Some interesting inconsistencies already

[Ezekiel 0]

Ok some interesting points I've discovered just from scanning around various screenshots, interviews and Wikipedia:

There will apparently be a Ka-52 for the Russians - basically a 2-seat Kamov. I can understand why they'd do this - the 1-seat Ka-50 from ArmA was a bit unrealistic since the engine's control system doesn't allow for the pilot to aim the cannon around on its pivot (well it *is* possible, but not with the simplified weapon systems currently seen in ArmA). One problem - there are apparently on a handful of Ka-52s in existence and they were designed to work in tandem with multiple Ka-50s, the extra pair of hands a second crewman being used to spot out targets and the like presumably. Russia is apparently ordering a dozen more but not until 2012, 2-3 years after ArmA2 is supposedly set. Even if it were set in 2012, they're so rare and specialised that you wouldn't see more than one on a battlefield, and certainly not on their own.

The F-35B (Marine variant for use on carriers) is apparently also included, despite also being slated for a 2012 release. Until then the Harrier and F-18 it's designed to replace will continue to be used instead.

There is also apparently a UH-1Y Iroquois.. which I'm assuming means the UH-1Y Venom, currently not in full production yet.

The Hind is slated in screenshots as the 'Mi-24 V/P - Mi-35'. Hinds have a huge number of diff designations but I gather the VP quite a specialised variant with only a handful produced, and 35 denotes and export version.

Am I splitting hairs here? I'd like someone to come by and prove me wrong on these points, all I've done it tap the names into google.

[Frank-O 0]

Hey, you're preaching to the choir.

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....3;st=75

By production numbers, and what we've seen in the Chechen conflict, It really should be a different order of battle seen in Arma.

MI-8 (MI-17 is the export version with the tail rotor on the other side), MI-24, MI-28, KA-27, SU-24, SU-25, SU-27, Mig-29, BTR-80, BMPT, BMD-4, "Sprut-SD", T-72M(T-90). T-50 and KA-60 being on order with 200 coming into service like the F-35. Still no news or photos on the elusive T-95, which is slated to come into service in '09-'10. Oh, and the russian equiv to the HUMMV, GAZ-2975 "Tigr".

There's only 16 listed KA-50's in service, and 15 SU-34's in service. As comparison, there's 260 MI-28's and 241 SU-25's in service.

I know, I'm scratching my head on how BIS decided to use those two. Maybe because they're cooler and sell more games?

I think that's the issue. Money talks. Looking at the competition, If Arma2 came out with a mission briefing ability to change BDU patterns, add camo to your rifle, pointer that changed shape when looking at enemies behind walls, change your headgear between a cap, K-pot, SAS-hat, Delta-helmet, and some cool MLB sunglasses, it would already double sales. In RL, more than likely as and eg, 10th Mountain guys plays COD4 as leisure, but would train on VBS2.

[Commando84 0]

I think you're splitting hairs, i think its great that they put those vehicles in the game, they could have used the same stuff from OFP over and over again and just changed a few colors here and there, but they haven't and for that im happy for what i get.

[EDcase 87]

Definitely splitting hairs

Personally I don't care if the vehicles are accurate for the period or don't have the right camo or whatever.

The MOST important part (and a very hard one) is to make all sides equal for PvP.

That means matching vehicle and weapon lethality AND ease of use.  Example: AH1 has gunner who can operate canon and target independently from helicopter attitude.  The Kamov can only fire along its axis which everyone will agree is ALLOT harder.  Currently in ARMA there is a bias toward the US force.

[Callsign 128]

But realism isnt about everyone being equal, and thats the point of the game, to show warfare in a very real fashion. Giving everyone an equal chance would essentially break the game.

Back on topic, i think that BIS has a problem like everyone else. That is they cant predict the future. The initial designs for Arma2 go back way before news of F35s and other aircraft/weaponry etc being slated or held on the production line for the timeline being set. BIS would have an impossible task if they had to update every vehicle or weapon because of real life aspects. Of course for some of the vehicles etc, a simple name change would be fine and they could get away with it.

