British Troops DLC released & Official 1.01 Update

[Killerwatt 0]

I'm still crossing my fingers for proper British army transport/support trucks.

[whisper 0]

It is exactly the same. Not only that but BIS have gone fully out of reality with some of the items like the EOTech sight & the AN/PEQ-2. The rest of the content have errors of their own, like the Warrior having a MTIP2 turret when the turret for the WFLIP hasn't been chosen and when one is chosen it won't see service until at least 2014.

That is blatantly making stuff up.

BI made a big mistake, imho, with all this "best military simulator" crap.

They should have stick with their original intent, scale, freedom, immersion.

It made up the idea for many that everything modeled in the game should be exactly real.

When 100% of the scenarios represented are unrealistic in the campaign and scenarios.... This is where it all falls down.

It's not real? Seriously, so what? Takis ain't real either, even more with Metis launcher and TWS equipped AK-74 .... Have I read a single complaint about it? None.

This game is made of approximations. It's not the Falcon4/DCS of Tanks, APC and guns. It's something where all of that is present. Its realism comes from whole battlefield integration, not battlefield exactitude of British Forces

[spooky lynx 73]

No, it reflects the fact that most of the users here are arrogent British people, who think the whole game needs to be taylored to perfection because we are in it.

Did you forget about the Russians? And the Czechs? And the Germans?

Maybe I am stupid, but I don't remember too many 85 page long threads where any of them complained...

Me complained:D

The whole game needs to be taylored to "perfection" because we, British people, Rissians, Czechs, Germans are the customers. And we pay for it. If it would be some free mod - you are quite right, the authors' view of the content is the priority, because he does it for free and in his free time. But here it's the paid product. And I don't know any successful business which is based on the "if you don't like it - don't buy it".:rolleyes: Such attitude to customers leads to one thing - the end of business.

[maddogx 13]

I know most things have been mentioned here and there in this thread, but could someone list the major "inaccuracies" that have so far been discovered?

So far what I've gathered is that the L85s should have an ACOG variant and one of the tanks has a wrong turret or something. The turret is probably too much to ask, but maybe BIS could be persuaded to add an ACOG variant L85, and perhaps some other relatively minor stuff before release.

Considering that the release date is a month away, perhaps it would still be possible.

[Chrisgs 10]

On a brighter note ... Cant wait for this, looks real good and added vehicles too. Any addon and improvement plus continued support from BI is a good thing for all, wether you want the Brit stuff or not. The band wagons just pulled in for a rest so no jumping on now fellas. Thumbs up to BI the more addons the better, now back to my latest Arma 2 CO mission, happy shooting.

Edited July 28, 2010 by Chrisgs

[niall0 10]

I know most things have been mentioned here and there in this thread, but could someone list the major "inaccuracies" that have so far been discovered?

So far what I've gathered is that the L85s should have an ACOG variant and one of the tanks has a wrong turret or something. The turret is probably too much to ask, but maybe BIS could be persuaded to add an ACOG variant L85, and perhaps some other relatively minor stuff before release.

Considering that the release date is a month away, perhaps it would still be possible.

From what I have seen people state;

Eotech sights are a no no.

Warrior turret as mentioned.

L86's are basically obsolete.

Wrong GPMG bracket on the WIMIK

L85 with Ris attachments barrel 'looks' to be very long. http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/6373/getfilen.jpg

MTP isn't the best shade.

PEQ-2s.

Thats all picked up from forums. IF BIS wanna make it more accurate there are Mod teams they can surely ask for references from, or just straight whats up with it.

To quote one mod British mod maker 'If it's paid consultancy i'm all in'.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

@Rock, there were about 15 - 20 of them there, definitely not regular issue, but also not impossible. Remember, this is the armaversum where nukes have been let off the chain at least 5 times in anger (depending on how good/bad your decisions were)

Were they L22's? I remember seeing one fitted with an EOTech 552 when I was down at Bov years ago. I believe they'd done that for the carbine because the weapon can't accept iron-sights for close-quarters (gas block for the front sight is different IIRC).

So far as the L85 goes, mini red-dot sights are being procured in significant numbers for FIST (over 19,000 of them) for use as CQB sights. They're not being supplied by EOTech though; the supplier is a British company so such a number of L85s with these sights would be odd for FIST demonstrators.

The above isn't meant as a criticism of BIS; I'm just interested in what DM has seen.

[royaltyinexile 175]

If we want to talk about this DLC in terms of an extension of the game as a simulation, we need to be careful. This, agreed, is a content pack as well as playable content add-on, but - as DM notes - your expectations must be tempered with some pragmatism.

