1970 vs 2010

[Antichrist 0]

As long as they make the same kind of dynamic campaign for the "other side" I will be happy.

[Sovietzug 0]

EEUU vs Rusia at 2010 !!?? I dude it !

better EEUU vs China !!!

[Guest Ti0n3r]

The year 2010, US vs Russia is perfect.

And I'm VERY happy it wont be the US vs Terrorists

[dm 9]

Three letters... E.M.P. Set one off big enough and most American "superior" technology no longer works. Only "stealth" technology vehicles are able to withstand EMP because EMP's are on a similar wavelength to radar. That and it was first developed to deliver a nuclear warhead into enemy territory and they give off a HUGE EMP.

Thats actually very wrong, and a lot of hardware is "hardened" against EMP, but this is not entirely effective.

Even "stealth" units will suffer the wrath of an EMP blast, unless they are properly hardened (using a Faraday cage or similar) to prevent the effects for actually reaching the equipment in question.

Could go off on a long rant/post about how it works, but that would be a bit too OT

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]even in Ofp1 BIs balanced out the unit's for gameplay reasons ,T80 and Abrams had about same value's ,then there was M60 and T72 counterpart

Is that true?

In my view the M1A1 beats the T80, but the T72 beats the M60.

[Bordoy 0]

The point is that 2010 is not that far away and i real life there might be little or no changes to armed forces of different countries by the year 2010.

Thats true mate, most Small Arms are in service till at least 2010 now.

[baff 0]

Quote[/b] ]The USA could never take Russia without using WMD's. A ground war would be suicide against all their armour and infantry, an air war would be suicide with all their AA batteries, and a Naval assault almost impossible because of the lack of places to attack. As big as Russia is it doesn't have much of a coast line.

Not to mention the worlds largest submarine force.

Modern submarines can sink surface vessels with impunity from 600 miles away merely using conventional weapons. (let alone entire fleets with single nuclear armed ones).

Marine landings supported by carrier groups are all well and good against non naval nations, but with satelitte observation a carrier group on the open sea is a strategic disaster.

[Friedchiken 0]

I personally think both situation suck, 2010 being just wierd to play realistically, and Vietnam being a survival bore. Though I am itching for some user-made missions about the Nam Navy Seals. Ebud's mission the Taxman was awsome.

I just care that the devs will allow modding support for any era, including sci-fi realistic if need be. In fact, I would be happy with a WWII game as long as the devs give mod support to simulate all things modern to ancient. I just think that making the game with modern in mind is good because the dev's will directly solve any programming bugs hindering the simulation of modern equipment, rather than having to deal with final code that cannot be fixed after the game has gone gold.

Maybe I have too much faith in the modders who want to do older era's, but I'm willing to gamble on the future of the BIS war franchise and on the community.

[xnodunitx 0]

I think if its gonna be staged in 2010 the equipment should be more advanced,by 2010 we would atleast have M1A3's,the soldiers would probably wear new helmets with a kind of ballistic shielding around their entire faces,and a bunch of other stuff,then again who knows... guess we'll have to wait till 2010 irl.

[Bordoy 0]

We need multiple gunpoints so we can fire out of a BMP while inside of it. But, 2010 sounds good

[sputnik monroe 102]

Sheesh you know 2010 is only four and a half years away. Look how much the worlds militaries have changed in 5 years. Has it really changed that much since 2000? I mean the M16 has been in service since the 60's  nearly all of NATO and Russia's aircraft since the 70s and 80s.  Do you really think that military technology is going to completely change in four and half years?

    I mean helmet changes? The M1 steel pot was used by the United states from about mid 1942 to the mid 80s before they went to the fritz. skip ahead 20 years and they are switching from the fritz to the MICH. Do you really think the the MICH will be replaced in the next four and half years?

[Bordoy 0]

Hopefully they don't add to many future weapons. I don't wanna see an XM-8, maybe a M-16A4 or something.

M1A2 Abrams and a M1A1 for when you first 'join' the armoured corps.

Would like to see really what countries or groups of countries (eg EU, UN) will be in the game.

[funnyguy1 0]

Hopefully they don't add to many future weapons. I don't wanna see an XM-8, maybe a M-16A4 or something.

M1A2 Abrams and a M1A1 for when you first 'join' the armoured corps.

Would like to see really what countries or groups of countries (eg EU, UN) will be in the game.

Feel invited to the discussion HERE

I don`t know any other game, In which I could play with those fancy toys, made so realisticaly(?) as in ofp2.

The 2010 sounds good, besides, there could be a lot of fun.

Maybe they should left it to the spec op guys? Maybe some field tests? I don`t know.

As it had been said, in one part of the game you would be a spec op...so? dream on...

