Nato equipment in 1985

[Cloney 0]

I was playing the campaign through again and I noticed some wierd stuff. If the NATO training base is in Timbuktu, why do they have all the latest stuff? They seem to be of almost no importance untill the Ruskies invaded Everon.

Some examples to show my point...

-M1A1 Tanks...I can see them having the older M60s but the M1A1s were just to new for the Army to be giving them to everyone.

-M16A2s...Again, these weren't issued in large numbers untill 1987. So I don't see why they have them. Most units had M-16A1s. I'd think that if there we A2s available, they'd be going to Germany to equip the units preparing for a Russian Invasion. The only unit that I believed had the A2 in '85 was the 82nd Airborne. I'd think this outpost in the middle of nowhere would have A1s. Plus it would give NATO a full auto rifle!

-Blackhawks...These were very new in 1985, again most units had UH-1s from the Vietnam era. Only select airborne units had these choppers.

-Kevlar Helmets...Again, these were just being issued to airborne units so most units had the steel type.

*MINOR THING*

-Web Gear...This webgear is thr M-1956 type that was phased out in after Vietnam in favor of the ALICE LC-2 Variant. The LC-2 was common by the late 1970s and Early 1980s. Although some soldiers prefered the M-1956 Harness, many used the newer LC-2.

Again, I'm just pointing out somethings that I noticed. I'm very happy with what BIS and I love Flashpoint. I'm just listing somethings that I notice. These are not complaints. Please reply with your thoughts! Thanks!

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Yaya.

And the grenades shouldnt explode on impact. The rain doesnt look real, and wheres the rivers?

Why isnt there any bugs? Come on... There cant be an entire island without any bugs! (Yes, the one with legs).

Oh.. I allmost forgot.... When using camo face.. how come it doesnt get washed off in windy and rainy enviroment?? I mean.. even after several days of rain, the camo looks TOTALLY new!!

BIS, get yaself together!

[SpaceAlex 0]

I don't really care. They have the latest equipment because there's war. NATO sent all the latest vehicles and weapons to the front line. Where war is. M16A2 was so very avaible in 1985. Everywhere in NATO. The same goes for the blackHawks.

[ralphwiggum 6]

if that much stuff is implemeted, system requirements will be too high for regular joe like me.

those things can be fixed as time goes on, but asking all at once is just too much.

BIS can improve weapon storage(M203 taking 2 slots) and other physics model, but things that are trivial could take some time.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

I don't even know why you call it 'NATO' equipment when all there is is U.S. units and vehicles.

Where's the Euro stuff? The Brit Stuff? The Aussie stuff? The Canadian stuff?....eh?

That doesn't really bother me though, it would take alot of work to model all that stuff and find a way to put it in the game.

Oh well.........

Tyler

[Satchel 0]

There are quite a bunch of flaws in Flashpoint concerning realism and resulting balance.

From the first hours of the demo many people posted that the best way to achive a healthy balance is to make every weapon, every vehicle and piece of equipment as close as possible to actual specs.

What we have now is a more simplified and in most cases unrealistic setup, where realism or authenticy isn´t that much of a factor.

However, one way to get what you want is through modding, everything you have mentioned is possible to create as an addon.

The problem is, that it´s an addon, therefore will not work with other missions than in those created by yourself or other people using this specific unit/weapon.

This is one of Flashpoints greatest shortcomings; you can´t use addons in regular campaigns or single player missions. Take Rogue Spear for example and how mods are handled there, it´s a way better structure allowing to activate/deactivate mods and use them in every mission, as you can choose the gear you want to take into a mission via the setup/briefing screen.

This is a thing i´m really missing in OFP, and the lacking of it really hurts the whole modding environment badly.

Just think about it, you downloaded that really high quality addon, looking way better than the original and you want to use it always...now how much people are motivated to design their own missions and PLAY their own missions just to use a specific addon? Pretty boring right, if you know every trigger by his nickname and every single unit on the map with according specs because you created it yourself...and to make a mission just to use an addon- not appropiate in my oppinion. Some people havn´t got the time or a clue how to make missions anyway, they just want to use addons without thinking much about it.

