1970 vs 2010

[Antichrist 0]

What was wrong with the 80's?

They sort of sucked!

[ravendk 25]

Guys.. 2010 any day and why? well we all allready seen the 60's 70's and 80's a current date game is nice to see.

Modmakers will be with OFP2 so dont you worry

[EiZei 0]

For those about bitching 2010, well, this new ghost recon 2 expansion pack (summit strike) will be set in 2012:

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox....?page=8

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox....?page=9

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox....?page=2

[The Frenchman 0]

As long as the 2010 campaign won't be a generic War on Terror crapfest than I'll like it.

[bravo 6 0]

Vietnam is a Classic!

Should not be removed!

EDIT:

http://www.vietnampix.com/bilder/face2a.jpg

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B00009P50V.03.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

<span style='color:grey'><span style='font-size:23pt;line-height:100%'>Vietnam is a Classic!</span></span> <span style='color:black'><span style='font-size:19pt;line-height:100%'>Don't Change it!</span></span>

#vote: Vietnam Should not be removed.

Im sure if BIS dont creat Vietnam for OFP2* there will be patches for Vietnam for sure. (so no worries for the Nam lovers)

Im sorry if you guys play those stupid games and your already bored with Vietnam (no game is compared to OFP), But being a Classic is a Fact!

Don't try to change it.

If BIS are changing plans it might be because OFP2* release was delayed.

What If they dont release OFP2* untill the end of 2006? Are we still going to have present wars in game! :yammer:

How modern is it going to be? Hope not that modern, cause i dont want to have a missile fight only. "Modern Wars" will be like this. :nuke:

I think most OFP players want guerrilla war and not missile fight.

PS- Im sure BIS know's what they are doing i will trust them even if NAM doesnt come in OFP2*

GO BIS!

Edit2: ok dude

[Guest Ti0n3r]

Yepp, 'Nam wont be in OFP2.

Back in june 2001 when I purchased OFP, I didnt buy it becouse of the mods or the addons .

I bought it becouse it involved realistic fighting in a european land scape.

It's too late to change back now. And there will be at least one exelent Vietnam mod for OFP2 anyway.

Edit: If the game is going to be about the war on terror then PLEASE think twice BIS. Im tierd of it.

One of the best things about OFP was that it was balanced. It feelt like real war. It wont feel like war if we are suposed to kill braindead terrorist armed with AK47's. IMO a conflict betwen the US and Russia is the perfect theme for OFP2.

[Placebo 29]

bravo 6 remove image tags when quoting please

[firedrake 0]

At least with 2010 the Ka-50 (V-80)will seem believeable it wasn't adopted by the Russian Federation until 1996. So no Mi28N Havocs either since they went with the former not the latter. Although they could be sold to other countries maybe.

[therealFerox 0]

i hoped it would be around 2005.. in actual time.. but i dont really care.. i like 2010 more than 70... waaay to many games based on wwii/nam these days, so its good that some games goes modern

dont worry.... 2010 wont be much different then now anyways in terms of military technology and combat tactics rofl... its only in 4 and a half years :P.

I personally would prefer more 1980s cold war stuff. Thats what I loved about op flash because every stupid developr and their mother has jumped on the ww2 fps bandwagon in the last 6 years, and now the vietnam bandwagon.

[ninjatek 0]

2010 is so close to now it's basically not sci-future. But does give way for concept vehicles, weapons and story line. I'm thinking they chose 2010 because the idea of war on terror should have pretty much run it's course and new global comflicts of super powers could resurface. It would probably be a 3 way super powers battle NATO vs. China. vs. Russia. And 5 more years give cause to allow Russia to gets it military act back together and be a more modern threat again, not that it isn't already. China's war technology development is nothing to sneeze at.

Using NATO insteadl of just the US it allows them to reuse some of the stuff from Aussie, UK, etc. they developed already for VBS. Howerver I'm just guessing here of course.

It may even have to deal with the oil crisis that will only get worste by that time, and a war over oil would NOT include the middle east countries as much as the US, Russia and China again. Check out the documentary movie "Oil Storm".

Then again it may just be another rogue General Guba again

All is speculation.

[Reclus3 0]

I dont think it really matters what year or location they choose to make the game with. I mean think about it for a second. Almost everything you can possible want in a game is available somehow or another now in OFP why would it be different in ArmA?

Im sure if you want a Vietnam or WWII sim one will be available for ArmA sooner or later. The only thing to complain about would be that it wont be there when the game ships.

In all honesty it does not really matter what the game has when it ships, because IMHO OFP has the best modding community around. I have yet to play a game that has more passionate modders than this game here. And simply its the only thing that has probably kept us around along as we have been.

[firedrake 0]

The only trouble with the latest military technology is that its classified or speculation. Will I see a realistic T-95 or BTR-90 or will they use the same unrealistic armour system from OFP1.

