smeg head

I totally agree I don't want to cooperate with the joint peacekeeping forces... Bleagh! Nor do I want to send in 3 whole platoons to take down a drunk farmer armed with a BB gun... I want to blow up shilkas with my lazer designator ;)

Hey this is really good! I was surprised to see that you did the animations so well.. The strider, gunship and dropship all move very naturally (hard to do for ofp!)... they are very similar to how they move in the real game... I also like the way the alien units make noises as they are looking for you... The use of sound is very good Well done :D

hah! DM, I bet my left arse cheek that if BI had come up with the same idea you would be all like "OMG brilliant" ;) Now I liked ARMA 2 - they did something different and I respect that But i tried to play the campaign for the second time recently, and I just couldn't. Cpt Shaftoe was just too laid back - he'd be all like "Hey Razor team - man i have some FUN objectives for you! Oh no rush! do them in your own time. It's not like we have SECHEDULES in the army or anything." and then you were released into the big wild world to do whatever the hell you liked on your own time. Whole game was like a scenic tour. I prefer OFP where you have a boss breathing down your neck saying destroy that shilka! Take that hill! Defend that hot-dog stand! Not only was it more realistic (for a grunt) it was more fun. The objectives in ARMA 2 ranged from things like searching houses and shooting farmers with pisols. I think playing the entire campaign (on expert) i saw 1 x T-72 and 5 russians - All other baddies were hicks with guns and Chedaki toasting marshmallows over the campfire. Never once were there any smartly executed ambushes or grand battles like in OFP. You were just a dude in an open world with some baddies standing around doing nothing. It was always 4 guys sitting on a hill scratching their bottoms. I got my revenge in the editor however... :D Thats 100% of the reason why i liked ARMA 2. the campaign was so-so

While I have never played FPDR, have no intention of playing FPDR, and think FPDR looks FPDR, I do think that there is ONE thing that codemasters does better than BI studios (God bless them). And that's having a good premise for the game So in Dragon rising and Red River I hear that the USA is fighting China in the Pacific ocean and Central Asia... Hey - That's interesting! That sounds like a good conflict that I wanna play! Kinda reminds me of fighing renegade russians in the baltic sea - it makes for a good game You just don't get the same satisfaction from toppling banana regimes and defeating farmers with pitchforks. I think you need a real enemy - like Russia or China

I really like ARMA 2 AI - they're very good in urban combat, but there's one thing I've noticed... they barely ever go prone! It's annoying when you shoot at them from 400m away in an open field, and they just stand there and shoot back. They should hit the dirt immediately if there's no cover around. I'm guessing that this is a byproduct of ARMA 2 AI being optimised for urban combat. In urban combat you are standing up far more often, and the AI is obviously in "urban combat mode" all the time, even when the environment is not a city. ol' skool OFP AI on the other hand, had great field AI (they would hit the deck immediately and always stick together) but terrible Urban AI (basically they lay down on their belly in the middle of the road) :) Pretty much all of the big battles in the campaign are urban however, so this is not a real problem

I'm sure it is the most realistic representation of what an SF team does. I really do agree with you! After all, I just finished the manhattan mission by completing all the following highly-realistic objectives - Kill a pistol-wielding farmer - Harass a local girl for information - Search an entire town for hidden weapons - Conduct a vehicle check-point on an empty road - Search kilometres of forest for two guys on a hill In terms of REALISM, BIS has progressed leaps and bounds since 2001! Imagine what OFP would have been like if the missions were this realistic... David Armstrong would spend hours filling sandbags, before cleaining his rifle! Robert Hammer would wash the mud off his tank, and Sam Nichols would wipe the bugs from the windscreen of his AH-1! It would be the most realistic game ever In terms of FUN however, I think we've gone a bit downhill. Even in a 'realistic' game like ARMA 2, I would still prefer it if all the mundane aspects of military life were shunned in favour of the more exciting ones. I like the missions where you just take your squad and blast a few shilkas before assaulting a village. I REALLY do not want to play a mission where I have to simulate something boring like piqet (Although there was a 'piquet' mission in both OFP and ARMA - and they were OK) I would much prefer a mission where i have to tackle an insane Russian renegade general and his cronies... not some silly farmer with a pistol... EVEN IF the farmer with a pistol is a more realistic representation of the modern military threat I enjoyed the first mission of Harvest Red too :) The problem was it just went down from there. For me anyway... Different folks different strokes i guess