[Pathy 0]

Sputnik Monroe just said what i was thinking reading through this. What major differences have come into being between the year 2000 and now, military-wise? Not alot, for at least 90% of the worlds military activity its the, same tanks, same guns, same gear, same jeeps and trucks, same aircraft, same tactics....

Give it 4 1/2 more years and i dont expect anything ultra futuristic, maybe a new radio system here or there, a next generation of some gear like NVGs or whatever, but nothing major.

2010...just fine, as long as BIS dont get carried away on visions of the future, its not going to be hugely different at all.

[Bordoy 0]

Sputnik Monroe just said what i was thinking reading through this. What major differences have come into being between the year 2000 and now, military-wise? Not alot, for at least 90% of the worlds military activity its the, same tanks, same guns, same gear, same jeeps and trucks, same aircraft, same tactics....

Give it 4 1/2 more years and i dont expect anything ultra futuristic, maybe a new radio system here or there, a next generation of some gear like NVGs or whatever, but nothing major.

2010...just fine, as long as BIS dont get carried away on visions of the future, its not going to be hugely different at all.

Yep agreed there mate.

Can't see much changing in the current major armies of the world tbh (USA, UK, European Nations, Russia and China)

[baff 0]

Munitions are the fastest changing equipment currently.

They are using a lot of them and they get upgraded with each new batch.

Humvee's will be replaced too, since they have lost so many.

So far they have been replacing them with mothballed M113's.

M16's have just been replaced (last 3-4 years maybe?) by M4's, not OICW as Ghost Recon suggested, so they are here to stay for a while yet.

(How many rounds fired does it take to wear out a rifle, and how many does the average soldier fire a year? work that out and you will have a good idea when you will see the next generation of rifles coming into service in the U.S. )

[Icabola 0]

I would better see 2010 scenarios in OFP2.  

[Friedchiken 0]

"Stealth" doesn't work I thought I'd let you know. It can be picked up on 70's Soviet radar, and when it rains it doesn't work (at least on the F117's). Even the F-22's and F35's. I'd really REALLY love to see an air campaign without using nukes and WMD's take out "most SAM threats". Russia has the most dense AA field on the planet. Why do you think NATO has so many "advanced" aircraft?

I once talked to an Air Force Academy recruit (upcoming freshman) and he said that the myth that stealth tech is completely invisible or completely useless is a little bunk.

He said that what stealth tech on planes does is limit the end range of radar stations so that the far away signals never return to the dish. The tactical advantage to this is that it creates "holes" or "gaps" in the enemy's AA defense system allowing the stealth planes to move through the corridor of non-detection. The problem is that sometimes you can misjudge the enemy's AA capability on the map, and then a pilot gets blown away as he flys right over a unknown AA nest. It seems to require lots of planning to use stealth technology from my point of view.

Sorry I wanted to talk about this late in the discussion. I just thought the discussion was interesting.

But yeah, with those facts, the US could not touch Russia because the Russians understood how this technology worked and built a dense network of AA to render stealth useless.

In that case, unfortunately we can only rely on very "advanced" (fast with a crapload of chaffs) aircraft to completely waste money.

EDIT: I can't spell... How the hell did I just pass High School? Microsoft Word? Uh, that's actually it...

Quote[/b] ]M16's have just been replaced (last 3-4 years maybe?) by M4's, not OICW as Ghost Recon suggested, so they are here to stay for a while yet.

(How many rounds fired does it take to wear out a rifle, and how many does the average soldier fire a year? work that out and you will have a good idea when you will see the next generation of rifles coming into service in the U.S.

I heard that the M4 is nearly as accurate as the m16 and soldiers like it for the 'cool factor.' But then I heard that the Marines keep the M16A2 for a good reason. I guess single shot selectors are still tactically viable for soldiers these days...

From the guns topic:

Quote[/b] ]Actually the Marines for the most part haven't bought into the M4 hype. They're moving to an M16A4 with the ACOG sight and a RIS (RAS?). Hopefully by 2010 the Army brightens up and realizes the M4 isn't all that effective past 75yds and they'll go back to the 20" barrel w/ a collapsible stock like the Canadians or they'll adopt the 6.8SPC as their new cartridge instead M855.

Well, I'll never claim to have any experience with guns. This is just a recent High School graduate whose family's only gun is a Daisy pellet gun with a crappy 2X telescoptic sight and rudimentary 3 tick iron sight.

EDIT2:: I might as well say that I have trouble using the said pellet gun to shoot a soda can at more than 13 meters

[Moving Target 0]

I once talked to an Air Force Academy recruit (upcoming freshman) and he said that the myth that stealth tech is completely invisible or completely useless is a little bunk.