What Flashpoint needs urgently amongst those things that will come with Resistance is:

A) Improved Addon/Mod handling

B) Player can choose for himself and the squad (in SP)

<ul>

[*] Player Class (uniform)

[*] Weapons (not bound to playerclass)

[*] Equipment

for every mission, no matter if campaign, singleplayer or Multiplayer.

For vehicles this is a bit more complicated, as they have a great influence on mission balance. So they should be only choosable from the list, if the mission has "Slots" for them divided in classes "Air", "Sea" and "Land", and according sub-categories like "APC", "IFV", "MBT" medium/heavy, "wheeled" Truck/Jeep/Motorcycle, "Rotary Wing", "Fixed Wing" etc..... just as example. The mods/addons have an identifyer that puts them in one of those classes.

Just an example how it might work, using this method you could play a campaign a dozen times and more without getting bored, as you can tryout every setup, using new equipment everytime as new mods become available.

[EBass 0]

Yeah this has all been said since its release almost a year ago now, who cares I mean really?

[SpaceAlex 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Satchel @ April 02 2002,02:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are quite a bunch of flaws in Flashpoint concerning realism and resulting balance.

From the first hours of the demo many people posted that the best way to achive a healthy balance is to make every weapon, every vehicle and piece of equipment as close as possible to actual specs.

What we have now is a more simplified and in most cases unrealistic setup, where realism or authenticy isn´t that much of a factor.

However, one way to get what you want is through modding, everything you have mentioned is possible to create as an addon.

The problem is, that it´s an addon, therefore will not work with other missions than in those created by yourself or other people using this specific unit/weapon.

This is one of Flashpoints greatest shortcomings; you can´t use addons in regular campaigns or single player missions. Take Rogue Spear for example and how mods are handled there, it´s a way better structure allowing to activate/deactivate mods and use them in every mission, as you can choose the gear you want to take into a mission via the setup/briefing screen.

This is a thing i´m really missing in OFP, and the lacking of it really hurts the whole modding environment badly.

Just think about it, you downloaded that really high quality addon, looking way better than the original and you want to use it always...now how much people are motivated to design their own missions and PLAY their own missions just to use a specific addon? Pretty boring right, if you know every trigger by his nickname and every single unit on the map with according specs because you created it yourself...and to make a mission just to use an addon- not appropiate in my oppinion. Some people havn´t got the time or a clue how to make missions anyway, they just want to use addons without thinking much about it.

What Flashpoint needs urgently amongst those things that will come with Resistance is:

A) Improved Addon/Mod handling

B) Player can choose for himself and the squad (in SP)

<ul>

[*] Player Class (uniform)

[*] Weapons (not bound to playerclass)

[*] Equipment

for every mission, no matter if campaign, singleplayer or Multiplayer.

For vehicles this is a bit more complicated, as they have a great influence on mission balance. So they should be only choosable from the list, if the mission has "Slots" for them divided in classes "Air", "Sea" and "Land", and according sub-categories like "APC", "IFV", "MBT" medium/heavy, "wheeled" Truck/Jeep/Motorcycle, "Rotary Wing", "Fixed Wing" etc..... just as example. The mods/addons have an identifyer that puts them in one of those classes.

Just an example how it might work, using this method you could play a campaign a dozen times and more without getting bored, as you can tryout every setup, using new equipment everytime as new mods become available.<span id='postcolor'>

Ah stop dreaming Satchel. That things really really don't bother me and the only addons i'm using are offical addons except missions and campaigns.

[deathguy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ April 01 2002,20:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't even know why you call it 'NATO' equipment when all there is is U.S. units and vehicles.

Where's the Euro stuff? The Brit Stuff? The Aussie stuff? The Canadian stuff?....eh?

That doesn't really bother me though, it would take alot of work to model all that stuff and find a way to put it in the game.

Oh well.........