I did not really like Harvest Red Oh sure, it had a story, but did it blend seamlessly into the missions like OFP? Nope... Instead you had to drive around for hours making curtiosy calls on villagers who would go "Oh thank god you're here. Blah blah blah... rebels... blah blah... Russians... Go talk to Jiri to find out more" And you'd drive halfway across the map again to hear another monologue. If you were lucky, there might be 2 guys sitting on a hill somewhere along the way. Razor team was more like an elite team of carrier pidgeons But I guess I should finish it before passing judgment... It's just that I'm up to the Manhattan mission and so far I've spent 99% of my time driving and listening to peasants drone on and on about the 'intruiging' story. I just want missions like in OFP where you're a dumbass grunt who gets kicked around - they say "Here is your squad, we think the baddies are here. Go get em!"

I got one thing to say to you... TIME TO SPLIT! :dance1:

haha yeah. the game looks good tho. Who cares if it's not realistic? I much prefer the whole "fight the oppressors" theme to your typical "subjugate the weak" plot. it's more fun. I don't mind if it's implausible The most implausibnle part of the storyline IMHO is how they're going to bring down the national BMI before 2020 WOLVERINES!!!

Problem is 90% of them are also too tubby to run 50m. You gotta be fit to fight

What does Darfur have to do with anything? I just said that part of the reason why the taliban continue to resist is because you leave them no other option - "we don't negotiate with terrorists!" and all that... Well that's all well and good, but if you don't want to talk, then the only way for them to feel respected is to fight. Uhh, you're not... You're co-operating with them, and as a result your allies aren't trying to kill you, they're working with you... See how mutual respect gets results? :bounce3: Now try doing that with the taliban. Oh wait I forgot, we can't because they're all "animals" I guess we better keep fighting them until there's an end in sight

I'm not saying they're more evil or less evil, or America isn't justified or whatever... Making such an argument would go nowhere, because as both the USA and taliban have demonstrated, "justification" is a subjective thing I'm just saying that if you treat people a certain way, they'll react a certain way. You see how that works? You treat people like animals and they act like animals

Right. so when a wester soldier dies, it's a tragedy. but when an insurgent boy dies it's "funny" A common attitude in this this thread seems to be a desire degrade and dehumanise the enemy... To demonstrate that the life of a western soldier is worth more than the life of an arab insurgent... Lots of you guys actually seem to believe this. And thats just fine. But by expressing attitudes like that it's seriously no wonder these people hate us and want to kill us. You offend people. You kill them. You tell them their lives are worthless. You laugh when they die. And you are suprised when they fight back? - get real Attitudes like yours only feed the resistance and make it grow larger. And more restitance will only further endanger the lives of your beloved "hero" soldiers.

This movie will be awesome end of line.

I thought it was a great game :) The only disappointment to me was that it wasn't really very scary, but maybe thats because since the original AVP I've just gotten so much more incredibly brave (and more handsome too!) :P

MW2 is like "army porn" - glorifying the army so much that at times it is just plain sickening We can't say soldier - we have to say "foot mobile" We can say Mig - we have to say "fast mover" Solid copy oscar mike - Rar rar raar - we get it, you are really cool for using those words. Not to mention that every single unit in the game is so well equipped that they even have ACOG sights for their ballpoint pens. The game just hypes up war so much in order to make it look "cool" - something Operation Flashpoint never tried to do... Don't get me wrong it was a really fun game - it was just brought down a bit by being so 'try-hard'.