At least with the 80's most information can be obtained about military hardware and organisation.

With the US being the only real superpower at the moment and probably in 2010 it seems rather one sided.

[gandalf the white 0]

With the US being the only real superpower at the moment and probably in 2010 it seems rather one sided.

If Iran keeps their act up it looks like we might be able to add another country to that list...

[firedrake 0]

What list, its just the USA.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Superpower

[bigsouth1981 0]

Oh here we go, here comes the anti war brigade.........

Anyhow back to the subject, I think its great that they are not going to use a Vietnam setting, its all been done before and its stale and boring. Using a semi fictional conflict set in 2010 gives everyone from the BIS, to the players (ie: us) to the modders a huge spectrum to play with. Just thnk of all the technology we have now and in the near future that could be incorperated via mods and modding, its fucking mind boggling.

Also, it gives great opportunity to include countries such as russia who are now allies (well in a fashion). For example it'd be a strange twist of fate to play as a russian soldier, on the allies side (uk and usa) fighting a scenario in say Chechnya, whilst the Uk and Usa are coming in from the west.

All hypothetical of course but its worth a think about it.

[crave22 0]

I agree with bigsouth. If the game is set in 2010, it also allows BIS more creativity in drawing up who is on what side. Everyone is stuck thinking in the Cold War with US vs. Russia. What if Russia becomes an ally of the US in 2007? What if it's NATO w/ Russia vs. say, the "Asian Alliance" (N. Korea, China, Vietnam, etc.) or something like that. It gives alot of room to think about what can be done with the story.

[ninjatek 0]

Anybody catch the news about the joint war games between Russia and China this last week? "Sending a clear message to the West" so the reporter says.

US would have a tuff fight on their hands going up against China or Russia in a conventional war. China and Russia allied together against NATO would be very interesting indeed.  Combined they out produce the US in weapons. Ya we may have the superior technology, but remember WW2? The German's had superior technology but it was only because of our mass production capabilities that allowed us to beat them. Same thing.  As I remember a documentary of a Tiger Tank creman saying that they could easily take on 10 american tanks, but there always seemed to be an eleventh.

[xnodunitx 0]

Technology itself isn't gonna get ya everywhere,an AH-1T could be just as effective as an AH-1W or Z,depending upon the crew one can be more effective or the older can be more effective than the other.

[Batukhan 0]

Sure, but the probablity of the newer one succeeding is higher.. That's what military equipment is all about, raising the probabilty of soldiers surviving, so they could kill more.

[crave22 0]

Yeah. Plus, US military doctrine these days concentrates on smaller groups of Spec Ops with full air support going in to cause chaos. It's more conventional tactics deal with a massive air assault, the raids I mentioned, and then a land invasion. When it comes to the air assault, I wouldn't want to be a Chinese or Russian MiG up against an F22. No matter how many MiGs there are, all of China's MiGs have outdated hardware. The only thing that would probably work would be their guns since the F22 is stealth and has paint which reduces it's heat signature. That makes radar-guided missiles and heat-seekers useless. Plus, don't forget about the B-2. It takes luck just to see it at night. However, if the US didn't use it's air power and just did a mass ground attack, we'd get creamed. Getting back on topic, that would also be a pretty good scenario for "Game 2". Although, it seems a little suspicious that Russia and China are co-operating, since a couple years ago they were at each other's throats...

[breaker44 0]

The quality of training is also higher in NATO countries than former Warsaw-pact and eastern nations, which still use the soviet doctrine of overwhelming, massed fire and attacks using combined arms.

But, it would be interesting to see the new, downsized US military take on the old tactics.

-Breaker Out

[Metal Heart 0]

Quote[/b] ]The only thing that would probably work would be their guns since the F22 is stealth and has paint which reduces it's heat signature. That makes radar-guided missiles and heat-seekers useless.

I don't think the paint cools down the jet engines' exhaust which the heat seekers lock-on to and I don't think that radars rely on heat signatures.

[xnodunitx 0]

Sometimes a certain paint will reduce a radar signature,black or something like that,a special kind,anyway usually to reduce exhaust heat signatures you would need exhaust bufflers,for instance what the AH-64 in real life has on the back of the engines are exhaust buffelers which would reduce its heat signature.

[jakerod 254]

Quote[/b] ]US would have a tuff fight on their hands going up against China or Russia in a conventional war. China and Russia allied together against NATO would be very interesting indeed.

Quote[/b] ] What if it's NATO w/ Russia

Russia is part of NATO now just to let you know

[crave22 0]

Actually, according to this Russia is not a member of NATO. It is a member of the UN and several other organizations which deal with international matters, but not NATO.

@Metal Heart

I also mentioned it is stealth. This of course means radar-guided missiles are usually useless against it. However, if the F-22 uses an active radar instead of passive, radar-guided can be used. But anymore GPS is used for aircraft to navigate, which can't be locked on to by radar.