Tyler<span id='postcolor'>

I agree with the faq that we can't call all the weaponry that is in the game as a NATO one. It is a big mistake because the only NATO forces that is in game is the american.

I agree that it would take time to model all of the other country military, but that is the job of the community if BIS don't want to do it, but the community need the damn tool and we would need them now before everyone found a better game (we never know...).

[rwryne 0]

i wanna take a piss and a crap

[Aculaud 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (rwryne @ April 02 2002,05:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i wanna take a piss and a crap<span id='postcolor'>

well, i. . . . . . . . . Sure hope that you do. Not too healthy to hold it for long periods of time, ya know.

[shadow 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Satchel @ April 02 2002,02:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are quite a bunch of flaws in Flashpoint concerning realism and resulting balance.

From the first hours of the demo many people posted that the best way to achive a healthy balance is to make every weapon, every vehicle and piece of equipment as close as possible to actual specs.

What we have now is a more simplified and in most cases unrealistic setup, where realism or authenticy isn´t that much of a factor.

However, one way to get what you want is through modding, everything you have mentioned is possible to create as an addon.

The problem is, that it´s an addon, therefore will not work with other missions than in those created by yourself or other people using this specific unit/weapon.

This is one of Flashpoints greatest shortcomings; you can´t use addons in regular campaigns or single player missions. Take Rogue Spear for example and how mods are handled there, it´s a way better structure allowing to activate/deactivate mods and use them in every mission, as you can choose the gear you want to take into a mission via the setup/briefing screen.

This is a thing i´m really missing in OFP, and the lacking of it really hurts the whole modding environment badly.

Just think about it, you downloaded that really high quality addon, looking way better than the original and you want to use it always...now how much people are motivated to design their own missions and PLAY their own missions just to use a specific addon? Pretty boring right, if you know every trigger by his nickname and every single unit on the map with according specs because you created it yourself...and to make a mission just to use an addon- not appropiate in my oppinion. Some people havn´t got the time or a clue how to make missions anyway, they just want to use addons without thinking much about it.

What Flashpoint needs urgently amongst those things that will come with Resistance is:

A) Improved Addon/Mod handling

B) Player can choose for himself and the squad (in SP)

<ul>

[*] Player Class (uniform)

[*] Weapons (not bound to playerclass)

[*] Equipment

for every mission, no matter if campaign, singleplayer or Multiplayer.

For vehicles this is a bit more complicated, as they have a great influence on mission balance. So they should be only choosable from the list, if the mission has "Slots" for them divided in classes "Air", "Sea" and "Land", and according sub-categories like "APC", "IFV", "MBT" medium/heavy, "wheeled" Truck/Jeep/Motorcycle, "Rotary Wing", "Fixed Wing" etc..... just as example. The mods/addons have an identifyer that puts them in one of those classes.

Just an example how it might work, using this method you could play a campaign a dozen times and more without getting bored, as you can tryout every setup, using new equipment everytime as new mods become available.<span id='postcolor'>

IMHO better mod-handling would be:

If you don't have artic-african soldier v1.992349 from [insert authorname here], then the affected units should be set to a standard soldier. That way guys like me can play every mission out there without having to spend hours trying to locate the correct addon because the author forgot to mention wich addon he used.

Anyone agree with me on this, or am I way out there?

[InRange 1]

Every author should just name the required addons in the readme file. Simple as that

[shadow 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (InRange @ April 02 2002,12:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Every author should just name the required addons in the readme file. Simple as that <span id='postcolor'>

But obviously people ain't doing that all the time

[InRange 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shadow @ April 02 2002,12:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (InRange @ April 02 2002,12:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Every author should just name the required addons in the readme file. Simple as that <span id='postcolor'>

But obviously people ain't doing that all the time  <span id='postcolor'>

Yeah...it's a shame and I know what you're talking about. You get kicked out of the game with a message that you haven't got [insert addon name here] installed. But, like I said, people should just think about that if they make a mission. And the feature you suggested should be implemented to prevent stuff like that from ruining a fine gaming experience.

Edit: sp

[Tex -USMC- 0]

lemme just jump in here real quick...

