firedrake 0 Posted March 9, 2004 The only thing I didn't like about OPF1 was military accuracy. For example the RPG-22 came out in 1985 which is a one shot AT weapon. Rumours speculate this was the device which diabled one of the M1A1's in the latest Gulf War. So why was the AT-4 Spigot used, it is way to heavy to fire on the shoulder, hence it needs a tripod and is a crew served weapon. The M2A2 was not developed until 1987 so it should not be in a 1985 campaign. Armour penetration for the OFP M2A2 is relatively accurate for the M2A0, however the M2A2 has the modified armour so it therefore can survive a single RPG-7 round, which doesn't happen in OFP1, the M2A2 destroyed more T72's in the last Gulf War than the M1A1. A last example, is squad organisation, OF1 had each squad carry at least two general purpose machine guns either the M60 or PK. What happened to the Squad Automatic Weapon the RPK-74 and the M16A1(M249 didn't get into production to the 1990's). The general purpose machine guns should only belong to weapon squads and this should allow only up to three general purpose machine guns per platoon. There are plenty of military resources about, however most modern equipment details are classified. The M1A2 and M2A3 armours details are restricted. So it will be difficult to give accurate armour penetration values so alot of educated guesses will be needed. All I'm saying please allow more study of military organisation and equipment. If OFP2 has the same military accuracy say of the Combat Mission series then I will rest my case. The way I see it regarding infantry weapons, realistically should only allow what an average soldier can carry. Otherwise you end up with a Quake or Halflife mentality. Â Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baphomet 0 Posted March 9, 2004 Quote[/b] ]The way I see it regarding infantry weapons, realistically should only allow what an average soldier can carry. Otherwise you end up with a Quake or Halflife mentality. No. That's relaxed realism. Yours is more of an "If it doesn't accurately depict the wrinkles of a spetznatz puckered arse. It's Quake 3" viewpoint. Decidedly black and white. There are shades of gray. I have no problems with slight bending of reality so long as A: You can't take a million bullets (like quake) B: You can't jog around firing off huge rocket propelled weapons. (like quake) C: You can't carry a million weapons and a metric ton of ammo (like quake) D: You can't run at 60mph and strafe and aim perfectly at the same time. (like quake) E: Wounding effects are implemented, even if they can be reversed via medic. (unlike Quake) The origins of such weapons is really inconsequential when it comes right to it. Are you going to be sitting there analysing every single weapon in the game or are you going to be reaching for the first weapon you find when you have a squad of enemies shooting at you? As far as the AT weapons go. Big deal. The Law is a single shot weapon IRL. It can be reloaded in OFP. It doesn't horrendously throw off the game. It's not like you're doing backflips cranking off 50 rounds a second blowing up everything in sight. The AT4 I guess was the closest thing they knew of the a carl gustaf? It's not a big deal. Their obvious goal was to create one low yield shoulder fired antitank weapon and one high yield shoulder-fired antitank weapon for each side. Insofar as that. I think they succeeded. While improved realism in many cases would be appreciated. I'm rather glad it's relaxed in some cases. Medics healing and not bleeding to death for one. Yeah, in some instances that might be interesting but overall it'd just be more annoying than anything. Even that however is a million times more realistic than quake and Halflife ever were. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Impavido 0 Posted March 10, 2004 Accuracy is cool but things like which year a vehcle or weapon system was fielded really doesnt matter to me. If BIS decides to go gung-ho on detail more power to them. Accuracy takes the back seat to playability in my opinion. Like the Vulcan...I've never seen or heard of any such weapon in the US or NATO Ally arsenals. I suppose it was thrown in as a fictional counterpart to the Shilka. Game balance takes priority over accuracy. I enjoy being an armchair general and playing lots of accurate and mentally challenging games, but keeping it playable and basically accurate is the formula that made me like OFP1 so much. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FragMASTER 0 Posted March 10, 2004 Actually the vulcan is real http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m163.htm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hellfish6 7 Posted March 10, 2004 All I'm saying please allow more study of military organisation and equipment. If OFP2 has the same military accuracy say of the Combat Mission series then I will rest my case. Heh... I don't think that's realistic. The CM guys spend huge amounts of money on their research, and only because they've been studying WWII their whole lives. That kind of dedication is pretty rare, but it is something to aim for. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Raw 0 Posted March 10, 2004 We have to focus on what part of realism we think is central to the game. I consider stuff like introducing a vehicle 2 years early or slightly altering it's armour (Which in reality is so mixed up with random factors like exactly where and which angle you hit that it becomes difficult to judge anyway. Blow a thread of a tank and it is just a piece of static artillery.) is minor. Sometimes this is done by mistake, sometimes it is done to provide a balance in the game by providing a counterpart that one side misses. For instance, west does not have any serious counterpart for the BMP series. The BMP (1, 2 & 3) is superior to the west vehicles (for every given year) designed for the same purposes. It has better armour, firepower, mobility, lower profile and so on. They are also manufactured in more than ten times the number of the west MICVs. This could be reflected in OFP, but would it make a good game? By beefing up the west MICVs a slightly, we have a more playable situation. The realism I want is already in the game (but can, of course, as always be improved). It is the fact that (more or less) it will behave like real life. Real, proven tactics work fine. OK, sometimes you can cheat the AI by fooling a tank so that it gets stuck in a forest, but most of the time, real tactics work best. Things like "If you're hidden and spot the enemy, don't shoot if you don't have a good shot." or "Try to get them in a crossfire." or "Lay out some suppressive fire with the machine gun while the sniper finishes them off." works, much like in real life. I like the fact that you can't run, jump and shoot accurately at the same time. I like the fact that the maps are maps, not playground obstacle courses. This is the type of realism I find important. If I were to give suggestions regarding realism, I would consider these higher priority: - When shot at, AI's run for cover if cover is nearby, not just drop to the ground where they can be shot like fish in a barrel. - Sniper rifles are too good. Don't let them drop back to exactly the same spot after the recoil of the previous shot. Force the player to have to take a new aim between shots. - Better AI usage of buildings and windows. AI's guarding or moving through a town should use buildings better. - Less bouncy physics. Tanks don't bounce when hit by a machine gun. - Longer view distance when flying, at the cost of detail. Making a good approach to a target is much harder than in real life because you can barely see beyond the tip of your nose. - Better 3D models for wrecked stuff. Most of it is just a mass of jumbled polygons that you get stuck on. - AI doing suppressive fire with machine guns. These things would make a much larger difference from a realism viewpoint than nitpicking over minor details. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
firedrake 0 Posted March 10, 2004 Well, ok I overstated realism but isn't this surposed to be a combat sim. In real combat when an A10 is bearing down on you, wouldn't you the guy in the BMP-2 use your 30mm cannon for it' s intended purpose. Likewise the Ka-50 was actually designed to kill helicopters does the AI engage helicopters with the same cannon? If that doesn't bother you fine and by the way a 50 cal round will penetrate a BMP-1 as on OFP. Why the M2A2 can survive a 30mm AP round as in OFP. My point is it could at least be considered. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Raw 0 Posted March 11, 2004 Yes, there are some wierd stuff, I agree. For instance, one of the easiest ways to take out a chopper in OFP is with an antitank weapon... Another successful tactic I used one time on OFP when I was driving a T80 and my cannon got damaged when fighting an M60 was to just charge it and push it into the sea. I doubt that has ever been used in real life... Let me state it like this: The big parts are in place and work as they should. The details still could use some polish. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0 Posted March 11, 2004 Yes, there are some wierd stuff, I agree. Quote[/b] ]For instance, one of the easiest ways to take out a chopper in OFP is with an antitank weapon... Ever heard of a little film called blackhawk down? If an enemy chopper is hovering around and I reckon I can hit it with my LAW IRL - I'd go for it. Quote[/b] ]Another successful tactic I used one time on OFP when I was driving a T80 and my cannon got damaged when fighting an M60 was to just charge it and push it into the sea. I doubt that has ever been used in real life... You are wrong. During the german invasion of Russia the russian tanks main guns could not penetrate some of the armour on the german tanks. They rammed them instead to disable them. Russia could produce tanks a lot quicker than the germans. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Colossus 2 Posted March 11, 2004 The Hind that is used in OPF1 has a 30mm cannon as a turret gun, which the Hind never had in 1985 or later. The Hind had also a crew of 3, not 2, the pilot, navigator/weapons officer and a flight engineer. The Hind has also different versions, which also OPF1 don't have any info about. But I belive the Hind that is used in OPF1 is the Hind E (Mil Mi-24V) becouse the Hind F (lunched in 1982) replaced the turretmounted gattling gun by a twin-barrelled cannon on the starboard side of the nose, which the Hind in OPF1 don't have. So yet again, this is a historical error in OPF. EDIT: Here is a bit info for the OPF designers- Mil Mi-24 'Hind E' Main rotor diameter: 56 ft 9 in Tail rotor diameter: 12 ft 8 in Lenght: 55ft 11 in Height: 18 ft 7 in Weight, empty: 18 519 lbf Weight, max: 25 353 lbf Payload per wing: 1 653 lbf Powerplant: Two Isotov TV3-117 turboshaft engines         2 200 shp each Armanent: One turret:mounted 12.7 mm four.barrelled gattling gun Up to 12 spiral anti-tank missiles Rocket pods Cannon pods Unguided bombs Preformence: Vmax 335 kph          Service ceiling 14 700 ft          Range 373 mls          Vertical climb rate from hover 500 ft/min Crew: 3 - pilot, navigator/weapons officer, flight engineer. (Taken from Hind95, and its pretty correct) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gollum1 0 Posted March 11, 2004 Realism = Immersion = Fun. That's the way I see it. Things don't have to be 100% realistic to the point of being annoying, but glaring equipment errors like Carl Gustafs, AT4's and no LMGs just kill the immersion factor for me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baphomet 0 Posted March 11, 2004 Small details like that is minor quibbling. They're details. That's all. For most people a balance of realism and what most people consider fun is generally better accepted. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Impavido 0 Posted March 11, 2004 The realism=fun equation has its limits. Â If it was totally realistic it would be nearly impossible to operate a tank solo in OFP, which is possible with place switching on the vehicle. And who cares if the Hind has 3 crew members? We don't need 3 for the game model. Â A Simple Pilot/Gunner team works fine. Â Would you really want to play as a...what's it called....oh yea, a "Flight Engineer"...Geee, sounds like boat loads of fun. Maybe we finally found a new position that is to be picked by the last person to connect. Â Now people with long load times on their PC can select between the exciting jobs of a medic who can't carry stuff and a "3rd wheel who rides in a chopper and doesnt do shit" Along that line, maybe we need a gun loader in the m1. Your whole purpose in life is to take shells from a box and jam it into the gun quickly. Hey its realistic, so that means it's fun right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Snrub 0 Posted March 12, 2004 There does indeed have to be a balance between realism and gameplay. BIS does not have the time to implement every single piece of equipment that might appear on any conceivable battlefield - therefore it's necessary to tweak the characteristics of the available units. If the units we have at the moment were 100%, it would undoubtedly throw the whole balance of the game off, making it less fun to play. It seems as though the majority of the complaints about "accuracy" and "military research" are really just dissatisfaction with the AI or game physics rather than BIS' knowledge of warfare (which I hear is quite exemplary). If OFP2 has improved physics/AI (which it will), we should see a proportional increase in the realism of individual units. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IceFire 0 Posted March 12, 2004 I would actually love to be a loader in an M1A1 abrams tank. I would reload the cannons so fast and the gunner would be able to blow away the enemy quicker. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baphomet 0 Posted March 12, 2004 Little details like that are nice. Don't get me wrong... unless it just becomes annoying. However they're still not integral enough that most people are going to be put off by their absence. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Colossus 2 Posted March 12, 2004 And who cares if the Hind has 3 crew members? We don't need 3 for the game model.  A Simple Pilot/Gunner team works fine.  Would you really want to play as a...what's it called....oh yea, a "Flight Engineer"...Geee, sounds like boat loads of fun. I really don´t cear about the flight engineer either. But the 30mm cannon I really don´t like. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Impavido 0 Posted March 13, 2004 Then in that case may I recommend a game named PONG. It might be right up your alley Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
