A New Enemy

[andersson 285]

Russia vs Chechnya?

[Sennacherib 0]

Russia vs. China?

Half of China's equipment is nearly the same as the Russians. That would be entirely unamusing. This topic is semi-useless in my opinion. Their have been some good 'rough drafting' and ideas but most of it is complete bias. I'm from Australia, I want the Australian Army. I'm from Barbados, I want the Barbadian Army in it. I'm from The Republic of Congo, I want the Congo Army in it...Where are we going exactly?

i'm french, but i don't want to play with the french army. i want the australian army

[MAA3057 0]

i'm french, but i don't want to play with the french army. i want the australian army    

There's an abundance of that in BIAs productions already...

[jakerod 254]

Russia vs. China?

Half of China's equipment is nearly the same as the Russians. That would be entirely unamusing. This topic is semi-useless in my opinion. Their have been some good 'rough drafting' and ideas but most of it is complete bias. I'm from Australia, I want the Australian Army. I'm from Barbados, I want the Barbadian Army in it. I'm from The Republic of Congo, I want the Congo Army in it...Where are we going exactly?

That isn't true. Im from the US and I don't want the US Army. I would much rather fight as lets say the Germans, or the Chinese or English or Russians.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

i'm french, but i don't want to play with the french army. i want the australian army    

There's an abundance of that in BIAs productions already...

Problem is noone not in the military can see it. But this is a moot point after all, the US will be back in OFP2, as will be a Russian or at least Russian-equipped faction, judging from the screenshots.

Like Marco is trying to say, this thread can be somewhat compared to a one-paddled rowboat.

[xnodunitx 0]

They have Russian patches on their shoulders,I would assume their Russians.

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

As we have seen on former game 2 screens the troops obvioulsly are Russian and US troops and Im pretty sure that BIS is not going to change that upon what is discussed here.

I would rather appreciate it if more sections of the two armies would be covered.. i.e.

US: Marines, Navy, Army, 1st SFOD, 1st Special Forces etc.

Rus: Army, VDV, Navy, ex Vympel, Quickreaction forces etc.

and not only standard Infantry armed with different types of weapons.

But as to tell you my opinion ... USA vs. China is a hot thing, many games are now, 16-17 years after the end of cold war, turning USSR into China.

[Connors 0]

By the way.....

When people say English I presume they mean the UK.

Anyway, if Game 2 is anything like ArmA and OFP, we will probably we able to mod it to add weapons etc.

[ryankaplan 1]

Game 2 better not be anything like ofp or arma, i am expecting something totally new. Very Detailed Environment, Amazing AI which is not just clever but also Acts like a normal human being, A whole new multilayered command system with Very easy Fireteam control system, Proper Defensive positions, ability to Deploy every weapon on any surface, and Battalion vs Battalion scale on a average computer with no Lag.

I never expected a whole new game in Arma, and therefore i wasnt dissapointed at all, however I hope to be amazed by Game 2 as much as i was amazed with the 'Spore Game' Video.

[Sepe 1]

Amazing AI which is not just clever but also Acts like a normal human being

Won't be happening in the next 10 years, sorry.

Quote[/b] ]ability to Deploy every weapon on any surface, and Battalion vs Battalion scale on a average computer with no Lag.

I'd personally love NOT being able to deploy any weapon anywhere, seeing as now you can finely position an AT gun in the middle of a swamp... And guess what happens in the real world when you put something big n' heavy in a swamp?

[ryankaplan 1]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Amazing AI which is not just clever but also Acts like a normal human being

Won't be happening in the next 10 years, sorry.

It has already happened in many games. Take Ghost recon for example. Sure the AI is very limited, but when i watch ghost recon ai, i dont think 'i'm fighting a bunch of robots'...even though i am. Hell, Look at Halo, The Aliens in Halo seem more human than any scripted soldier in OFP.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Ability to Deploy every weapon on any surface, and Battalion vs Battalion scale on a average computer with no Lag.

I'd personally love NOT being able to deploy any weapon anywhere, seeing as now you can finely position an AT gun in the middle of a swamp... And guess what happens in the real world when you put something big n' heavy in a swamp?

I apologise, for i wasn't clear enough. I wasn't thinking of heavy weapon deployment with a tripod etc, i was thinking more along the lines of 'resting' your weapon on any surface, pretty much exactly like how it's done in Red Orchestra, although maybe this could be taken further. Resting your sniper rifle on a sandbag or a dead soldier may give you more rest than on concrete, or deploying your LMG with a spike bipod may give you more controllability on soft ground than if you deploy it on an asfalt road, etc...

[Stickler 0]

I'll begin with this: I am an American and I am very proud of my country but we are quickly digging a hole for ourselves that we may not be able to climb out of after many generations.