Contrary to what the original poster said, the M1 Abrams was not a 'new' tank in 1985. It went into production in 1979, people. I dont know about the rest of the stuff in yer post, but I will run that down just as soon as I have time. Yes, OFP is unrealistic in many ways, but not really all that much so in the ways you suggest.

[WKK Gimbal 0]

I don't see a problem with addons - you just include them in the mission download. Easy for SPmissions, a little trickier for MP, but here you can use the short mission info line (which appears during setup) to write what addon is required.

[Satchel 0]

Do you take into consideration to download around 10+ MB just to play a single mission with new units, and do it over and over as new addons appear?

I think that is way more confusing and complicated, as a mapper would need to specialiase on units and write according missions for them.

Also what about the regular OFP campaign(s) and singleplayer missions? They are left untouched by using this method, you can´t use addons on those currently, like selecting the equipment you want to take into the mission- which is my main point as stated.

Soundmods would also benefit greatly from improved mod handling, as it wouldn´t be necessary to modify game core files (that are not meant to be modified) to make those work.

Rainbow 6/ RogueSpear/ Ghost Recon, Swat3, Counterstrike, Medal of Honour, and countless other games allow the player to select his gear either in SP or MP or both, also having a good addon structure...Flashpoint is sadly an exception to this.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shadow @ April 02 2002,11:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you don't have artic-african soldier v1.992349 from [insert authorname here], then the affected units should be set to a standard soldier. That way guys like me can play every mission out there without having to spend hours trying to locate the correct addon because the author forgot to mention wich addon he used.

Anyone agree with me on this, or am I way out there? <span id='postcolor'>

This shouldn't be so hard to do. OFP has a strict class hierarchy for units and weapons etc. The Arctic-African soldier is a subclass of the class Soldier.

The obvious solution is when an addon is not found, it's superclass is used. Since the class structure exists, this should not be to hard to implement. What is needed however is a standard for naming and referencing units, so that you can figure out which superclass a unit has, just by looking at the classname in the map file.

[RedRogue 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 02 2002,15:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">lemme just jump in here real quick...

Contrary to what the original poster said, the M1 Abrams was not a 'new' tank in 1985. It went into production in 1979, people. I dont know about the rest of the stuff in yer post, but I will run that down just as soon as I have time. Yes, OFP is unrealistic in many ways, but not really all that much so in the ways you suggest.<span id='postcolor'>

I think he is talking about the M1A1 not the M1. The M1A1 is the American MBT in OFP. The M1 started production well before 1985.

However, the M1A1 series with the 105mm rifled cannon being replaced with a 120mm smooth-bore updated electronics and better turrent stabilization, lower heat emission turbine which was also more efficient and an armor upgrade that increased the Abrams tonnage from roughly 50+ to 65 tons. Was not produced until mid 1985 with the first few hundred being M1 to M1A1 conversions, so it is not logical the A1 series would be present on a minor conflict.

And while they surely would send newer units to an escalating conflict how would they get their? Unless they where transported by a LST it would take a Galaxy III transport for every Abrams you wanted to send. As its the only aircraft in American service that can lift the behemoth. This is also a primary reason why the Abrams is being regulated to Reserve and National Guard Units. Hell in the Gulf war more armor units where killed by M2A2s with TOW missiles than M1A1 hits.

[Ether Dragon 0]

The Bradley is a piece of crap. Where did you hear that it destroyed more armor than the M1 tanks did? I find that hardly unlikely, but if it were true, it wasn't because it was a better performer than the M1. The only reason it would have gotten a higher kill ratio is because the mechanized scouting units were out in front of the main assault. Most armor was taken out by aircraft, not ground forces. The reason I doubt your story is because the main armor battles took place between tanks, not tanks and Bradleys.

