big cities in game2

[Avena Quaker 0]

there must always be a balance. fighting on grass all the time is getting boring without a difference after a while. and ofp didnt really have a large amount of landscape features. a few trees and bushes, but for example no grass/high grass and therefore only the shape of hills and valleys change upon the position you are at atm. but u early get that its just a shootout, and personally i dont like takin on an enemy 500 metres away with an assault rifle. it gets annoying after a while since its just a shootout with minimum tactical possibilities. in a city you can outsmart the enemy not only by showing or covering. you can flank, get behind him, use grenades and many more. though we got enough cqb shooters out there, so without the landscape it woulda get boring also.

keep the balance.

I agree with what you say about OFP, but the hardware then didn't allow much creativity with the landscape so almost every place where there isn't a forest can allow a tank fight (even Resistance), thats not very cool. But I'm sure the complexity of the landscape will improve dramatically with g2, things like rivers in the middle of forest, creek beds, rocks, gorges, higher terain differences, etc, may improve a lot the gameplay while fighting as a soldier, making urban warfare maybe not as necesary.

[mickuzy 0]

i want the city to big enough so that in the midst of a battle im running around, trying to get into the heat of the action, make a wrong turn and end up facing down the cannon of a T90, running away with a lot darker pants and then 10 mins latter end up with the rear end of the tank in the sights of my javelin.

[spitfire_142 0]

i would be fine with a city this big.

except in real combat situations it would take days to navigate through

[mattxr 9]

We need cities/towns but not huge ones like those pics. Island of this size wouldnt have cities like that anyway. And you would easily get lost in cities like that. In real life you would study maps for ages so you know the area off by heart. Do you really want to study a map for an hour so you dont get lost in the game?

Call me gay if you must but I prefer the fighting in the coutryside with fields, hills, mountains, valleys, woods, forrests, streams, lakes and small villages.

I totally agree with you there.

what I think is that people don't quite get the idea what CQB really is IRL cos they've only seen CQB in games and hollywood movies. I've been trained as some sort of CQB specialist and I can say that it's nearly everything else but running with your gun in level with your eyes all the time. you only do room take outs that way and if extreme caution is needed walking down a hallway. covering is done by securing every possible direction in a steady position while few gyus do the dirty work.

cleaning big cities is not much CQB based and it needs hard work and time to complete. the enemy will surely have defensive positions like small fortifications and the attacking force will surely need to dig in as well. they can't be just CQB'd.

of course we need citys like this.. you gotta remeber the computers we will have in 2008 will have ulitimate power... we should have maps the size of nations so we can have an ultimate war game.. now imagine having this special upgraded technology which allows us to generate big maps/battles and loads each place seporite like it does now in ArmA.. but it will be upgraded for 2008 no dowbt.. now imagine spending 10min of the game traveling from 1 city to the next the maps will be that big.. real life sized nations to play out big wars.. it would be amazing.. how can anyone say no to that.. you get people saying "OMG This will lagg dont do it" all that i can say to those people is "always look on the bright side of life" think outside the box, it will be 2008, there will be computers which can handle this stuff easily...

then think of map again this size but in europe all the fields and forrests raods and farms and citys to travel too.. it would become the ulitmate war simulation game.. which people will be playing for the next 10years... plus with the features that are planned fully dynamic wars going on around you is an amzing factor already in a game...

[funnyguy1 0]

Dude...vbs1 has got large cities, It's based on the ofp's engine...It's a real thing, doesn't It?

And btw, the technology does change, you know...

Quote[/b] ]what I think is that people don't quite get the idea what CQB really is IRL cos they've only seen CQB in games and hollywood movies. I've been trained as some sort of CQB specialist and I can say that it's nearly everything else but running with your gun in level with your eyes all the time. you only do room take outs that way and if extreme caution is needed walking down a hallway. covering is done by securing every possible direction in a steady position while few gyus do the dirty work.

