having sidearms useless...

[pang 0]

how about a hidden selection for the foregrip of the earl- based weapons?

[dm 9]

Ok, some more answers:

Re. Higher ROF: No, we wont be making a higher ROF version, but, I will tell you its not the ROF that affects how deadly the enemy is (in OFP anyway) Even though the units have similar atributes in the editor, config wise I expect that they are very different. Also, do they (AKM's Spetznatz) use JAM?

Because if they dont, then their weapons are most likely to be coded to be more accurate than their JAM equivalent. I know from experience that the JAM east weapons will give you a damn good run for your money, and that both sides are quite well ballenced.

Re. M4's: @4IN1, that was how I thought the situation was, looking at pictures of the recent Afganistan and Iraq conflicts, it seems that all the units out there have flat-top M4's (thats 10th Mt. 75th Ranger etc) other units might be different. But rest assured, we will ask around our advisors, and get the actual info as to what weapons they are using.

Re. Special weapons: A full listing of what will be in the pack will be announced soon, but I will say: "Have we ever let you down before?"

Re. Hidden selections on weapons: Not possible I'm afraid, there is simply no support for it in the game engine.

[tankieboy 0]

I can't find it, but long time ago someone was claiming that has script preventing unit from use sidearm unless no ammo for "main" rifle . Is it possible to implement something like that to your pack? It is a bit annoying to see m.gunner using pistol...

I know i can remove sidearms for each soldier, but it makes having sidearms useless...

Good post.

I hate when that happens

[ni-mh 0]

not sure if this has been brought up before, but its seems there are two white squares on teh back of the helmets of the deltas. are they supposed to be some kind of reflectors?

[theavonlady 2]

not sure if this has been brought up before, but its seems there are two white squares on teh back of the helmets of the deltas. are they supposed to be some kind of reflectors?

Yes.

[Guest]

I can't find it, but long time ago someone was claiming that has script preventing unit from use sidearm unless no ammo for "main" rifle . Is it possible to implement something like that to your pack? It is a bit annoying to see m.gunner using pistol...

I know i can remove sidearms for each soldier, but it makes having sidearms useless...

Good post.

I hate when that happens

This is one heck of an idea! Would be great to see that!

[rgreenpc 0]

Has anyone thought about changing the laser animation.

I know its based on the AT rockets - but could it be switched so that you can be prone - change it to the PRC77 animation?

[chaztheducky 0]

you know yall should put in those swell 10th mountian boys. there just like the rangers (model wise so it wouldent be that hard...mabye you would need some extra climbing gear or harnesses or something). but that would be relly cool.

p.s. i know you can do it with the set object texture but thats relly annoying if you only play ofp for about 1-2 hours a day if that. it would just be a nice thing to do.

[calm_terror 0]

10th mountain are just normal light infantry so NO they are not like ranger.

and the funny thing is 10th mountain are not even a mountain division anymore they are just a normal light infantry division. heck you don't even need any trainign other then normal infantry training to be in them..

they are one of the most deployed divisions in US history but that is because they are the only real light infantry that is not specialized..

[redliner47 0]

well actually you do need to go to the Mountain Warfare school, which is somewhere out in the Western USA. the 10th specializes in high altitude engagements over 10,000 ft

[Tigershark_BAS 0]

well actually you do need to go to the Mountain Warfare school, which is somewhere out in the Western USA. the 10th specializes in high altitude engagements over 10,000 ft

I think ducky was only talking about the similiarity between the Rangers and 10th mountain in relation to models in OFP.

However, Calm terror you were on the money.

Unless things have changes since Afghanistan, the 10th mountain is not a "mountain" warfare unit.

Quote[/b] ]

"We don't do mountains": British officers will not criticise the U.S. forces, but, discovers Julian Manyon, the GIs are full of surprises

Bagram airbase, Afghanistan

It is often by accident that one makes the most surprising discoveries. I was driving with 'Bud', a slightly pudgy American Soldier, through the Bagram airbase, now transformed from derelict battlefield into the sprawling headquarters of the U.S. Army in Afghanistan. All around us baggy-uniformed troops queued at meal tents or whizzed past in oversized jeeps and vehicles that looked like militarised golf carts. Massively muscled Special Forces troops in designer sunglasses manned a heavy machine gun in front of the PX, while ferocious-looking female Soldiers with the build of prop forwards and carrying grenade launchers guarded the runway. Beside me, Bud grazed continuously on the half-empty packets of barbecue-flavour crisps and honey-roasted peanuts which littered his vehicle. On his shoulder he wore a patch which said "Mountain", the emblem of the 10th Mountain Division, one of the first American units sent to this extremely mountainous country. So to make conversation, I inquired about his mountain-warfare training. "No sir, we don't do that", Bud declared in a masticatory pause. "We don't do mountains".

