So many unrealistic things in the trailer

[TW_Night_Fox]

After just one time watching this trailer I can already tell it should not have Mr. Cancy's name on it.

First off. What's with the low flying helos? Military aircraft of today can circle an area at 40 000 feet and hit a target the size of a tool shed. So why, in this time in the future are they flying lower than the buildings in the city while shooting at a target the size of a football field? When you fly that low you can crash into things and get shot down by SAMs and stuff. (both of which happened in the trailer.)

Second, Why the XM8? Why is this weapon, which was CANCELLED in 2003 in a game that is in the year 2050? (or whenever this game is set)Surely you could have realized that there would be a 2050 era weapon that they would be using then. This is like having a game that is set in 2000 but all the soldiers are using M1 Garands. It's stupid.

Third. ACU. Why would they be using ACU? By that time the soldiers should be using Nano-camo. A camoflauge that incorperates nano technology that can varry the way light hits you to make you seem invisible. The Army is working on this technology and they have claimed to have perfected it and start fielding it by 2025. Before that the soldiers will be issued Multicam starting around 2009. The army adopted ACU in 2005 but shortly after signed a contract with Crye Precision to use their pattern in 2009 when the ACU contract will expire. (Why is ACU in GRAW 2 anyways? GRAW 1 and GR2SS got it right.)

Anyways, I'm going to watch the trailer a few more times and see what I can find.

[TW_Night_Fox]

After just one time watching this trailer I can already tell it should not have Mr. Cancy's name on it.

First off. What's with the low flying helos? Military aircraft of today can circle an area at 40 000 feet and hit a target the size of a tool shed. So why, in this time in the future are they flying lower than the buildings in the city while shooting at a target the size of a football field? When you fly that low you can crash into things and get shot down by SAMs and stuff. (both of which happened in the trailer.)

Second, Why the XM8? Why is this weapon, which was CANCELLED in 2003 in a game that is in the year 2050? (or whenever this game is set)Surely you could have realized that there would be a 2050 era weapon that they would be using then. This is like having a game that is set in 2000 but all the soldiers are using M1 Garands. It's stupid.

Third. ACU. Why would they be using ACU? By that time the soldiers should be using Nano-camo. A camoflauge that incorperates nano technology that can varry the way light hits you to make you seem invisible. The Army is working on this technology and they have claimed to have perfected it and start fielding it by 2025. Before that the soldiers will be issued Multicam starting around 2009. The army adopted ACU in 2005 but shortly after signed a contract with Crye Precision to use their pattern in 2009 when the ACU contract will expire. (Why is ACU in GRAW 2 anyways? GRAW 1 and GR2SS got it right.)

Anyways, I'm going to watch the trailer a few more times and see what I can find.

[PrinceCaspian5]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TW_Night_Fox:
First off. What's with the low flying helos? Military aircraft of today can circle an area at 40 000 feet and hit a target the size of a tool shed. So why, in this time in the future are they flying lower than the buildings in the city while shooting at a target the size of a football field? When you fly that low you can crash into things and get shot down by SAMs and stuff. (both of which happened in the trailer.)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Helos fly low to stay under the radar, that way radar guided SAMs can't see them, and they can't go 40000 feet, the AH-64 Apache has a service ceiling of just a bit more than half that, 21000 feet, the huey cobra only goes up about 12000 feet.

[atacms]

I've got to agree with you. There's also the issue of the Comanche, which was also cancelled.

Then again this is a game so maybe in this timeline, they're saying that these were good weapons that were cancelled due to funding problems. Look at the V-22 Osprey, that program has been cancelled, then resurrected. Finally now tht Marines are going to be getting them in Iraq.

I think your most important point is with the camo. The US Army is working on the Future Force Warrior, which likely would have all the troops equipped with this system. As you said it's nano-based technology allowing for cloaking abilities, strength, speed and increaased protection.

This game should look at Crysis for ideas on how to properly equip the ground soldier of the future. Here's a link showing the strength of the nanosuit: http://www.crysis-online.com/Media/Screenshots/Screenshots/Strength-01.jpg

And here's another showing the speed:

http://www.crysis-online.com/Media/Screenshots/Screenshots/Village-05.jpg

Anyway, it just seems like the troops don't even have body armor. What's up with that?

Also if they were going to resurrect a weapon why not resurrect the XM-29, this was in Ghost Recon 2 when you played the Lone Wolf scenario. It allowed you to take out enemies who were behind a wall or a corner by using a laser rangefinder to have the grenade burst at the right moment/distance. This is the OICW weapon.

Better yet they could have a weapon like I mentioned in another thread called SCORPION. Actually it more of a guided munition rather than weapon. The soldier of the future will be able to guide a mini-missile that's basically the size of today's 40mm grenades.

Here's the link so UBISOFT and others can see I know what I'm talking about.

http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/reshor/rh-ss06/scorpion.pdf

[atacms]

Why are the US tanks still equipped with conventional cannons and no EM railguns. I know that the Army Research Lab are putting some money into this and it makes sense.

Even if you were going to stick with a conventional cannon, where's the stealth shaping. I know that they've done some work with shaping the barrel to reduce the radar signature of the cannon. Come on guys do some more homework. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

[john_chi]

First of all the game is set in 2020, NOT 2050. That's closer to our time than you think. About the ACU, it's what the US Army is using NOW, and they've only started using it since 2005! Do have any IDEA how long equipment/gear is used by the US Military? They've been using woodland camo since 1981 and it's only now being replaced by the ACU. Same thing with the M16, that's been around since the 60's. So don't be surprised if really 20 year old equipment is being used together with new technology. Just because something is being experimented with now like this active camo, does'nt necessarily mean it will get used and distributed to every US unit by 2020. This isn't CRYSIS which is set further into the future.