Now after saying that I would like to see the Americans as the enemy. We always assume that the Russians and the ever present Communist countries as the bad guy. We even assume that Islamic nations are the enemy. Under whose circumstances are they the enemy? Cold War revisited? Anyway my idea is this:

While Americans and the Democratic nations of the world are always considered the good guys... why not give a scenario where America screwed up... bad. And because of this it will see a unified invasion of America. While this may not seem practical now I believe that just changing the scenery can change the gameplay. Plus this will open up even more options for maps or islands. Each island can be essentially modelled after each state, if not the major states, of the U.S.

This itself will cause controversy among Americans but it can be turned around for them because we may see even more intense fights from those who live in the state the map is representing. Imagine getting caught up in the fighting and then you turn around and see that you've been pushed back to your old neighborhood? If I were to be forced back, be it on a game or otherwise, to a neighborhood that was personal to me then I for one would fight for my life to hold that point and I believe others will too. Also I think it would be kick ass to see a D-Day invasion style amphibious assault of the west or east coast, or possibly a great spearhead through Mexico and Canada. I am basing much of this off of Red Alert 2 and its background. While Red Alert still maintained the Americans as the good guy why not change the roles. What if America turned into the new Evil Empire?

Another thing, not so much enemy but a sort of resource you can use against an enemy or vice versa, is that while most games portray soldiers and "Points of Interest" as the main point of combat, we must also consider the civilian. While they may not play a practical combat role in war sims can they not though provide a sort of insulation or supportive resource. Instead of capturing points why not capture the support of the people you're fighting for in the first place. In Armed Assault I was hoping to see more implementation of the civilian and I was disappointed because are they not the reason to have an army there in the first place? Are they not the idea around which most wars are based off of? Wars are not just created for the sake of fighting it is often the result of someone suffering when they cannot defend themselves. This will also give the player a sort of guardian like feeling. Almost as if these seemingly random people are actually depending on you to survive and defend them and their way of life. This sort of disposition system can also be a sort of backfire mechanism in that if you go into a city guns blazing, blowing every building you see only to find no one is home except the people who used to live in that house you just ran over with your tank, the civilians will hate you and may even decide to fight back. Then you have civilians as a legitimate enemy as well as the army you are here to fight. This can be reminiscent of the Vietcong, you never know where the enemy sleeps. Therefore I believe this is a crucial part of any war sim.

[MAA3057 0]

Sorry Stickler, all that IMHO sounds way to fictional. The only way to see if the US are bad guys is if we lived in a thirdworld country (North-East-Central Africa/Middle-East) for sometime, let it be then when you will notice many different forms of corruption. Most of US's media might have clouded that. Just my thoughts.

[ryankaplan 1]

whether we're being brainswashed by our media or not, is another issue. But trust me, most of the world already sees America as the evil empire, simply because of USA spending every 1 in 5 years fighting a war in the last century. In any case, Anyone fighting the USA will obviously see USA as the evil empire because of propaganda and such, so it would be quite nice to play against america for once.

From a sales point of view, i think fighting against the USofA might indeed create controversy, and boost sales with the media attention it gets, even in USA.

[MAA3057 0]

All I got to say is that the US has done a heck of a lot more good then at has any evil. As for Iraq - in the conservative-extremist (JIHAD fighters) point of view, we are doing other wise. We aren't forcing them to become Christian. We are building schools, cities and a non-corrupt government. It would be pretty awkward fighting an enemy (USA) trying to uphold the ROE which they strongly believe in too.

===The Real 2006 'Iraq Body Count'===

Iraqi civilians killed this year by ISLAMIC Terrorists:

-15,635

Iraqi civilians killed collaterally in incidents involving Americans:

-138

Who are the bad guys here?

As for the other countries we 'invaded', it was for the peoples own good. Good for the people, bad for the opposition.

[Stickler 0]

I wasn't hoping to start a political debate only offering a suggestion. Again I'd like to state that I like America, I was born here, so I'm not here to bash it only give one point of view. However there are things we do that are far more hindering to any country than to roll in with a couple Abrams and some soldiers but those are things no one talks about because it's done through money not military.

Back to my suggestion. I had this in mind not just from the idea of changing armies but just think of the scope of a game fought in the U.S. Plus America hasn't seen a war on it's own soil for at least a hundred or so years. I always wondered what it would be like to fight in my hometown. Also this change in enemy can allow other people around the world to fight in their own army. It would be nice to see a game where there is a coalition rather than just America fighting everyone. Also this type of scenario would be intense during guerilla fighting. And to end on a good note, while this idea will prove rediculous for those who are die hard Americans, it doesnt have to mean that everyone in America will be evil, it just means that our government screwed up somewhere. And who knows, this may mean that America needs the same kind of liberation and freedom we gave all those other countries.

[MAA3057 0]

No worries here. Suggestion/opinion respected.