One thing that really bothers me

[vshadow 0]

A target is a target, an enemy is an enemy.

Though I agree I would like to see some UK forces and other European countries. I like many other people, I am getting quite bored of all the pro American games and films out there.

Would be nice for a change, maybe come up with a fictional country that could combat the world powers?

Sometimes it’s nice for something different, one of the reasons I always play as the soviets in red alert, loved the whole invading America part.:D

[usmc123 1]

Counter-terrorism doesn't really fit a WAR simulator.

Counter Terrorism is not war? It may not be conventional war but it is still very much a war. People still shoot at each other for political reasons and to me that is a war. Nowadays conventional warfare is rare and guerrilla warfare and insurgencies are commonplace.

VBS isn't about killing, it has real world scenarios, you can set up road blocks and do things that soldiers do in Iraq today and that game is a War Simulator.

[Xindar 10]

Well it could be also for reason that soviet union occupied the czech rep. (where BI is from), so it is like a revenge But who knows ;)

[Xindar 10]

Counter-terrorism doesn't really fit a WAR simulator.

I agree

Well not many terrorist organisations have tanks, helis etc.

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

Well it could be also for reason that soviet union occupied the czech rep. (where BI is from), so it is like a revenge But who knows ;)

i don't think its revenge mate, czech republic was'nt occupied, the nation had a communist puppet government installed back then.

anyways i just think its the idea developers are always going to use, its hard to make them stop when they don't have any better ideas. I really would like to see a Russian Campaign, me playing as a US soldier and shooting Russians in the game.. pffff... oh well like people say its just a game :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[jakerod 254]

i don't think its revenge mate, czech republic was'nt occupied, the nation had a communist puppet government installed back then.

anyways i just think its the idea developers are always going to use, its hard to make them stop when they don't have any better ideas. I really would like to see a Russian Campaign, me playing as a US soldier and shooting Russians in the game.. pffff... oh well like people say its just a game :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Prague Spring

Im hoping for a Russian campaign at some point. Although I am suspecting the next one is going to be a guerilla one since that page on the website is still classified.

[frederf 0]

As much as I like the criticize BIS, I think their choice of terrain and sides is very good. Firstly it's 80% tradition from Flashpoint 1985 with the Shilka lumbering into the 21st century... they just don't want to scrap anything and have to make more vehicle content.

The terrain is beautiful, unique, and it's BIS's backyard. I thought OFP looked kinda goofy until I saw a real life BI Studios video driving through the local countryside and it looked like OFP exactly. I could really pass on the whole USMC-in-the-desert-oh-watch-out-it's-an-IED thing that so many games and movies are doing.

The only real sides development that I could see meaningfully enhancing the ArmA2 experience is adding some NATO countries to the BLUFOR side like Germany, UK, etc. However I applaud and support the "Ok, we're going to pick one aspect and model it well (USMC)" notion that they are currently doing instead of the awful Armarine Guard mishmash that was in ArmA1. Making a whole NATO spread means a lot more vehicles, voice acting, UI coding, etc and I'd rather BIS do a narrow focus well than a wide focus poorly.

The East side is fine as a generic fictional threat. I hope the Resistance and Civilian sides get fleshed out more plausibly. The Resistance side in ArmA1 had a lot of potential but didn't really get used in too many missions both BIS and player-made which was a shame.

[vshadow 0]

Just something I would like to add about voices, if there were to be any UK units (or any other EU units) please don’t do the cliché Hollywood accent as English people really don’t go round praising the queen all the time and going on about tea and crumpets.:eek:

@Frederf I agree the resistance units kind of went unnoticed a lot I mean I was not even sure there were any until I remembered the royal flush campaign. :j:

[Majormauser 0]

Overheard from the Russian Training center -

Yuri calm down....Its just virtual Battles.... we are all Friends.... I know the new ArmA 2 Simulator looks real Yuri but I assure you your tank is still ok.... ok?

[welcome to hell 23]

Well it could be also for reason that soviet union occupied the czech rep. (where BI is from), so it is like a revenge But who knows ;)

Nazi Germany also occupied Czech rep and most of Europe during WWII!

But again there are just way too many WWII games out there, and Nazis are way too deep in the popular culture to unroot!

[householddog 10]

I think the UK lacks the power projection of the US.

Certainly they have a decent navy, but are seriously hampered by a lack of non VTOL carriers.

The Falklands showed this in context. They were within range of Argentine aircraft. Luckily, the Argentinians couldn't loiter in the area for long, because they have no refueling aircraft.

All in all the Falklands weren't a forgone conclusion. The UK certainly has a better army/navy than Argentina. What they lacked was the ability to project that power, so far from their shores.

If you could imagine a US carrier group in the same situation, the Argentinians probably wouldn't get within 200 mile of the task force. That is, of course, the Americans hadn't already bombed their airforce on the ground.