They could even just change the year it is set in and "postpone" the fictional date so that all the vehicles would be around in real life anyway.

bootneckofficer

[Ezekiel 0]

Uh, another thing - apparently you play as a member of a 'Force Recon' team. These ceased to exist 2 years ago.. all force recon marines AFAIK we're transferred to USMC Reconnaissance Battalions, or assigned to the new MARSOC (which is what prompted the end of the Force Recon in the first place, since they were excluded from SOCOM operations).

Again, wiki is your (unreliable) friend.

[stakex 0]

Come on guys, this is a really pointless complaint here IMO. Who the heck cares if they have an aircraft thats not actually in service at the time the game takes place, or the type of recon team you play no longer exists....

You know what, neither does the FICTIONAL conflict that takes place durring the GAME. Thats dosn't exist either... So obviouslly the game world is not the same as the real world, and in that world the F35 entered service two years early, the Force Recon team still exists, and the Ka-52 is in abundant supply.

Im not saying attention to detail isn't very important... but it is a game after all, and the games units don't have to follow exactlly what happens to their real life counterparts. This type of attention to detail is much more important when it comes to the game engine and gameplay itself.

[SaBrE_UK 0]

Uh, another thing - apparently you play as a member of a 'Force Recon' team. These ceased to exist 2 years ago..

That's what they want you to think

[Guest Ti0n3r]

Quote[/b] ]Uh, another thing - apparently you play as a member of a 'Force Recon' team. These ceased to exist 2 years ago..

One thing I learned from ArmA; Don't expect realism from BIS (other than gameplay ofc)

Sad but true.

[stakex 0]

Quote[/b] ]Uh, another thing - apparently you play as a member of a 'Force Recon' team. These ceased to exist 2 years ago..

One thing I learned from ArmA; Don't expect realism from BIS (other than gameplay ofc)

Sad but true.

Yea but is this really a "reaism" issue?

Force Recon teams really did exist, and only recently dissapeared... so its not something BIS made up or anything like that, they are in fact REAL. They are just not used anymore... but as I said before, the conflict that takes place durring ArmA2 is not real either, but would you say that is a "realism" issue? Obviouslly the events in the world the game is set in took a diffrent path then the events of the real world... and situations dictated that the F35 needed to be rushed into use, and the FRT's were kept active a little longer. Its all just the GAMES (can't forget that word right there) story...

[jakerod 254]

Uh, another thing - apparently you play as a member of a 'Force Recon' team. These ceased to exist 2 years ago.. all force recon marines AFAIK we're transferred to USMC Reconnaissance Battalions, or assigned to the new MARSOC (which is what prompted the end of the Force Recon in the first place, since they were excluded from SOCOM operations).

Again, wiki is your (unreliable) friend.

Maybe BIS can predict the future and know that they will be needed again in the future and they will reinstate them. Or maybe its just the way this storyline plays out.

[Ezekiel 0]

Quote[/b] ]Uh, another thing - apparently you play as a member of a 'Force Recon' team. These ceased to exist 2 years ago..

One thing I learned from ArmA; Don't expect realism from BIS (other than gameplay ofc)

Sad but true.

Yea but is this really a "reaism" issue?

Force Recon teams really did exist, and only recently dissapeared... so its not something BIS made up or anything like that, they are in fact REAL. They are just not used anymore... but as I said before, the conflict that takes place durring ArmA2 is not real either, but would you say that is a "realism" issue? Obviouslly the events in the world the game is set in took a diffrent path then the events of the real world... and situations dictated that the F35 needed to be rushed into use, and the FRT's were kept active a little longer. Its all just the GAMES (can't forget that word right there) story...

Well now that's an explanation I can live with.

[dmarkwick 261]

As far as ArmA2 - The Game is concerned, getting balance is a good thing and BIS should try for that. However, the game should also be open-ended as far addons and mods are concerned. Everyone knows that The Community provides the realism just need a sympathetic platform.