I thought my hearing must be at fault, so I asked the question again but received the same reply. The 10th Mountain Division is based at Syracuse, New York, he told me, and normally never goes anywhere near mountains. Still doubting this startling intelligence about a unit which has been described in both the American and the British press as mountain-warfare specialists, I sought out their press officer who confirmed that Bud's account was correct.

U.S. over-reliance on airstrike Firepower

The division takes its name from a second world war unit that did 'do' mountains, but such training was discontinued years ago. 'We've had a lot of practice recently, though,' the press officer told me brightly. Indeed they have. Troops from the Mountain Division bore much of the brunt of the recent Operation Anaconda, in which, despite awesome U.S. firepower, the assault troops ran into trouble on the ground. More than half the 47 wounded suffered by the Americans were from the 10th Mountain (the eight who died were all Special Forces) and, according to one officer, troops ferried by helicopter to a high ridge had to sit down for half-an-hour before they could move in the thin air. For all the media hoopla, Anaconda failed to encircle and crush the Islamic diehards who still infest the mountain region straddling the Pakistan border, and who appear to nourish hopes of mounting a long-term guerrilla war.

All this at least explains why the Pentagon is happy to see our Royal Marine Commandos shoulder some of the burden. Despite debate in the British press over whether our boys have trained at high enough altitudes for a country in which the grandest peaks reach almost 25,000 feet compared with 15,000 feet in the Alps, there can be no doubt that they do "do" mountains. Physically, the contrast between the British and the American troops is subtle but striking. The men of the 10th Mountain are often big and seem more or less fit, but to my eye at least they lack the honed edge of real combat troops. The Marines, by contrast, are sometimes smaller men, but they have the rugged, self-confident sturdiness that speaks of months of training in the most demanding conditions, and they carry their weapons as if they mean business [Editor: infantry weapons will need to win the fight not firepower from someone else ie; air strikes].

British officers are at pains to cast no aspersions on the fighting qualities of the American ally they have come to assist, though they do hint at a slightly different tactical approach. U.S. bombing is lauded for its power and high-tech "accuracy". One British officer grinned with what appeared to be a certain relish as he told me that the Americans could, if required, land a bomb on the exact spot where I was standing next to my vehicle. But asked if the British troops will follow American doctrine and mount their assaults only after saturation bombing, the answer appeared to be no.

[Winters 1]

well actually you do need to go to the Mountain Warfare school, which is somewhere out in the Western USA. the 10th specializes in high altitude engagements over 10,000 ft

Hello,

The 10th Mountain Division is located at Ft. Drum which is right here in my home state of New York, the school itself is in Vermont  

For more info look here:

10th Mountain Division

[miles teg 1]

Yeah that article was full of shit. On this page you see the Mountain Warfare school listed:

http://www.drum.army.mil/education.htm

That soldier the reporter talked to was probably part of a 10th Mnt. unit that didn't do the specialized mountain warfare training. Within the division there are all kinds of support units for whom it would be a waste of taxpayer dollars to train in mountain warfare as they would likely never use such training in actual combat.

Also the article was silly calling the British Royal Marines superior based on some kind of subtle difference in appearance. In combat its not just physique that matters. Its mainly actually tactics and morale as well as superior firepower and the intelligent usage of such firepower.

Granted the British Royal Marines are no slackers. They are indeed one of the best Marine forces in the world but I hate idiots who try to play that "my Army is better then your Army" crap. Only the test of combat is the true test.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Tigershark_BAS 0]

I posted it as is....I did not intend to draw comparisons between the US and UK armed forces.

So Miles...are you suggesting the Press Officer for the unit was wrong...or the journalist was in error?