Edited June 3, 2009 by householddog

[Xenios 0]

I think its pretty clear BI created Chernarus to mirror Georgia. But, you have to remember that the South Ossetia War happened long after BI had started working on Arma 2. I think it was actually a good choice for a location, because if you think about it, the Ossetia War is one of the only recent conflicts that was actually conventional. You had tanks against tanks, helicopters and jets against helicopters and jets. Yes, it was very lopsided in the Russians' favor, but it was conventional. That sort of conventional warfare is what OFP and Arma have always been about.

The parallel ends with direct U.S. involvement, of course. There were American military advisors in Georgia just days before the war. And the Georgians had some US equipment, notably Humvees, which the Russians proudly carried off as booty. There were plans to install missile defense systems in Georgia. Georgian troops serving in Iraq were quickly transported by the US to fight in their home country. But there was no US direct involvement, and there was absolutely no chance that the US would want to start World War III over some crappy real estate like South Ossetia.

As for the BI obsession with evil Commies and Ruskies, I have to agree that it's time for them to get over that. The only real Commies left are basket case countries like Cuba and North Korea. And Russia wasn't even the bad guy in South Ossetia--Georgia foolishly started that war. And the Russians actually showed a surprising amount of restraint compared to their wars in Chechnya and Afghanistan. I don't where to find it now, but I read an interview from Marek, I believe, that the Resistance campaign was inspired by his childhood fantasies of fighting the Soviet occupiers. (It's kind of funny/depressing that RussianGuy didn't know that Czechoslavokia was occupied by Soviet troops during the Cold War.)

Edited June 3, 2009 by Xenios

[dmarkwick 261]

I don't think it's about having a real-world "bad guy" to fight, it's about having a real-world force with equipment equatable to the western equipment, for gameplay purposes. Otherwise it's always going to be a one-sided fight. It's really just as simple as that.

[jamie_c 0]

If you think about it, asymmetric warfare (counter-revolutionary/guerrilla warfare by other names) has more legs in this engine given the ability to converse with the local population and their ability to turn on you. However, think of the situation like this, the Chernarus campaign does start out as asymmetric. Initially you're fighting insurgent elements and additionally militia. Now think about the placement of the country that is the setting for this campaign, if you place it in Europe, there's a strong possibility a nearby nation state will get involved, especially with a US presence.

Take the Iraq war for instance, many middle eastern nations see Iraq as a staging area for US aggression, as a result, many insurgents have come from those particular areas. That is how they choose to do business, a country like Russia on the other hand could take the US on head to head in conventional ops under the right conditions (I know Americans will disagree). They can appear sympathetic to the Insurgent cause and use them as extra man-power. Given the close proximity of Chernarus to Russia itself geographically, this is not an unrealistic response. Do you think Canada really wants the US in their back yard? or even Mexico? It's like that annoying neighbour that always invites themselves to your BBQ.

On the other hand, if the campaign remained wholly asymmetric in nature there'd have to be an unrealistic Achilles heel in the players arsenal or elsewhere for the Insurgency to exploit. The enemy's strength is quite literally your weakness. In the Iraq context the weakness for US and coalition forces are IEDs, in A2 you could say this type of threat is "unfair". IEDs by nature are things you don't expect, they're extremely hard to detect in the first place, that is why they're effective.

Jamie.

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

I think its pretty clear BI created Chernarus to mirror Georgia. But, you have to remember that the South Ossetia War happened long after BI had started working on Arma 2. I think it was actually a good choice for a location, because if you think about it, the Ossetia War is one of the only recent conflicts that was actually conventional. You had tanks against tanks, helicopters and jets against helicopters and jets. Yes, it was very lopsided in the Russians' favor, but it was conventional. That sort of conventional warfare is what OFP and Arma have always been about.

The parallel ends with direct U.S. involvement, of course. There were American military advisors in Georgia just days before the war. And the Georgians had some US equipment, notably Humvees, which the Russians proudly carried off as booty. There were plans to install missile defense systems in Georgia. Georgian troops serving in Iraq were quickly transported by the US to fight in their home country. But there was no US direct involvement, and there was absolutely no chance that the US would want to start World War III over some crappy real estate like South Ossetia.

As for the BI obsession with evil Commies and Ruskies, I have to agree that it's time for them to get over that. The only real Commies left are basket case countries like Cuba and North Korea. And Russia wasn't even the bad guy in South Ossetia--Georgia foolishly started that war. And the Russians actually showed a surprising amount of restraint compared to their wars in Chechnya and Afghanistan. I don't where to find it now, but I read an interview from Marek, I believe, that the Resistance campaign was inspired by his childhood fantasies of fighting the Soviet occupiers. (It's kind of funny/depressing that RussianGuy didn't know that Czechoslavokia was occupied by Soviet troops during the Cold War.)

