Modern setting future release?

[Lucan946]

I see what you're saying, but I can't roll with it, due to both of these countries having nuclear weapons. M.A.D means that they will never go to war with each other - their armies can never realistically have a straight fight.

You can only portray modern combat - realistically - in the way that it does occur. Smaller, weaker forces playing insurgency against a technologically superior force. Or fictionally/alternate reality, like in the original Operation Flashpoint/ArmA/Enigma:Rising Tide.

True, nuclear weapons do complicate things. However, their presence does not ensure that they will be used. No sane ruler wants to start a nuclear war. It is a last resort, because if you launch the first missile, you've just killed everyone you know, unless your target has no nuclear weapons.

 

[Peter.Steele]

If one needs an Idea how a WW3 could "play" out i'd recommend Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising, a nice read.

Only problem with Clancy's books are that everything works right, all the time. There's only two real malfunctions in RSR: Penguin's Harpoon and Nimitz's CIWS, and the Harpoon was human error, I believe, not actually a malfunction. In reality ... stuff is breaking CONSTANTLY, or just flat out not working the way it's supposed to work.

 

[Lucan946]

That, too. Actually, the Soviet SAMs seemed to break very often, or at least not work properly. Hhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Believe me, I think it was a good book and I really do like it's depiction of the war, but I think it is an unrealistic one nonetheless, at least as far as Soviet performance goes. They definitley would do nowhere near as well as pre-war estimates would have you suspect, but having them do quite so poorly is ridiculous.

Also, the politburo was funny in that book. They're not that stupid.

 

[Witzig]

Yeah its a nice book, not realistic in a lot of aspects, but the Scenario of a Hot War without Nukes between the two Super Powers is kinda interesting. Of course its a Hollywood like Story, but there are some Scenarios which might work with an FPS CA Game.

And having Modern Combat portrayed in the RO Way would be cool. But i'm eager for HoS now

 

[Roland777]

That said, with in country hopefully being a spiritual sucessor to vietcong somewhat, a rainbow six style mod wouldn't go amiss....

That's straight-up money, right here.

I might have brought some flak upon myself by not specifying just exactly what I wished for, but dogbadger pretty much nailed it; a first-person highly tactical modification which focuses on squad-based infantry combat. Infiltration worked with squad-level mercenary combat, which allowed the players access to a wide variety of toys, all the way from typical law-enforcement weaponry up to a big-boy .50 caliber bolt-action Robar. That's what I'd like.

Now, I've probably overlooked Arma2 and AO, and with a new computer in the pipes, those will probably be the first games I'll be picking up. But I still stand by my arguments; Arma and OFP are notorious for being poorly optimized games (poorly optimized is not a subjective opinion - it either runs well with reasonable hardware, or it does not), and my opinion is that the game focuses so much on large-scale warfare that the smallest levels become suffering. I could easily have seen the game do without fixed-wing aircraft.
What do I mean when I say lack of polish? I mean the absence of detail when it comes to character immersion - transition between postures is often jolty and transitional movement can be jerky at times, which is a fork in the eye considering that the game looks so good in stills.
I also refer to the weapon-handling, which still doesn't seem as solid as Red Orchestra or Infiltration. The generic reloads and weapon recoil (especially apparent when firing semi-automatic), and awful handling of bolt-action rifles (point and click, no zooming out when rebolting) leaves the Arma2 behind the aforementioned games.

This can all be considered nitpicking, most definately. People like to be immersed in the large-scale battles that Arma2 has to offer, and I get that. But the most appealing part of any shooter, for me, is how detailed the first person view of the individual soldier is. The weapon handling of Infiltration, the movement options of Rainbow Six: Raven Shield (FLUID DOOR OPENING?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!), tension, immersion and scale of Red Orchestra are the most impressive individual aspects of shooters I've encountered so far.

I guess the final point I'm trying to make is: Arma2 might be an awesome game when I give it come more playtime,

but

the absolute best FPS I could possibly envision would be the Tripwire-team making a present-day infantry-only tactical shooter.