firedrake 0 Posted March 13, 2004 I believe the weapon config for the Hind is class F. Actually no offence to Bohemia but the V80 is the manufactures name not the NATO designation. Not much military research going on there. I bought this game because I thought it was a combat sim not another first person shooter. The first Delta Force game was very military realistic and still fun then they released Delta Force 2. When people start quoting from Hollywood movies I get very worried. If I saw it in a movie it must be true, the US Rangers didn't even engage any technicals or use cheese wire in the battle. I read the book then saw the movie. Engaging helicopter with AT weapons is considered a last sucidal resort and the RPG's had to be modified with a time delay to be effectively used against them. If OFP2 starts to become like the Delta Force franchise then I certainly I won't be buying it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spy17 1 Posted March 13, 2004 I am with firedrake here. Realism should be a main concern for Bis balanced out with the other aspects of the game. I think realism is one of the things that makes OFP stand out for manny people. The "easy" funktion could still be used to downgrade realism for the sake of playability. Quote[/b] ]And who cares if the Hind has 3 crew members? We don't need 3 for the game model. Â A Simple Pilot/Gunner team works fine. Â Would you really want to play as a...what's it called....oh yea, a "Flight Engineer"...Geee, sounds like boat loads of fun. Let the AI do the shit jobs they are verry patient. Quote[/b] ]There does indeed have to be a balance between realism and gameplay. BIS does not have the time to implement every single piece of equipment that might appear on any conceivable battlefield - therefore it's necessary to tweak the characteristics of the available units. BIS could concentrate on making some few realistic standart modells. The MOD-groups are making a good job on increasing the numbers. A similar way was taken by il2. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
firedrake 0 Posted March 13, 2004 The point I'm trying to make is that the RPG-22 could easily been in the original OFP with the same damage stats as the AT4 Spigot. If they had done more military research for the game. The US Army clearly states in their opposing forces field manual that is the nearest equivalent to the AT4 M136. The AT4 Spigot nearest equivalent is the TOW system. You don't have to bend the rules in the game just make it more believable. However the G36 does unbalance the game. Just play the resistance single mission where your up against the Russian amphibious assault. I equipped the G36 killed over 20 russians, 90% of the time with one shot. The G36 fires only 5.56 now compare that with the sniper rifles, why bother having them. Is this combat sim or a first person shooter. Research doesn't take much, even the moderator new the M163 was not a pink elephant. P.S. All the information I know is just found by search engine. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Colossus 2 Posted March 13, 2004 I believe the weapon config for the Hind is class F. But still the gun is mounted at the wrong place. I really like to be more accuret (sorry my english) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Colossus 2 Posted April 5, 2004 Here is some good military research for US Army Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhoCares 0 Posted April 6, 2004 An alternative to FAS would be GlobalSecurity.org. However, the provided information are basically the same  (at least with respect to weapon systems, but not completly, eg. 5.56mm: GS 556 vs. FAS 556; notice the Frangible). GlobalSecurity often seems to have some more informations available (or they copy more from their original sources ).(GS Su-25 vs. FAS Su-25) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Colossus 2 Posted April 6, 2004 Satellite Pic Holy crap, look how close the satellites can see. I tell you one thing: DON'T JURCK OFF IN THE PARK, THE CIA IS WATCHING YOU Share this post Link to post Share on other sites