Lol you blissed my point! exactly what i was trying to say!! and i 100% agree with you! , lol depressing and sad haha, yea i am probably wrong on that one, i did know about the prague uprising but didn't know exactly that it was an invasion. After reading some articles about it, i was proved wrong <<

[dmarkwick 261]

If you think about it, asymmetric warfare (counter-revolutionary/guerrilla warfare by other names) has more legs in this engine given the ability to converse with the local population and their ability to turn on you. However, think of the situation like this, the Chernarus campaign does start out as asymmetric. Initially you're fighting insurgent elements and additionally militia. Now think about the placement of the country that is the setting for this campaign, if you place it in Europe, there's a strong possibility a nearby nation state will get involved, especially with a US presence.

Take the Iraq war for instance, many middle eastern nations see Iraq as a staging area for US aggression, as a result, many insurgents have come from those particular areas. That is how they choose to do business, a country like Russia on the other hand could take the US on head to head in conventional ops under the right conditions (I know Americans will disagree). They can appear sympathetic to the Insurgent cause and use them as extra man-power. Given the close proximity of Chernarus to Russia itself geographically, this is not an unrealistic response. Do you think Canada really wants the US in their back yard? or even Mexico? It's like that annoying neighbour that always invites themselves to your BBQ.

On the other hand, if the campaign remained wholly asymmetric in nature there'd have to be an unrealistic Achilles heel in the players arsenal or elsewhere for the Insurgency to exploit. The enemy's strength is quite literally your weakness. In the Iraq context the weakness for US and coalition forces are IEDs, in A2 you could say this type of threat is "unfair". IEDs by nature are things you don't expect, they're extremely hard to detect in the first place, that is why they're effective.

Jamie.

I would reply to this by saying that the game is more than the campaign :) Personally speaking, I never even touched ArmA's campaign or even any of the default missions. Straight into the editor for me :)

As long as there is the ability to do both, fine, but I think the balance of east & west equipments is essential, and that means either using Russians or Chinese as East.

[Tawalkana 0]

But russia & US cooperating against "middle east" is different how?

Tanks and Modern equipment of USA and Russia vs German WW2 KAR98K and 1950's AK-47's that haven't been cleaned in years Muslim Extremist... Defiantly a fair fight..

[MBot 0]

I always thought that the Falklands war would make a good scenario for this series. It was mostly an infantry war (which Arma is good at) with only a few heavy(ier) weapons. Fire support is mostly by mortars and small arti which also suits the game better. There were plenty of helicopters on both sides and only few aircraft in direct ground support. Terrain is hilly and very rugged, providing lots of cover for infantry operations. Sound like the ideal scenario for the elements that Arma does best.

British and Argentinian forces would be a nice change and it is very plausible because it actually happend :)

Edited June 3, 2009 by MBot

[householddog 10]

British and Argentinian forces would be a nice change and it is very plausible because it actually happend :)

I agree. Modders take note. :)

[Tawalkana 0]

I agree. Modders take note. :)

They should work towards quick fixes. We already have 90% of the USMC. They should complete it. All we need now are some CH-53's, CH-46, F/A-18, MRAP, Navy Seals.

[Hell_Toupee 0]

Well only the CH-53e fills any roll not already covered by other units, but then theres no heavy lift AC for any side in arma2 at the moment.

Ild rather see new forces like the Brits and the VDV,

[Mage 10]

it all lies into the point where the world has practically run out of villians. Well not quite, but if you make a game in which you have to kill americans, you aint gonna have many sales in the west country.

If you fight the chinese.. ugh.. they're like 900 millions, imagine all the sales they may risk by portraying them as the enemy? after all the gaming industry is a big good biz.

Fighting russians is old school, just like nazi germans in WWII games.

On the other hand, we've seen enough of taleban and middle east fighting since the year 2000 and so many games feature these conflicts I honestly don't feel like playing a remake of de_dust2 in high resolution anymore.

The folks from valve made Left 4 dead :o lets kill zombies! after all zombies are the ultimate villian, they are a bunch, but they're disarmed, we can easily own them and show them who rules.

so how do we achieve realism & fighting without making anybody feel touchy about it?

lets kill zombies in arma 2!

Left 4 Arma hahahahah

Yeah it's a joke. I'm bored at work.

[11aTony 0]

I would like to see a full blown war between US and Russia and you should play russian this time around. They could add such campaign in OA but I highly doubt that.

[ebanks129 10]

If MW2 can have the "No Russian" mission killing civs, BF2 have the U.S. fighting China 3 way war or whatever, and OPF2 with whatever goes on in that game.. Then I personally think ArmA2 or expansions of it can have any country or other type of force, fighting or conflicting with, an other country or force no problem.:) I myself would like to see some more German or French units:) hell any other type of force really

Edited November 23, 2009 by ebanks129

[Guest]

How about England VS America?

No soul could ever predict that in a video game!