Okay, this is my magnum opus, my piece. I love OPF and believe it is one of the most impressive computer games of all time, and I have seen a lot of computer games in my time. The following are some suggestions I do not believe currently appear on the 'Request Summary', or which I believe are quick and easy to implement (some of the 'request summary' suggestions are likely to remain that - jumping, for example - but that's another topic). The first is something of a red herring that provides an introduction to the second, and the subsequent suggestions tend towards the allusive.
- Grenade launchers
In real life the M203 and GP3434 grenade launchers have sights. In the game they do not, which makes them much less useful than they should be. The player can practically carry three rounds, assuming he is to be able to fight with his rifle, of which the first and sometimes second are often wasted as ranging rounds. Because of this, the grenades can only be fired in one go. Perhaps because of this the computer players rarely use their grenade launchers.
My suggestions are (a) include a grenade launcher sight that works (see the suggestion below on 'Sights') and (b) make the grenades take up one inventory slot.
- Sights.
Following on from the above, it would be interesting if the 'v' view actually showed the view through the 3D model of the gun's sights, rather than the superimposed 2D silhouette of sights currently present in the game (this would be similar to 'Trespasser', a forgotten disaster of a game which nonetheless had some clever ideas). This feature would make the grenade-launcher sights feasible, as such sights require interaction between the front and rear elements, something currently not present in the game. As it stands the front sight post is always exactly aligned with the rear notch or aperture, which would not be the case in real life.
There were be some other minor advantages to 3D sights; it would simplify things for mod makers, as they would not have to create a separate image, it would allow for greater differentiation between the various weapons (for example, the closely-spaced, and thus less accurate, sights on the AK rifles compared to those of the M16 would become more apparent), it would seem more realistic - the rifle's wobble and recoil would seem less artificial.
- Flying.
This needs a lot of work, as the game's flight engine has clearly been a great headache for the developers. OPF would remain superb if it had infantry combat and no playable aircraft. OPF would be a terrible game if it had playable aircraft and no infantry combat. The infantry combat has a claim to being the most immersive and realistic infantry combat in a commercial game, whereas the flight model is not at all realistic.
The first problem is scale. A dedicated flight simulator generates hundreds of square miles of visible terrain, as aerial combat takes place on a larger scale than infantry combat. Flight simulators achieve this by simplifying the terrain. Unfortunately, OPF running on modern computers cannot reasonably generate hundreds of square miles of detailed terrain. Furthermore, the player is not expected to learn the ins and outs of avionics systems, and so constraints and compromises are made to the flight model. This is the reason why the game only includes helicopters and close-support aircraft, not long-range fast jets or strategic bombers with over-the-horizon radar systems, like 'Falcon 4.0'.
However, even within these constraints there are areas which could be improved. Firstly, the aircraft have an unrealistically low ceiling which is, crucially, relative to the ground you are flying over rather than being absolute. In other words, your aircraft's maximum attainable height is not calculated from sea level, but from the height of the ground beneath you. This causes problems when moving from high ground to sea level and back again, as the aircraft is forced to dive, and thus gain speed and momentum, against your will.
Secondly, fixed-wing aircraft have an automatic throttle which cannot be turned off. This is included because the game has no graduated throttle control, and so that the player does not have to keep holding down 'forwards'. I believe that this could be solved by adding a graduated throttle control, perhaps activated with the 'rise' and 'fall' keys. Further, the aircraft have remarkably impotent engines. Coupled with the limited ceiling this makes ground attack extremely hard, as there is very little height in which to dive, and it is very hard to gain height after the attack is completed.
Fixed-wing aircraft cannot loop or roll, except accidentally when crashing. The flight model seems very artificial, which would not be a problem - OPF is an entertaining game, not an exhaustive simulation - but it is artificial in an ungraceful way. The aircraft are simultaneously too responsive and not responsive enough, a trait common with some of the ground vehicles.
- Ground vehicles, armoured and unarmoured
Often it seems as if ground vehicles are sliding over ice, especially in cases where one wants to stop forward motion whilst on a downwards slope. A BMP or tank with a head of steam seems to move like a careering downhill skier. This is often exhilarating but extremely silly. Armoured vehicles should be more ponderous. Furthermore they should sustain some damage when crashing into rocks at high speed.
As mentioned, vehicles display odd behaviour on slopes. They can negotiate all terrain without flipping over, even cliff faces. They can scale slopes which would require an engineering vehicle and a pulley in real life, whilst the off-road cars slow down unrealistically on even small gradients.
Tanks assume a defensive posture by taking up 'hull-down' positions, on the reverse of a slope, their guns pointing down over the other side, thus hiding most of the chassis. Adding a 'hull-down' command to the 'action' menu would be superb (although it would require that the player enter a direction as well).
- Damage models.