Ian Bogost defines a simulation as: "the gap between the rule-based representation of a source system and a user's subjectivity". He goes on to define simulation fever - a fever which is readily apparent in many of the posts in this thread - which exists and operates in the gap between the game world and the real world.

Basically, your expectations of the representation of a real world source system against the realities of modelling something perfectly will always be at odds. That's partly because of the inherent impossibilities of simulation and more particularly because the basis of your complaints aren't based within the contraints of the business reality of a company like BIS.

In the FAQ you wer informed that: At the moment, the total "head count" is around 70 people, working on 3-4 different projects and games simultaneously. The core Arma 2 programming team is composed of 5 programmers; overall, around 20-50 developers were working on Operation Arrowhead.

For this DLC, you can slash that number - pick the biggest sword to hand.

It's not necessarily an excuse in itself - this is a product coming to market, and you have certain expectations as a consumer. Mistakes should be minimised. However, working with a small development team also means that choices need to be made regarding the allocation of time and prioritisation of tasks.

In this light, Edge has made a perfectly valid point about the choices made for company-drived content. The sales and feedback from the addon will reflect the judgements made at the design stage. For me, I am confident that this release will please more people than it offends.

However, the tools and extensibillity of the game itself permit the community to model its very own creations, and make them as realisitc as they like, laregly motivated by passion for the game and the subject.

While I'm flying over Takistan in a Wildcat, calling in support with my British Radio Protocol, trying to avoid American Blue on Blue fire, I'll try my best to find you, maybe zoom in on your weapon, and check carefully see if it has precisely moddelled optics. :j:

[Callsign 128]

ATTENTION BIS - Please look here!

http://www.defenceimagedatabase.mod.uk/fotoweb/

[mercyne 10]

ATTENTION BIS - Please look here!

http://www.defenceimagedatabase.mod.uk/fotoweb/

Wait i click that link for picture i see is a bunch of dudes on horses O.o

If they add that it would give some hilarious fights like

Tank vs horse

Horse Vs rocket fired from its back

Parahorsing

AH rockets (Anti Horse Rockets)

No offense ment :D just being amuzed

Some nice pictures in to honest

Edited July 28, 2010 by mercyne

[dm 9]

Were they L22's?

85 and 22 iirc. Will ask some of the other guys that were there if they remember any better than me. (I think one took pics)

Price doesn't matter when a customer has a claims to quality or parameters of the thing he/she is going to buy.

Oh but it does. You cant expect the same aftercare for a game as you can for a car or a washing machine, especially not if you dont pay for it.

I really have to wonder when society gained this notion of entitlement. BI doesnt owe us anything. The fact that they support their products so well is something we all should be greatful for.

[maddogx 13]

(...) all I have done is state obvious flaws after being invited by a dev (like everyone) to do so (...)

Not that you aren't completely within your rights to point out flaws - so please don't take this the wrong way -, but can you point to the dev post that invited people to do so?

All I found was this post by Edge:

Hi, let me cast some light on the suspicious choices of optics on L85A2. As we don't have that many acquaintances in British Armed Forces, we often had to make compromises (which is also the case of vehicles).

Regarding the Eotech holosight, we obtained some pictures showing L85A2 with these sights (however, I have to admit the photos might have depicted some unique setups), and we agreed on it as on a good representation for an assault rifle with a collimator sight.

We chose SUSAT because we simply liked the idea of bringing it to the game. We felt that providing different optics would be refreshing compared to reusing the same ACOG optics again.

AN/PEQ-2s were used as the default laser pointers in order to save some research and development time. The other types look almost the same to a common user, so we decided to re-use the existing data in this case and focus on something more substantial (like making the obsolete SUSAT optics ;) ).

While I understand the concerns regarding the DLC's accuracy, I have to say that it is more important for the BAF DLC team to deliver the bug-free product with interesting campaign and missions than a super-accurate addon which would only enrich the mission editor. I am sure the compromises we made in the realism won't harm the experience from the playable content.

@Blackhawk:

Yes, there are British voice actors. We even managed to get Geordie and Scottish accents. :)

Which to my eyes pretty much says: "This is why things are the way they are. Sometimes realism has to take a back seat. Live with it."

[mr reality 0]

it would be nice if some of You start point out what's exactly "poor quality" etc.

unconstructive vague critic is plain waste of forum space and readers time ...

This is the post....