"Realism" should not be confused with "idealism" I mean, depending what army you're in - Ideally an infantry section should have about 10 men with 2 x guns - Ideally a tank platoon should have 4 x tanks - IDEALLY everyone should have a fancy ACOG sight and a UAV But in "REALITY" - soldiers get killed - tanks break down - ammo runs out - units are worn down and link up with one another So is it UNREALISTIC to see a T-80 and a T-72 in the same platoon? No. It might not be Russian / Soviet doctrine. But it could certainly happen. Is it unrealistic for tanks to attack without infantry support? It might be unorthodox and contrary to doctrine, but there's no reason why it can't happen in REALITY. Perhaps all the infantry are dead and the tank commander has no choice In war, extenuating circumstnaces might require that doctrine be broken some of the time (i.e. alot of the time) - So why get fussed if everyone hasn't got the proper gear or aren't obeying proper SOP's?

I totally agree. I even thought COD4 was a bit disturbing when you had to shoot those sleeping sailors and the way your buddies went 'yippi-yah-yee-haw' every time you got a kill... stil I could put up with it But that level just looks... disgusting

Whatever man, I just did a search + regurgitate. You can think what you like about that :)

Out of curiosity and sheer boredom I did a search on facebook OFP Dragon Rising: 10,346 fans ARMA 2: 2,895 fans OFP Cold war Crisis: 1,063 fans ... Further proof that the world is a place devoid of justice :D

Hey guys, I always liked the story in flashpoint, and wanted to know more about it. However, because you always played as a lowly grunt (good thing!) it was often difficult to gauge what was going on in the wider conflict. So, for a bit of fun, on a recent playthrough of flashpoint + red hammer, I made a chronology of the significant events in the storyline - and here it is 1985 May 5 - Soviet invasion of Everon. Entire island in Soviet hands by 12:00 May 8 - NATO arrives on Everon. May 14 - NATO swiftly pushed off Everon June 2 - Soviet invasion of Malden begins at 03:40 June 9 - NATO victory at Chapoi. Soviet evacuation ordered. June 12 - NATO reinforcements arrive June 15 - Soviets defeated on Malden June 19 - Last contact with Soviet forces on Malden June 21 - NATO invasion of Everon begins June 27 - First NATO SF teams land on Kolgujev June 28 - Soviets defeated on Everon July 3 - NATO invades Kolgujev July 9 - Launch scheduled, first SCUD Launcher destroyed. July 10 Guba captured. Second SCUD launcher destroyed.

No, actually! They're probably the best source of information available to us 'civvies'... But nobody should pretend that they can get a firm grasp upon the subject of armor penetration from a daily skim through of globalfirepower.org! For heavens sake, this is highly classified stuff! We might as well be discussing the existence of martians and two-headed-elvis-clones! I'm just saying that given that most of us are extremely ignorant regarding tank-matters (whether we admit it or not) I see no logical foundation for complaining that "the penetration system is not accurate enough" How on earth can we even BEGIN to know what is accurate?