@PainDealer: Well, we've all visited militaryvideos.net many times (not to mention other sources of the military knowledge....... ), so saying that I have no Idea of what I'm posting is unfair. I can tell you that there's no need to be 'some sort of CQB specialist' to have some sort of CQB related knowledge...

Sure, there's a democracy, let's vote...

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

its a must for me. aslong as we keep countryside too.

[ziiip 1]

If VBS2 can have 100*100 km islands, then surely Game2 can have too, which means we will be able to make life-like size cities. Hopefully the stock island for Game2 will be that huge.

Edit: MMOFPS, anyone?

[mickuzy 0]

anyone up for a game of hide and go seek???

[CameronMcDonald 146]

How about we have a duel... with either MMRLs or howitzers.

[XCess 0]

Even in OFP, CQB was my favourite part of the game. I remember playing my own mission Everon Fight, two of us split from the squad and made our way to Montignac on a small recce mission.

When we got their, we found the town was full of infantry, so we called the rest of the squad for backup while holding out, covering each side of the building, and the enemy rushing us periodically.

Alas, no backup ever came, our leader told us to move north, straight towards the enemy. Being good grunts we made our way slowly north, fighting anyone we came across, but were eventually pushed west by the masses of infantry.. straight towards a shilka.

We managed to hit the Shilka, but then a t72 drove right on top of us. I ran, but took a bullet in the back.

That was most definately one of the best experiences I've had in Operation Flashpoint, and multiplying the size of the town would also multiply the enjoyment factor. So I'm all for big cities in Game2, even ArmA. Rushing from cover to cover, knowing the enemy is merely feet away is probably the most exciting scenario a military game has to offer.

[odstrel 0]

I would like huge cities. It would be even more fun if more people could join the game. I once played in Joined Operations beta where we tested how many people can join the game. We had over 300 people in game on one map. Lag was ok considering. Once its possible to have huge numbers of connections, huge cities would be awsome.

Ok, my point is that the size of the city should be somehow proportional to the number of units in the city. No reason to have a metropolis if there is only 20 units in there.

[Timblesink 0]

I agree that big cities are only useful if there are large forces fighting in them. But I also think that big cities are a must whatever the case. I want big cities. Give them to me.

Mwahahahahahahahahaha

Edit: Has anyone ever noticed this gargantuan number underneath the text box to write replies in?

"Maximum message length in characters: 1024000"

Seems a bit pointless to have a limit that big to me.

[CTU24 0]

Note: I think that all the buildings should be accessible by everyone. Every single game I have played has a city (not big) and only a few buildings you can go in. (Css,Bf2,COD2,Medal of Honor,etc.) I find it annoying and if a massive city can be accessible by anyone that would be soooo realistic/cool. This would be my dream (1 of many)

[mickuzy 0]

actually it would be cool for campaigns as well. you could spend a whole campaign trying to liberate a city. or defend it. or play hide and kill if your resistance, run along back alleys, avoid checkpoints, hide in fellow freedom fighters houses, plus u might not have a weapon meaning u need to hide, in dark alleys. now that.... that would be fun

[Stickler 0]

While large cities are great why not implement a part of every modern city today: Suburbia. I'm not aware of the suburbia structure of Europe or else where but I love the idea of an American invasion. In games you see a lot of cities but when the city streets end the city just stops abruptly. Imagine capturing a city, which in and of itself would be a while, and then having to chase the enemy into a suburban setting. I have always imagined what it's like to fight in my hometown or somewhere similar to where I grew up. I believe that CQB in suburban areas can create an even greater risk for soliders as the streets never run in straight lines, greatly reducing line of sight, and many times suburbs are not as geometrically built meaning that there is no repetitive pattern in its layout. If you take a look at satellite photos of let's say pittsburgh and its outlying suburbs you can see that suburbs in a game can create many problems for soldiers if the operation were not carefully planned.

[lkavadas 0]

Alrighty, about CQB...