 

[213]

i always find it funny that these military mods often post a bunch of concept artwork for the characters...why?

go to google, enter the term for the soldier you want to replicate, and you have a virtual museum of real-life photos to act as basis for your models.

hopefully in country and any modern tactical shooter mods don't fall victim to this time consuming and ultimately fruitless venture.

 

[Lucan946]

That's straight-up money, right here.


Now, I've probably overlooked Arma2 and AO, and with a new computer in the pipes, those will probably be the first games I'll be picking up. But I still stand by my arguments; Arma and OFP are notorious for being poorly optimized games (poorly optimized is not a subjective opinion - it either runs well with reasonable hardware, or it does not), and my opinion is that the game focuses so much on large-scale warfare that the smallest levels become suffering. I could easily have seen the game do without fixed-wing aircraft.
What do I mean when I say lack of polish? I mean the absence of detail when it comes to character immersion - transition between postures is often jolty and transitional movement can be jerky at times, which is a fork in the eye considering that the game looks so good in stills.
.

So, it lacks immersion because some of the animations are sub-par (no arguments there) but it gains a whole ****ton of immersion because the combat does feel visceral, the sounds of incoming bullets are great, and there is a certain quality to it that really makes you feel like you are fighting. ArmA II is a battle simulator. It would not benefit from the lack of fixed wing aircraft. You can overlook ArmA II if you want on the basis of it being poorly optimized (it is for some, it isn't for others. Runs perfectly for me, for instance) and unpolished (some parts are, but most of the time you won't notice these things.)

the absolute best FPS I could possibly envision would be the Tripwire-team making a present-day infantry-only tactical shooter.

Have to disagree. Hugely. Made by Tripwire? Sure, they're a great company. Infantry-only tactical shooter? (I assume that by "tactical", you really mean "small-scale." Division-sized battle are tactical too, just in a different way.) Nah.

 

[Roland777]

Good that we understand eachother with the first part of your response.

But you're trying to disagree with a personal opinion with that last paragraph. That thread is going nowhere.

 

[Lucan946]

Good that we understand eachother with the first part of your response.

But you're trying to disagree with a personal opinion with that last paragraph. That thread is going nowhere.

Oh, I was just stating my disagreement. That's all. Don't expect a response or anything.

 

[MEGADETHTHRETH]

Gotta have tanks and apc's maybe a shilka aswell

 

[Oldih]

This can all be considered nitpicking, most definately. People like to be immersed in the large-scale battles that Arma2 has to offer, and I get that. But the most appealing part of any shooter, for me, is how detailed the first person view of the individual soldier is.

It really depends to the design philosophy aswell. RO is more 'relaxed' (compared to ArmA scale and overall stuff) as it plays like standard FPS with some sort of realism at its core. It does the basic functions alright but it also suffers from major lack of polish or simply silly systems (Tanks in RO:Ost for example) to the point that from realism point of view it's twisted and inaccurate. It's the same with ArmA to some degree, but both games offers something that's not really seen in that many games: Gunfight feels like a real gunfight and the combined arms functionality is out of scale in comparasion. Whether it is typical RO CA map or just some massive town patrol with limited air support in ArmA, both games offers something extraordinary in the big picture even when they have plenty of stuff to improve or polish.

 

[Roland777]

It really depends to the design philosophy aswell. RO is more 'relaxed' (compared to ArmA scale and overall stuff) as it plays like standard FPS with some sort of realism at its core. It does the basic functions alright but it also suffers from major lack of polish or simply silly systems (Tanks in RO:Ost for example) to the point that from realism point of view it's twisted and inaccurate. It's the same with ArmA to some degree, but both games offers something that's not really seen in that many games: Gunfight feels like a real gunfight and the combined arms functionality is out of scale in comparasion. Whether it is typical RO CA map or just some massive town patrol with limited air support in ArmA, both games offers something extraordinary in the big picture even when they have plenty of stuff to improve or polish.