[Guest Ti0n3r]

It is unrealistic, but that doesn't have to be a bad thing at all. Just something to ignore really.

[max power 21]

These complaints confuse me. Pointing these inconsistencies out as a topic for conversation, I think, is great... but claiming that such a situation is 'sad' is a little weird, especially in the face of other facts about the games. Chernarus doesn't exist, neither does Sahrani. OFP's communist hardliners didn't exist, and neither did any of those islands... and that game had the kamov in it! Specifically, the lauded Resistance expansion had it, and it was set sometime before the CWC in 1985. I think that realism here isn't so important when you're creating a fictional world with fictional politics and fictional militaries. The important part is that it all makes sense within itself, and it's fun to play. Bending the real world timeline one or two years isn't a big deal, imo.

[Longjocks 0]

Force Recon teams really did exist, and only recently dissapeared... so its not something BIS made up or anything like that, they are in fact REAL. They are just not used anymore...

And when you think about it, a specific detatchment of the armed forces being disolved then re-established isn't out of the question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the US Army Rangers have had such a history.

[baddo 0]

Am I splitting hairs here?

Yes, definitely

[Heatseeker 0]

Imho this is one of the major diferences betwean OPF and Arma, OPF had a strong theme (CW) and content that suited the era, the jeep, M60, M113, cobra, etc.

Ofcourse later we got the apache, bradley, G36, etc but those were free additions.

Arma didnt have the strong theme and its content feels more like a bunch of random addons thrown together, the engine made a significant step up but the game design just felt down the stairs.

Im all for creative freedom (the conflict, story and environment) but the ultimate combat simulator should be a little more acurate on how it depicts armed forces, i dont think something should be thrown at the game just because its fun and/or cool.

I know all we've seen so far is early work so nothing is for certain but i hope BIS pays more atention to detail and do some research this time.

[Staos 0]

...and neither did any of those islands...

Oh really?

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=....95&z=11

[Alex72 1]

...and neither did any of those islands...

Oh really?

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=....95&z=11

I dont get it? Maybe im tired, but whats Lefkas got to do with anything? Is it supposed to be rhamadi or sahrani? Please explain lol.

Regards

Alex

[NeMeSiS 11]

72 @ July 06 2008,04:52)]

...and neither did any of those islands...

Oh really?

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=....95&z=11

I dont get it? Maybe im tired, but whats Lefkas got to do with anything? Is it supposed to be rhamadi or sahrani? Please explain lol.

Regards

Alex

Its Malden, all the OFP islands were based on real islands (Everon is based on Krk, i cant remember the others)

[Alex72 1]

Ah ok! See it

Thanks.

[suma 8]

Yea but is this really a "reaism" issue?

Force Recon teams really did exist, and only recently dissapeared... so its not something BIS made up or anything like that, they are in fact REAL. They are just not used anymore... but as I said before, the conflict that takes place durring ArmA2 is not real either, but would you say that is a "realism" issue? Obviouslly the events in the world the game is set in took a diffrent path then the events of the real world... and situations dictated that the F35 needed to be rushed into use, and the FRT's were kept active a little longer. Its all just the GAMES (can't forget that word right there) story...

You may be entertained to learn such issues are discussed internally here. A quote from our internal design tool:

Quote[/b] ]FR was disbanded and was replaced by structure of Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC), part of SOCOM.

Quote[/b] ]Why we simply can't call it force recon?

It's fictional future so the scenario is:

MARSOC simply got renamed to Force Recon once again, such things simply happens.

Quote[/b] ]As everyone (now in 2010) knows, in 2009 the whole MARSOC experiment collapsed, because there was a controversy about MARSOC involvement in Iran campaign (which was started by new <insert_your_new_US_president_of_choice_here>, if you did not guess yet :-). While MARSOC was evaluated successful, because of the political pressure following the Iran controversy, the officials had no other way than to disband it, and the only way to have some SpecOps in place at all was to return back to previous organizational structure.

[[ukf] john r. 0]

Such fictional future is ok for me, but only when we dont have to fight with laserswords! Please make it not too much fictional