I'm a 19D Cavalry Scout in RL, U.S. Army, over at Fort Carson in Colorado. As a 19D my mission responsibilities and tasks probably exceed nearly every other MOS by a lot. Imagine a mash of mech infantry, forward observer, and armor crewman all into one job. That's a 19D.

I'm 22 years old and have already done two tours overseas. I'll be heading out for a third in a few months.

I've done CQB training a bunch of times and have the certification. CQB is very misunderstood. CQB is not a catch all urban environment tactic. CQB is basically nothing more than entering a room or building in the quickest and most violent way possible.

Urban environments will be a huge challenge for any game but even huger for a game that wants to simulate it perfectly. Urban combat is the only scenario I can think of which uses every single attack type at all times. You will constantly have gunships overhead. You will constantly have artillery at the ready. You will constantly have planes flying CAPs. And then you have the huge infantry and armored force to roll down the streets with.

To properly simulate it the amount of units would be staggering, even for a relatively small city.

Just using this image as a guide line I would reckon that you would need at least brigade of armored and infantry forces, at least a dozen gunships, at least a company of aviation transport (blackhawks) for air assults, and at least four batteries worth of artillery in the rear.

Obviously that would be what's ideal, but when you consider how many men (approximately 10,000) and how many vehicles (including arty pieces, 200-400) the resources would be incredibly.

I mean, this is simulating an entire Army division plus change in Air Force assets. That's no easy task.

On top of that, urban subjugation is incredibly slow and arduous. It would take... at least four days to make it through that city. Probably two weeks to clean it up nicely and a month to get it near complete sans residual traces of insurgency.

[-CS-SOBR-1st-I-R- 0]

I'd love to see huge cities in game 2

But I immagine it would be dead hard to surive in there... immagine you would need to wipe out that city... thats you dead definitely.

Respawn would be needed very much... one GP25 or RPG could take out a whole squad. Shit this is cool.

[Spoock 3]

I like cities as in ArmA

[Sergei_Q 0]

OMG, what map is that bosnia city from? Please tell me its realeased and open for play...

It's Steel Beasts, not OFP.

I think there should be villages, towns and moderately sized cities. Even a city of 20 000 dwellers is huge in comparison to anything in OFP or ArmA, so a city doesn't have to be a metropolis to be impressive in a game like this. There should also be variety within a city: a densely built corporate centre with tall office and shopping buildings, industrial zone with access to port, railroad and highways, suburbs with residential towers and parks, shopping malls by the highway, satellite towns a bit further away...

[churnedfortaste 0]

There is no point in having big cities in GAME 2 if you can't have a few hundred players at a time in one game.

[Winters! 0]

yeah some big cities like VBS

[Panko-31stMEU- 0]

As with what my main Army man Mr. 19D cav scout...

CQB is not MOUT. It's solely in one room or building. CLOSE quarters... not SORT OF close. And please don't assume to be some "CQB specialist" (whatever that means coming from yourself) unless you've been in some military training (IN REAL LIFE). If anyone was a "CQB specialist" as you so eloquently put it, it would be someone in the special warfare section of the military or to a lesser degree to your local SWAT teams.

CQB can be summed up as:

-assault/support/security elements (MOUT too)

-slicing the pie

-buttonhook and cross

-violence of action

-quick and accurate target identification

-extreme level of competance on individual movements

-muzzle and trigger discipline

-front sight focus and trigger squeeze

-controlled fire and speed

I am by no means "an expert" but I have a fair knowledge of what's involved for those who can actually do it. I am not even including some of the advanced training those like the SEALs get nowadays with using the weapon in conjunction with a pseudo martial arts program. You can't always kill, in the movies they do but in the movies they can get yelled at and then everyone is cool and no one gets in trouble. Sometimes a man may only have a bat or stick and is confused to what's going on and is caught in the middle of it. He may be hostile because he doesn't know who you are and what you're doing so you can't just shoot him. You put your SMG butt out and knock his ass down. Here's the quote from wikipedia:

Quote[/b] ]Although there is considerable overlap, CQB is not synonymous with urban warfare, now sometimes known by the military acronyms MOUT or OBUA in the West. Urban warfare is a much larger field, including logistics and the role of crew-served weapons like heavy machine guns, mortars, and mounted grenade launchers, as well as armor and air support. In CQB, the emphasis is on small infantry units using light, compact weapons that one man can carry and fire easily in tight spaces, such as submachine guns, shotguns, and even pistols and knives.