[dkraver 1]

About the discussion about eotechs and their use in british army. Some time ago i saw a video from afghanistan where several troops had eotechs mounted on the front as sight for the UGL. So tried searcing for the video but couldnt remember the name of so tried pictures instead. Wasnt easy but i found one.

http://i16.servimg.com/u/f16/11/36/64/75/land2010.jpg

Maybe if BIS have the time they could go for a version like this instead ;)

[CG Man 0]

The UK Special Forces Support Group made up of Royal Marines and Paras have been upgraded with SA80s with Picatinny Rails and Eotech and many other devices.

The Uk Parachute regiment have been seen with Acog scopes on their SA80 rifles and on their SAW in Afghanistan.

Edited July 28, 2010 by CG Man

[dkraver 1]

About the discussion about eotechs and their use in british army. Some time ago i saw a video from afghanistan where several troops had eotechs mounted on the front as sight for the UGL. So tried searcing for the video but couldnt remember the name of so tried pictures instead. Wasnt easy but i found one.

http://i16.servimg.com/u/f16/11/36/64/75/land2010.jpg

Maybe if BIS have the time they could go for a version like this instead ;)

Found the video after a bit of surfing around. clear pictures at 2:00 and forward.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jSOyWBfPbI&feature=related

[CG Man 0]

Eotech or something like it just for aiming the nade launcher:)

[MontyVCB 0]

The point is they are not in common usage, and was merely procured for testing purposes. While the ACOG is far more common, you might as well give the soldiers Diemaco's because the SAS and SFSG use them if we are using that line of thinking. Though if the devs want to include some C8 SFWs I won't complain. :P

I reckon the SUSAT still has a part to play however, it's gonna be a while before they are completely replaced by ELCANs. So its not impossible to think their won't be a few knocking around in a few years time. Though I'm of the opinion having an ACOG equiped version is a no brainer.

[dkraver 1]

The point is they are not in common usage, and was merely procured for testing purposes. While the ACOG is far more common, you might as well give the soldiers Diemaco's because the SAS and SFSG use them if we are using that line of thinking. Though if the devs want to include some C8 SFWs I won't complain. :P

I reckon the SUSAT still has a part to play however, it's gonna be a while before they are completely replaced by ELCANs. So its not impossible to think their won't be a few knocking around in a few years time. Though I'm of the opinion having an ACOG equiped version is a no brainer.

I dont know how common used they are. But those troops in the video isnt SF or SFSG but regular infantry troops and all with UGL have them mounted so it must be some kind of stadard mount in that regiment. Or at least i would think so.

[EDIT]PS: Im not asking for the eotech to be mounted as the main sight on the L85. I would rather have it the most real like. Just saying if they (BIS) really want to use the Eaotech use it as in the picture and video. As a sight for the UGL since its in use that way.

Edited July 28, 2010 by dkraver

[MontyVCB 0]

As previously mentioned its more likely the item is on trial as the MoD never purchased a great deal of them. More recently I've seen little to no trace of holosights in British Army Service.

Since Op Herrick 8 was mid 2008 so its quite out of date, it's also when some of the newer kit started to show up. So its possible they were issued for testing, I've seen very little of them since.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

Since Op Herrick 8 was mid 2008 so its quite out of date, it's also when some of the newer kit started to show up. So its possible they were issued for testing, I've seen very little of them since.

Yep, Herrick 8 was when ACOGs and RIS platforms, L115A3, Blackhawk Plate-Carriers and loads of other shit started getting issued for Afghanistan. Seemed as though you got different kit depending on what Regiment/Battalion you were with.

Back then, I only remember seeing 1 R IRISH with EOTech sights for the L123 UGL and only 3 PARA with the plate carrier - Haven't seen either item in a pic from Afghanistan since then, only events like DSEi and DVD.

IIRC the MoD is looking at a sight from ISTEC Services and a fire-control system (laser-range finder etc) made by Vectronix & Wilcox for the UGL in future.

[viper[cww] 14]

BIS i hope you are adding the new weapon our boys use or your dlc will be incomple its the L129A1 Sharpshooter and here it is

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1244085/British-troops-new-Sharpshooter-rifle-blast-Taliban-half-mile-away.html

if its not included well.... it will be bad. We all expect updated and modern weapons with our modern militarys

[MontyVCB 0]

Isn't there a version of this rifle, or one very much like it already in OA?

[viper[cww] 14]

Isn't there a version of this rifle, or one very much like it already in OA?

well my thoughts exactly its almost a spitting image of the M110 but no they are both very different guns.

[CG Man 0]

Ive seen other videos on the new sharpshooter rifle and the sharpshooter rifle for the Paras looks diferent to the Royal Marine photos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McBcgob9DcA&feature=related

Edited July 29, 2010 by CG Man