The first time I encountered T-72 tanks in OPF I tried to shoot the reserve fuel tanks on their rear decks (notwithstanding the fact that, in real life, not much would happen, as tank fuel has a high flashpoint, and furthermore such tanks would be removed before combat). But there was no effect. This was a great disappointment as the tanks were like a red rag to a bull. They were asking for me to blow them up.
OPF's vehicle damage models are good but can still be improved. Most armoured vehicles are lightly-armoured on the rear and top, more heavily armoured on the sides and bottom, and as heavily armoured as possible on the turret and in the front. OPF does not, as far as I can tell, model this, although it does include burstable tyres, which is a very nice touch.
In real life .50 calibre machine gun fire is much more effective against cars and lightly-armoured APCs than is portrayed in the game.
- Fire.
Crackle crackle! There is smoke, and blast, and burnt buildings, but no fire. I assume fire is extremely tricky to model in a computer game (the smoke certainly slows my machine down, and an entire city on fire would turn the game into a slideshow), but it's a fascinating thing, a living thing, the subject of worship for many cultures and individuals, including myself.
With regards to the above example of shooting the fuel tanks on a T-72, I was half expecting fuel to spill out and cause a big fire. Fire would be a superb addition to the game. Trees, bushes, cover could catch fire, the fire could spread; houses could catch fire, fuel tanks could explode, engines could seize up.
This also raises the possibility of including (a) a flamethrower and (b) more plausibly, Molotov cocktails. This latter would seem particularly appropriate given that BIS is based in Czechoslovakia, a country which had an unfortunate but momentarily exhilarating experience with the Soviet Union less than four decades ago.
- NATO soldiers.
I am British, and I find it hard to identify with the soldiers in OPF. I feel nothing when they die, not just because they are resurrected in the next mission (unless there are hundreds of people called Bobby Bruning or James Pound in America). It would be superb if the player could choose at the outset which NATO force to play with, not least because it would give people like myself somebody to root for, and also because - assuming the voice-overs remain 'Americanised' - it would not be too hard to do, requiring a change of uniform and equipment in each case. The major NATO powers and France have and had broadly similar weaponry in 1985, and a generic 'LAW', 'assault rifle', 'grenade' and so forth could be worked up.
The same could also apply to the Warsaw Pact; I believe Czechoslovakia used its own purpose-built assault rifle, similar in appearance to the AK-47 but entirely different, whilst Albania and Yugoslavia continued to use the self-loading SKS carbine to varying degrees.
- Artillery.
The simultaneous desire for a simulation to be accurate and entertaining often leads to conflicts, and Operation Flashpoint is a good example of this, in particular its handling of high explosive.
In gameplay terms artillery is not entertaining, because its effects are random. The player cannot dodge incoming shells, and the game thus becomes a matter of luck, which is a problem, as computer games should be a test of the individual skill and expertise of the player. This is further compounded in OPF by the lack of most forms of 'cover', such as ditches, logs, rocks and so forth. If the player was subjected to an artillery or mortar barrage he would almost certainly be killed.
Unfortunately, airborne high explosive is a massive and integral part of modern infantry combat. Indeed, real-life infantry combat is decided with artillery, mortars, air support and armoured vehicles. The side that can co-ordinate and direct this assets most effectively will probably win, at least in the short-term. Soldiers are essential, but they do not decide the battle any more, except in the third world, or in a very few specialised engagements. It's worth noting that, of the battles fought in the Falklands War - the real-life war which most resembles 'Operation Flashpoint' - the first was decided by a Harrier strike and the remainder by artillery and AFV support.
OPF skirts this issue by not including artillery at all - there are a few specialised missions in the expansion packs which have 'artillery', but it is not under player control and is very uncommon - and by setting its missions on remote islands, where presumably it would be hard for either side to transport heavy artillery.
Nonetheless infantry should be equipped with mortars, which leads to another problem, which is that it takes several soldiers to transport a mortar and its ammunition. Since 'Resistance' this is less of a problem - you can now load a mortar into the back of a jeep - but I assume the removal of mortars from the game was a function of this, as it would be clumsy if you had to
Having said that, the game's handling of other 'random' deaths - sometimes a lucky bullet or missile kills you from half a mile away - is generally good, in that they happen rarely and can be avoided.
- Bipods.
The light machineguns - the M60 and PK - have bipods, but the game does not model their stabilising effect, thus making the guns hard to use, as the recoil throws the aim off. Perhaps if the player were lying down, there could be a 'plant bipod' option in the action menu, which would reduce recoil. Otherwise, the guns are only useful at point-blank range, which is wrong.
- Tripods.
In the game the heavy machineguns - the M2 and its Eastern equivalent - have chest-high mounts which look, and are, ridiculous. They should be as low as possible, fired in such a way that the gunner is lying down.
Furthermore the 'v' view seems to zoom in to an unnaturally high level, as if the guns were fitted with optical sights, which they are not.