Anyway back on topic, I think huge cities and maps would be (larger than the ones in ArmA currently and on par with VBS2) great but unfortunately what's the point of having a ginormous city if only 30 people are playing? The amount of men won't be proportional to the area you're working in. In a city the size of the one's some of you guys have been talking about are pointlessly large. There is such a thing as TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING.

Let me put it this way... are you willing to wait in an APC or UH60 for a 1 hour ride to the AO? If not... then there's no point. Already in the game if you fly from the airfield to Pita in the East it takes about 5+ minutes of just sitting in the chopper flying at an average speed of 170+ knots. It feels like you're in the thing forever (my opinion anyway).

If they will ever make the map real life size with hundreds of thousands of kilometers of ground... you will need to set up some MMO type gaming system where there are thousands of people playing the same area at any time. But of course good luck getting any sense of a chain of command. There is only so much you can do with a game that is meant to be fun. VBS2 is the way it is because it's for actual military training. This is a time where it actually NEEDS to mimic real life as close as it can.

There will always need to be an HONEST balance of realism and fun.

[churnedfortaste 0]

BIS would have to have some crazily good ideas to sort out a chain of command if GAME 2 were to be an MMO game, which would be great with huge maps and all but after seeing Armed Assault I don't plan on it being an extremely competently made game.

[ArmaVidz 0]

This big cities thing really got me thinking about simulations and realism.

Maybe it's just me but to be honest, ever since Atari brought out it's console in the 80's (?) I was hooked on games. IDK, I was very young. Ever since then, and up until BF194: DC I always wanted a game where you can drive, walk, fly, boat or para into a location or abouts on the map, with all the options available to you as in the military. Or close.

I've played everything with the exception of VBS. (How do I get my hands on VBS2 again?) I am STILL waiting for one game to "do it right."

WWII genre is not dead. It's waiting for a game to come along and "do it right." Current military representation in games is NOT dead. There is no need to move on without "doing it right" first IMO.

That would include:

1. Flying, driving, boating, walking/running. climbing and DIGGING.. NO-JUMPING.

2. Soldiers Ai have realistic hand movements. A way to control those hand movements. Smart enough Ai to realize yelling "Hey ARMAVIDZ, flank left" is not a good idea, so instead they motion hand signals to you if the situation permits it.

3. Some swearing would be nice. Full Spectrum Warrior had that. It was amazing. It's quite a different situation when you order to soldier to move and he says to you "NEGATIVE. UNDER HEAVY F*%!ing FIRE" or says "F*!%" as he takes fire and hunkers down. Personally,I think a reaction would be nice. When you see you're bro go down after moving past a corner, you should at least hear a "Shit, #1 is down! MEDIC!!!"

4. Free open terrain as in ARMA. ALL buildings accessable from basement to rooftop. ALL windows available for breakage/opening. Doors are "breachable." Dynamic destruction, brick-by-brick to some degree. Blowing a hole through a house would perfect. I have to say, the shot in Saving Private Ryan when Jackson gets taken out in the church steeple, "epic."

5. "Foxholes" -nuff said.

6. Dynamic play. Call for insertion, extraction, artillery barrage, airstrike, medivac, reinforcements, barrage from naval vessels, recon, refueling, resupply etc. from a central collapsable "hud." And receive status updates on those requests.