Why do I say the Bradley is a piece of crap? It's a scout vehicle, but it's louder, slower, spews black diesel exhaust that's easy to see from a distance, and has a higher silouette (easier to hit) than the M1 tank. With it's turret, it looks sufficiently like a tank to draw anti-tank attacks, while it's armor will only protect it from lighter weapons. When it does get hit by an anti-tank weapon, it will incinerate the crew and any infantry it's carrying thanks to the placement of it's fuel tanks.

[Ether Dragon 0]

Seeing as how I only recently bought the game, I've just now completed the first tank mission for the campaign. I couldn't help but laugh when I saw the tank crews. Myself, a Platoon Leader, am commanding a tank driven and gunned by two Company Commanders. Not only that, but the other two tanks in my platoon are crewed by a mix of Company and Battalion Commanders. What the heck?

Sorry BSI, but unlike aircraft which is typically piloted by officers, tank crews normally consisted of enlisted personel. A typical crew would consist of an E1/E2 Private in the loader position (something omitted in OFP, despite existing in both U.S. tanks modeled,) an E3 Private First Class as driver, an SPC4/E4/E5 (Specialist/Corporal/Sergeant) as gunner, and an E5/E6/E7 as tank commander. Please note that there is no set rank for each position, but if there is a difference in rank among the crew, the lowest to highest rank will go loader, driver, gunner, TC. It's not impossible for a gunner to be a PFC, and I commanded a tank as a SPC4. Where officers do exist in tank platoons, they are always the tank commander. Each platoon will have one 2nd Lieutenant acting as the Platoon Leader, and each company (4 platoons) will have one TC among them that has a Captain and and another with his first officer, a 1st Lieutenant. Each Battalion (consisting of several tank companies) will be lead by the Battalion Commander (Lt. Colonel) and his first officer (Major,) both with their own tank. Each of their tanks will also have a secondary tank commander (NCO) in case the officers would prefer to stay at HQ or use other modes of transportation instead (HMMWV's.)

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Good point Red Rogue. Hadnt thought of that.

And Ether, Im glad the rank system is bothering someone else. I still chuckle when I see a 9 man squad consisting of one commander, 2 captains, 3 el-tees, 2 Sgts, and 1 private. Oh well, I can live with it, seeing as it really doesnt affect gameplay all that much.

[SpaceAlex 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ether Dragon @ April 02 2002,22:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Seeing as how I only recently bought the game, I've just now completed the first tank mission for the campaign.  I couldn't help but laugh when I saw the tank crews.  Myself, a Platoon Leader, am commanding a tank driven and gunned by two Company Commanders.  Not only that, but the other two tanks in my platoon are crewed by a mix of Company and Battalion Commanders.  What the heck?

Sorry BSI, but unlike aircraft which is typically piloted by officers, tank crews normally consisted of enlisted personel.  A typical crew would consist of an E1/E2 Private in the loader position (something omitted in OFP, despite existing in both U.S. tanks modeled,) an E3 Private First Class as driver, an SPC4/E4/E5 (Specialist/Corporal/Sergeant) as gunner, and an E5/E6/E7 as tank commander.  Please note that there is no set rank for each position, but if there is a difference in rank among the crew, the lowest to highest rank will go loader, driver, gunner, TC.  It's not impossible for a gunner to be a PFC, and I commanded a tank as a SPC4.  Where officers do exist in tank platoons, they are always the tank commander.  Each platoon will have one 2nd Lieutenant acting as the Platoon Leader, and each company (4 platoons) will have one TC among them that has a Captain and and another with his first officer, a 1st Lieutenant.  Each Battalion (consisting of several tank companies) will be lead by the Battalion Commander (Lt. Colonel) and his first officer (Major,) both with their own tank.  Each of their tanks will also have a secondary tank commander (NCO) in case the officers would prefer to stay at HQ or use other modes of transportation instead (HMMWV's.)<span id='postcolor'>

So important.

[Cloney 0]

In the ambush mission, I think you are the only guy below the rank of Lieutenant! LOL! Everyone in your platoon is a Major, Colonel or Captain. Since when did they use Colonels as squad leaders? And since when were Captains used as riflemen? These guys on Malden must have an excess of officers or Col. Blake is big on field commissions.