- FN FAL / G3
As it stands the game swaps the inventory pictures of these weapons around. The game's G3 has a collapsing stock whilst the FAL does not. In all respects they guns seem no different from the M16, whereas they should be slightly more lethal with a stronger recoil.
- Heavy machineguns, and emplaced weapons in general.
One of the most entertaining missions in 'Red Hammer' was the one whereby the player had to defend a town from a concerted armoured assault; before the mission proper began, the player could deploy fences, mines and so forth, thus transforming Flashpoint into something akin to a real-time first-person strategy wargame, similar to the old but good 'Battlezone'. This mission stood out so much it was a shame that it was a one-off; there should be more like this.
At present the heavy machineguns are fixed in place by the mission designer. This is often true in real life, but it would be excellent if they could also be placed by the player, perhaps being transported in a jeep or truck in advance. Anti-tank missile launchers, such as the Milan, could also be so emplaced.
Furthermore, many light machineguns - the M60, MG3 and FN MAG in particular - have 'sustained fire' tripods which can be fitted to the gun. Thus, an infantry squad might have a machinegunner or anti-tank specialist, a 'buddy' who carries ammunition, and a third person who carries the tripod or targetting system.
In gameplay terms this would probably be tedious in the extreme, although it opens a possibility for missions whereby the player has to set an ambush, or defend a fort or town by placing his weapons in effective locations.
- Terrain and water.
For the most part the islands in Operation Flashpoint are covered in astroturf. There are bushes and trees, but the terrain is made of flat plates, painted green. Forests are strangely bare of foliage. There is no mud, no bumps, no tufts of grass or cowpats to impede progress. There are no fields or hedgerows. Indeed whilst there is a lot of concealment, there is very little cover, no trenches, ditches, the roads have no kerbs, there are very few walls or fences in the towns. Outside the Vietnam War mod there are no rivers or streams. Short of implementing a revolutionary voxel engine and shipping the game with a voxel-optimised graphics card I have no idea how BIS are going to tackle this - and in any case, the scenery in the game is stunning - but it's something to bear in mind. Perhaps in 2015, when computers are capable of modelling reality down to the atomic level, Flashpoint will reach its full potential.
Flowing water, however, is something that should be added quickly, as it would provide a natural barrier to armoured vehicles, whilst bridges would become vital mission objectives. Soldiers could traverse short distances in water without drowning, but non-amphibious armoured vehicles would founder and become jammed.
As a child of the 80s I would love to see OPF implement fractal trees, because fractals were very trendy when I was young.
- Weight and noise
A soldier carrying a sniper rifle, its ammunition, a rocket-launcher, and a couple of rockets (which seems to be the optimal weapons loadout) can run and crawl just as well as a medic armed with an assault rifle and some gauze, and seems to make no more noise. Although this should not be overplayed - it would be irritating as hell - at least some penalty should be invoked. Satchel charges and mines would be a logical choice to incur a penalty as the player is not expected to carry them throughout the mission.
I do not know if a heavy-breathing exhausted soldier is easier to detect than one who is crawling slowly, or indeed whether the computer reacts to player noise, such as reloading (which seems very loud).
- Wounds.
A soldier is either healthy, wounded, 'legless', or dead. A wounded soldier finds it hard to aim his weapon but is otherwise the same as a healthy soldier, despite being covered in blood. There are no 'progressive' wounds, i.e. a soldier does not become gradually weaker as his blood oozes out, although there is at least one mod to emulate this. Soldiers do not become unconscious or require stretchering, which is perhaps just as well otherwise the player would simply shoot his wounded comrades, this being a game and not real life (see the following note).
- A personal note
I would like to see an OPF set in the bleak cold war 1970s, perhaps 1979, a period as worrying as 1983-1985 to western eyes (Iran had fallen to Islam, the USSR had invaded Afghanistan, President Carter seemed a nice man but weak, the west was going through another recession, Britain in particular). The weaponry would be similar, although there could be oddities such as the 'Shilleleigh'-armed M60 variant, the M60A2, and perhaps the X-M1 prototype. It would be similar to the war depicted in General John Hackett's dated 'Third World War'.
A version of the game set in Angola or a nameless African state during the turbulent civil wars during the 1970s, with the player perhaps cast as a mercenary in the mould of Colonel Callan. This would place much more of an emphasis on small-unit infantry combat, and for that matter savage, murderous brutality. It would be controversial as hell, though.
I'm not sure of the designers' policy towards 'real world' conflicts; OPF took care to set itself in a fantasy world of absolute goodies and baddies, so as not to offend people (I certainly can't see an 'Operation Flashpoint: Balkan Nightmare' game, perhaps with a soundtrack by Laibach, being released soon, unless it was extremely well written by a proper writer and approached as a work of art, a kind of polygonal 'Safe Area Gorazde').
And that is all I can think of today.
