Spetz 0 Posted January 23, 2006 HI, I am new to the AA forums, I had played ofp for like 3 months now. I had played the game called call of duty and i noticed the similarities between the games and the differences. One of the deferences may have been addressed before, it would be in use of actual military doctrine. I am not trying to to compare the games but i was wander if the sequel game of ofp will use like real military doctrines for the like the Russians and the Americans. like a Mi-24 will not fly alone, a army does not do an assualt with 4 mbts etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spetz 0 Posted January 23, 2006 sry me no speak english me used dictionary.com to translate Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
max power 21 Posted January 24, 2006 You did a really good job with the translations. Flashpoint didn't feature a clash between soviet russia and NATO. It was a rogue general with a portion of the armed forces in a small scale conflict on some very small islands. This could be a rationale for the limited use of actual military doctrine in the game. You always see those russian helecopters flying alone in that game, heh. I would like to see a more structured approach, too, but I wouldn't expect to see a 1000 tank plunge into the heart of Everon. That's just not feasible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
llauma 0 Posted January 24, 2006 You did a really good job with the translations.Flashpoint didn't feature a clash between soviet russia and NATO. Â It was a rogue general with a portion of the armed forces in a small scale conflict on some very small islands. Â This could be a rationale for the limited use of actual military doctrine in the game. Â You always see those russian helecopters flying alone in that game, heh. Â I would like to see a more structured approach, too, but I wouldn't expect to see a 1000 tank plunge into the heart of Everon. Â That's just not feasible. Yep, I'm sure if the game would follow a military doctrine there wouldn't be any MBT's on a tiny island like everon. I don't know much about the falklands war but I don't think they had any MBT's there. The Falkland islands are still more than 100 times as big as everon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Evishion 0 Posted January 24, 2006 i think you better use the translator and translate from english to russian.. so he may have a clue what you guys sayd :P Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JdB 151 Posted January 24, 2006 I don't know much about the falklands war but I don't think they had any MBT's there. The Falkland islands are still more than 100 times as big as everon. That is quite an exaggeration. The Falklands islands are tiny, quite possibly even smaller then Everon. Also, ''islands'' vs ''Everon'' (one single island) makes it an uneven comparison. No MBT's were present on the Falklands. Only some light APC/ARV's were transported in by both sides, although it was largely an infantry conflict. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JGast the Russian dude 0 Posted January 26, 2006 i think you better use the translator and translate from english to russian.. so he may have a clue what you guys sayd :P I think I can do that: Koroche oni sami nichego ne znaut, a tolko dogadivautsya. Oni schitaut eti ostrova slishkom malenkimi dlya velikoi Rossiiskoy Armii A razrabotchiki ne byli tut kak minimum god! I think he understand Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
franze 196 Posted January 26, 2006 Given at how shoddy the AI is at controlling & commanding any form of vehicle (especially helicopters! ) , I think I'd rather have just one or two vehicles rather than a full unit. That is, unless the AI has been changed. AI helicopters, currently, will commit mutual seppuku on each other just trying to get into formation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nyles 11 Posted January 26, 2006 I heartfully agree on the topic of proper military doctrine. I think there are many possibilities to improve the gaming experience and make it more authentic without loosing important story elements through the campaign. It's just a matter of good level and game design. I started reworking the old resistance campaign for myself a while ago as some sort of small testing platform and tried to implement proper Russian TO&Es for naval infantry (black berets), who offer both airborne and seaborne formations and thus are ideal to represent opposing forces (that concept also works very well with FDF units, due to BTR and BMD series of vehicles). During the first missions, the units precisely follow the order of battle and you will combat units that are at full strength and fully equiped. Later in the campaign when the Russians are suffering intensely from resistance raids, the units break apart slowly and you will see much more irregular and ad-hoc formations. For example at the beginning, instead of one BTR, there will always be 3 around to represent the platoon being smallest combat formation usually. Later on, mixed combat teams of btrs, a bit of infantry and a single tank might show up, trying to represent the lack of reinforcements and how the Russian commanders try to compensate this to maintain fighting capabilities. Things like that (together with proper military accurate explanations in the mission briefing) would really help to spice up Armed Assault and make it look more authentic from a military point of view. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funnyguy1 0 Posted January 26, 2006 i think you better use the translator and translate from english to russian.. so he may have a clue what you guys sayd :P I think I can do that You`re really a bad translator then... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
max power 21 Posted January 26, 2006 Don't bother translating using a software translator for others if you don't have a working knowledge of both languages. They are much more likely to figure out what you're saying if they use the translator from the original english, then he can use his knowledge of both languages to figure out what you're saying. Using an online translator will, more often than not, just confuse the other party. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funnyguy1 0 Posted January 26, 2006 He didn`t use a translator software, he just made it up... It`s not hard to figure it out when you`re from Eastern Europe on topic: Implementing something like miliatry doctrines of countries which are taking part of the conflict wouldn`t be bad... Another thing is that, sometimes, ppl don`t obey such doctrines (for ex: which military doctrine says that shooting with m203 at a truck just for fun is allowed? ), moreover, some ppl seem not to obey any of the doctrines at all (just choose any "incident" you want from any battlefield you want which fits the description. We all know there`s a plenty of them even on the courrent wars )... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spetz 0 Posted January 26, 2006 You did a really good job with the translations. Thank you I can speak some english, but not alot. i just copy and paste ur text into the translator and read wat u people say (i only do that only like once or twice). i can 'sorta' (See i know english) read and write (I used to spell it 'right'. I figured out a problem wiht my question, The military don't share their doctrine but they will prolly (North american msn slang) will have a declassified (big word, actualy had to use a translation dictionary) 1980's one. I understand they are rogue soldiers but they are trained accordingly (another big word) to their country of origins doctrine Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spetz 0 Posted January 26, 2006 " " how that get there??? " " i never even click that i copied and pasted then added the " " one Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spetz 0 Posted January 26, 2006 sry me no speak english me used dictionary.com to translate LOL it the translator is so dumb when i had writen 'I' it put it has 'me' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