7. Dual-core optimization would be nice so the new game isn't a slideshow.

8. Realistic squad loadouts. Having 5 snipers and a medic~can it.

9. Ballistics. I don't know much about ARMA's ballistics, but I've come across a few topics slamming ARMA for not integrating VBS2's ballistics and instead using another type of targetting system. Real ballistics would nice~so I can start to see the differences between weapons and how they react, better.

10. Shooting from vehicles. Dear lord, I wish this was in ARMA.

11. Realistic destructable soldier models. War is dirty. It's horrifying. An AT rocket exploding nearby a soldier should not produce an inverse-bungy-jumping-soldier! Either set the concusion to force the model horizontally with a limit to its vertical reaction, or make the soldier destructable.

12. Better realism in damage that occurs to buildings, terrain etc. Like bullet holes in tin/steel or wood. Keep the usual materials you are able to fire through.

13. Suppression fire. There are scripts from the community that I have heard will do this. Brilliant. It needs to be incorporated.

14. A multitude of faces is paramount for immersion.

15. Combat ambience modelled after the real thing.

16. Sounds. Oh the sounds in ARMA.    Thank God for the modding community. I would hope the sounds were nowhere like ARMA's. The firing, then consequent report of the weapons, and the impact sounds as well as echo would be fantastic. FDF did a good job IMO. The "Realistic Sound Mod" preview I seen seemed to be doing an even better job.

17. PB&J sandwhiches.  

It's all about immersiveness. And freedom. While Armed Assault is the only game even attempting the kind of freedom we have in ARMA, it can be expanded and revamped.

As I said, I've yet to see a game that could accurately and immersively put you in a landing craft on a D-Day beach and let you feel like "OMG, It's almost like I was there." Same goes for any present day conflicts or engagements.

I'm not by ANY means slamming ARMA. I LOVE Armed Assault. My YouTUBE profile will show you that! But I think if you're talking next-gen, we should be doing this better and not moving on to "new weapons and models" without addressing the "all encompassing immersion" that is so rarely found in games. Armed Assault is the best to date (excluding VBS of course, which I haven't played, but seen the trailers and Tech Demo's of).

This company makes its money from the "Sim" lovers if I'm not mistaken(?). We should sim the hell out of it.    You can bet your granny-pants I'll drop my cash four-times over for the game and new hardware with many of these elements integrated.

Ya know, this really makes me think I should be picking up a book and learning to do this stuff myself.   Hey BIS, need a devoted noobish Artist/Tech that's interested in working for you? haha. If only I knew a programming language(?)!!!

Where do you get started learning how to design games again? I haven't the faintest clue, but I bet I'd be good at it.

 

ARMAVIDZ

[churnedfortaste 0]

I agree completely with ArmAVidz,

ArmA has made me come to believe the word simulator is to just

a game that fairly realistically simulates aim and nothing more.

There's no reason that GAME 2 can't be exciting and breathtaking aswell as being realistic.

There needs to be more chance related to the destruction of players and vehicles, A player shouldn't die on the spot from loads of rounds fired into his legs, although he may consequently bleed to death, and say, a downed blackhawk, shouldn't necessarily always explode when it hits the ground, GAME 2 really should have realistic chances of survival...

Make the map(s) more interesting, not just have miles of buildings and land, have underground areas, caves and tunnel networks, jungles and long winding streams for sailing down...

It should be even slower paced gameplay in some places, but have a lot more atmosphere and great visuals and implement a way that you actually value your (virtual) life rather than arcadish respawning from death after death.

The talk of having your characters attributes increase as you get better would be a great idea, would be even better if they were reset once you die...

That would make it realistic, having a virtual life in-game that can't just be respawned good as new, yet if there are incompetent bugs in the game they could very well lead to an unfair death...

What I'm asking for is a game that has a huge scale, but doesn't have all the life sucked out of it in exchange for that, in a sacrificial way like ArmA has...

I would wait till even 2012 as long as it completely blew ArmA out of the water...