Now now, there's no need to be army-snobs... Seeing as you have taken it upon yourselves to represent the 'militarily educated' then I am am going to have to ask what qualifies you more than me or Mr. kt187? Are you engineers? Are you weapons designers, intelligence officers, or tank crewman? Or have you simply read alot of books on the subject? Books are good, but you can only get so much from them. I have read books as well (I'm sure we've all read lots of books before!). They tell me that the US tanks destroyed the Iraqi tanks in the gulf war, and I believe that these books are true. Yet they do NOT tell me that a T-72 will NEVER penetrate an Abrams tank. There is simply no causative link between the proposition that "An M1 tank destroyed a T-72 in Iraq" and "A T'72 can never destroy an Abrams" The fact that they are written by ex-military might make them more credible in some respects. I know that as westerners we have this whole 'cult of the soldier' whereby the military is portrayed as a virtuous noble force who can do no wrong and tell no lies... But the military is not infallible, and has prejudices of its own. I would expect a book written by a US military general to harp on about how US Special Forces training is the best. And, I would expect a Russian general to do the same about Russian SF training. Who oh who do I believe? Both authors have presented evidence and most have vested interests in projecting a favourable image of the army they represent! A book is still a book. You are reading the opinion of someone else based upon what they have seen (and what they are paid to say) It is not the same as seeing for yourself and making up your OWN mind. Even if you have served in a tank before, I wouldn't even trust your opinion (unless perhaps you have ALOT of combat experience against T-72's). A tankist is trained to use the weapons system, and he only needs a basic understanding of its capabilities in order to perform that duty. A tankist is trained to use a tank, not understand kinetics and thermal dynamics involved when a round goes flying into the enemy. The people who really understand what the shell will do when it hits something are the people who designed it, and performed countless tests as to what the shell will penetrate :) For instance, I have fired alot of rifles. I know my muzzle-velocities and cailbre and effective range blah blah blah... I would say that I can use the rifle well, but I would cetainly NOT regard myself as knowelgeable of what happens when a round hits the human body. Sure, I know that it tumbles and hurts alot, but thats it. If I wanted a TRUE opinion on the effects of a rifle bullet hitting a person, I would NOT go to a soldier (again, unless he's got experience and seen alot of wounds) I would go to a medical practicioner, or the engineer who designed the bullet. They would better understand the scientific aspect of it than me, and the implications for the human body. Once the bullet hits the body of the baddie, the soldiers job is done. And once the shell hits the enemy tank, the tankist does not need to know how far it penetrated if the turret has flipped and is burning. If you are able to point out exactly where I said this, I will apologise. If not, I don't like it when people put words in my mouth. ---------- Post added at 05:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:00 AM ---------- You think that THESE sites make you educated on military matters? HA! These sites will only give you 'news bites' and basic tabulated data about weapons systems. The data is often wrong, and it does not provide enough information to make an assessment of a weapon's performance. For instance, an M1 Abrams has 'Chobham' armor. WTF is Chobham? How hard is it? What are it's physical properties? You just don't know, and even if you did you couldn't make an accurate assesment of a shell's armor penetration of Chobham unless you have an advanced Engineering degree! I would not trust such sites to get the date right, let alone tell me about tanks!

Both US and Russian shells are filled with 10kg of explosives and travelling at 1,700 metres per second. They are obviously going to do some damage when they hit, and that the fact that they do is enough for me. I dont care how many books you read on Gulf War 1 or wikipedia penetration values... They are books written by academics with opinions and agendas to push, they are not the same as seeing a tank shoot at another tank with your own eyes. Even engineering programs that run on NASA supercomputers are not able to simulate real world properties, so I highly doubt that a GAME (even if BIS did have access to al the confidential information required!) could develop a penetration system that would be any more accurate than the one in the original OFP! It would be more complex and intricate, yes... But it would still not be a credible representation by any stretch of the imagination... Let's just say that no army would rely on ARMA II in determining 'which tank to buy' :rolleyes: They would still go out and perform proper engineering tests The only gripe I have is with the tank targeting. Do real tanks have a magic radar that shows the enemy as little red squares for you to click TAB and target? I'm not a tanker, but I highly doubt it. In the only tank sim I have played (T-72 Balkans), you needed to use a 'laser range finder' to ping the target, and then adjust elevation according to distance... It would be nice to see something like that instead of 'magical red squares' The only real difference between a true 'tank sim' (T 72 Balkans) and tank driving in OFP was the way the gunner acquired targets. You still push W to go forward and the commander scans and clicks. If that one minor detail was changed then I would see no real difference

Thats right. We all enjoyed playing as the "terrorists" in OFP:Resistance :)