He said that what stealth tech on planes does is limit the end range of radar stations so that the far away signals never return to the dish. The tactical advantage to this is that it creates "holes" or "gaps" in the enemy's AA defense system allowing the stealth planes to move through the corridor of non-detection. The problem is that sometimes you can misjudge the enemy's AA capability on the map, and then a pilot gets blown away as he flys right over a unknown AA nest. It seems to require lots of planning to use stealth technology from my point of view.

Eh? Stealth works by reflecting signals skywards or to the ground, anywhere but to the reciever. The coat of paint absorbs the Radar waves energy, reducing the "echo" that gets reflected.

OH, and 2010 sounds just perfect for OFP2. Far enough that there is going to be some optimism about what is going to be around, but close enough that there is some realism.

[Aeronautico 0]

What was wrong with the 80's?

[ebns72 0]

What was wrong with the 80's?

nothing. They've just been done already

[harley 3 1185 0]

Let's face it, the difference between CWC and the game world isn't going to be that geat from the sound of things. 1985=Cold War. 2010=New Cold War, which means West vs East, as before. Bliss.

I wouldn't have minded Vietnam in the OFP2 engine though-guess I'll have to wait for the follow-up to SebNam 2.0

[Friedchiken 0]

I once talked to an Air Force Academy recruit (upcoming freshman) and he said that the myth that stealth tech is completely invisible or completely useless is a little bunk.

He said that what stealth tech on planes does is limit the end range of radar stations so that the far away signals never return to the dish. The tactical advantage to this is that it creates "holes" or "gaps" in the enemy's AA defense system allowing the stealth planes to move through the corridor of non-detection. The problem is that sometimes you can misjudge the enemy's AA capability on the map, and then a pilot gets blown away as he flys right over a unknown AA nest. It seems to require lots of planning to use stealth technology from my point of view.

Eh? Stealth works by reflecting signals skywards or to the ground, anywhere but to the reciever. The coat of paint absorbs the Radar waves energy, reducing the "echo" that gets reflected.

I guess this sorta deals with how effective radar will be in the game.

Well, I never thought about that point. That would have been a nice question to ask him. He's hoping to become a F-22 pilot so I'm sure he would have thought of it.

But my uneducated guess is that if the radar dish distance is close, you can't help it when a stray wave actually returns to reciever, catching the interest of the AA personel. Now I don't know if that's true (no idea other from the conversation) but I just think that any technology is not totally perfect when it hits the battlefield. I read about some Pavelow pilot rescues during the Gulf War, but I can't remember how the pilot got himself in that situation...

[Madus_Maximus 0]

I once talked to an Air Force Academy recruit (upcoming freshman) and he said that the myth that stealth tech is completely invisible or completely useless is a little bunk.

He said that what stealth tech on planes does is limit the end range of radar stations so that the far away signals never return to the dish.  The tactical advantage to this is that it creates "holes" or "gaps" in the enemy's AA defense system allowing the stealth planes to move through the corridor of non-detection.  The problem is that sometimes you can misjudge the enemy's AA capability on the map, and then a pilot gets blown away as he flys right over a unknown AA nest.  It seems to require lots of planning to use stealth technology from my point of view.

Eh?  Stealth works by reflecting signals skywards or to the ground, anywhere but to the reciever.  The coat of paint absorbs the Radar waves energy, reducing the "echo" that gets reflected.

I guess this sorta deals with how effective radar will be in the game.  

Well, I never thought about that point.  That would have been a nice question to ask him.  He's hoping to become a F-22 pilot so I'm sure he would have thought of it.

But my uneducated guess is that if the radar dish distance is close, you can't help it when a stray wave actually returns to reciever, catching the interest of the AA personel.  Now I don't know if that's true (no idea other from the conversation) but I just think that any technology is not totally perfect when it hits the battlefield.  I read about some Pavelow pilot rescues during the Gulf War, but I can't remember how the pilot got himself in that situation...

Maybe his engine failed and was forced to crash land? American helicopter engines are quite well known for their... kinks. I think more Blackhawks have been lost to engine failure than been shot down, which isn't a good record for something 80% of the US Military ride around in (well one version or another... Seahawk uses a different engine that copes with wet conditions better, and is generally a better engine). In Mogadishu they lost 5 Blackhawks that day. Two were shot down, and three had engine failures. One managed to make it back to base and crash land but the others went down around the edges of the city I think... ok they lost 4, 1 was repaired.

[jakerod 254]

Quote[/b] ]In Mogadishu they lost 5 Blackhawks that day. Two were shot down, and three had engine failures. One managed to make it back to base and crash land but the others went down around the edges of the city I think... ok they lost 4, 1 was repaired.

Atleast 3 of them were shot down. The two in the movie and then one more took a hit to the engine but managed to get to a safe zone before crashing.