I definately agree with that last sentence.

I'm surprised though, that you mention R.O, and specifically its tank warfare, is such light terms.

I'm not that much of a tank-simulator man, but to me, R.O had the absolute best vehicle-implementation of any FPS I've ever played. Now that they've describing their first release as "rudimentary" in terms of damage-model and ballistics, I cannot wait to see just how much detail they can cram into the game, and the tanks in particular.
Fully modeled interiors with first person interaction? That's by far the most ambitious plan I've ever seen in an FPS-game; and ROHOS is doing exactly what I wish that ARMA2 would do - focus on perfecting the smallest aspects of infantry combat, then adding content in progressively larger format. Tanks, crew-served guns, troop transports, etc.
In my opinion, that's the most appealing part of ROHOS; that they've focused on completing the infantry-level of combat before adding anything else. And any vehicle they choose to implement will be fully modeled from the inside out. Quality over quantity, in short - and I admire them for it.

The purpose of this thread was to see whether there's any interest in making a tactical present-day shooter with the same attention to detail in the smallest aspects of infantry. It could be milspec, mercenary- or LE-related.

 

[Oldih]

I'm surprised though, that you mention R.O, and specifically its tank warfare, is such light terms.

Generally speaking even RO's basic tanking armour and penetration related stuff is quite frankly silly, as for tank vs tank (and to some degree tank vs anti-tank infantry) combat is not that much diffrent from any BF game if you take even more deeper look into it putting it in sort of relative perspective. Obviously it doesn't mean tanking is unenjoyable in RO (well it is if you're expecting deeper realism), but it has its own rules based on few simple factors while which do have their physical meaning, they are overdone to the point it's physically impossible or are intensionally done that way (E.G. T-60 deflecting Tiger shells if you just angle it right, PTRD penetrating more armour than the bullet could physically and plethora of others).

Bottom line: RO:Ost tanks at their core are not that much diffrent from any arcade shooter, but they are still tolerable given you have mind open enough to accept it's playing with its own rules.

 

[Roland777]

Generally speaking even RO's basic tanking armour and penetration related stuff is quite frankly silly, as for tank vs tank (and to some degree tank vs anti-tank infantry) combat is not that much diffrent from any BF game if you take even more deeper look into it putting it in sort of relative perspective. Obviously it doesn't mean tanking is unenjoyable in RO (well it is if you're expecting deeper realism), but it has its own rules based on few simple factors while which do have their physical meaning, they are overdone to the point it's physically impossible or are intensionally done that way (E.G. T-60 deflecting Tiger shells if you just angle it right, PTRD penetrating more armour than the bullet could physically and plethora of others).

Bottom line: RO:Ost tanks at their core are not that much diffrent from any arcade shooter, but they are still tolerable given you have mind open enough to accept it's playing with its own rules.

I will consider myself educated by this post. It's a bit tough to put RO into a realism-context when you're starved for it, and have to put up with CoD13: space-monkeys.

 

[JCoquillon]

Well the initial aim of In Country: Vietnam is to focus on a solid core infantry gameplay. Smaller squad based tactical combat in a variety of locations and scenarios. There is good potential with much of the equipment used for expansion later on (once the core mod is solid) to move onto even more modern scenarios (once we have the various AKs, RPDs, RPGs, M16s and derivatives, M60, etc.) to add more player models and maps is not a great leap.

 

[Welshie]

I'd prefer a WWI Mod from this game....Now there's a an idea...shooting at a Mother infantry tank MkV....just before it breaks down:IS2:

 

[Yoshiro]

There is one of those as well Welshie

 

[Welshie]

There is one of those as well Welshie

Do tell....C'mon You started it...and will it include An AV7:IS2:

 

[Yoshiro]

http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=33063

 

[Welshie]

Man, that is Sweeeeet (A Jeeza saying), and made My night....So I actually get to move General Haigs Drink cabinet 6 inches closer to Berlin (a Blackadder thing)