As for the XM8 and the Commanche, these two could have been resurrected BECAUSE of World War 3. And how the hell can you compare the XM8 to an M1 Garand? The XM8 may be a 2003 weapon but it is newer than the M16s and M4s the US military uses today. And the M4s themselves will be around for a while.

The Commanche itself was developed to counter a conventional war with Russia in the 1980s but was only cancelled because right now a conventional war with any country is not much of a threat as an insurgency war is today. As for tanks, the Abrams will be around for the next 20+ years, and it's only now being bought and used by Austrailia.

One more interesting thing to note about future US Army tech, you did now that the Land Warrior program got cutback right? I mean surely something like this would delay stuff like active camo being in use for a long time.

Also, I believe these videos from Boeing Integrated Defense systems will tell you a lot about Future Combat Systems what will be used 20 years from now - http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/ic/fcs/bia/videos.html

Note that they're still using M4s which is older than the XM8.

[john_chi]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by atacms:
Why are the US tanks still equipped with conventional cannons and no EM railguns. I know that the Army Research Lab are putting some money into this and it makes sense.

Even if you were going to stick with a conventional cannon, where's the stealth shaping. I know that they've done some work with shaping the barrel to reduce the radar signature of the cannon. Come on guys do some more homework. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again the game is set in 2020 NOT 2050. Here's a quote from Gamespot- http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/tomclancysendwar...module;picks;title;2 (http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/tomclancysendwar/news.html?sid=6171351&om_act=convert&om_clk=multimodule&tag=multimodule;picks;title;2)

Set in the year 2020, EndWar will pit the forces of the US and Europe against a newly reenergized Russia. However, things aren't too peachy between America and her European allies. As designer Michael de Plater, one of the key designers behind the popular Total War games, explained to us, the US and Europe are split over America's militarization of space. By researching antimissile technology, America makes World War III possible by reducing the chances of a nuclear conflict. However, Russia, having rebuilt its military thanks to the fact that it has major supplies of oil in a world that has exhausted most of the traditional supplies, is furious, because it felt that nuclear deterrence was the reason the peace was kept for so long. After America's Freedom Star space station is destroyed on the launchpad by terrorists, everything comes to a head, and war is declared.

[TW_Night_Fox]

That's even more BS. GRAW 2 is set in 2015 and it has no hint at a militarization of space. There is no way that you could build space stations and have them fully operational in 5 years. 2020 seems like a typo. I think it's way later than that.

[atacms]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by john_chi:
About the ACU, it's what the US Army is using NOW, and they've only started using it since 2005! Do have any IDEA how long equipment/gear is used by the US Military? They've been using woodland camo since 1981 and it's only now being replaced by the ACU. Same thing with the M16, that's been around since the 60's. So don't be surprised if really 20 year old equipment is being used together with new technology. Just because something is being experimented with now like this active camo, does'nt necessarily mean it will get used and distributed to every US unit by 2020. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can see your point, but this ignores the fact that even more so than before the Pentagon is trying to reduce the number of years to deploy weapons en masse. I agree that the DoD has generally been slow to develop things, but I believe we're at a watershed moment especially with today's concerns of insurgents and countries like China able to purchase off the shelf weapons like the Russian made Shkval without having to produce this themselves, the US is feeling the pressure to speed things up. Sorry I might sound cocky, but, I read Defense News, Aviation Week & Space Technology, Jane's Defense Weekly each week and a slew of other publications monthly like it's my religion.

Look at body armor. IBA (Interceptor body armor) is now standard issue for all troops. (previously this was only for SOF units like the Rangers), this would have taken decades to get to this level of ramp up of deploying such equipment, but the wars in the Mideast put a fire in the military's butt. There's an iniative the Army has called RFI, don't know if you've heard of it. It's meant to address quick and urgently needed equipment.

Look at the MRAP program, I purchased Armor Holdings (check Yahoo Finance)stock when it was at $60/share and two months later it jumped to $84 and was bought out by BaE. Why? Well originally the program was supposed to buy only 2500 wheeled armored vehicles to replace the up-armored Humvees and now the order has jumped to 17,000! Quite the jump.

So I think just like Vietnam, the majority of the upper brass in the military have seen how grossly ignorant they've been about trends in how enemies fight and in the equipment needed. Now with a war going on, they realize they need to catch up and pour tons of money to expedite the issue. So development of nano-based armor for example can happen by the 2020's especially with the threat of WW3 happening.

By the way, guess what technology Armor Holdings is working on: yup, nano-based armor for soldiers. you can google STF Armor Holdings and you'll see. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[atacms]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by john_chi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by atacms:
Why are the US tanks still equipped with conventional cannons and no EM railguns. I know that the Army Research Lab are putting some money into this and it makes sense.

Even if you were going to stick with a conventional cannon, where's the stealth shaping. I know that they've done some work with shaping the barrel to reduce the radar signature of the cannon. Come on guys do some more homework. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again the game is set in 2020 NOT 2050. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said 2050 or is your point that you believe this won't be in vehicles til 2050? If this is your argument, I'd ask have you been following the progress of railgun development that you can say no to this? Consider the case I mentioned earlier about nano-based armor.

[john_chi]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TW_Night_Fox:
That's even more BS. GRAW 2 is set in 2015 and it has no hint at a militarization of space. There is no way that you could build space stations and have them fully operational in 5 years. 2020 seems like a typo. I think it's way later than that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's an interview with the creative director -

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/790/790983p1.html

QUOTE from the creative director himself- Set in the 2020s, EndWar explores the future implications of a number of real world events which are taking place today - the looming energy crisis, the rise of nationalism and antagonism between nations, the militarization of space, the threat of nuclear annihilation to name a few.

Also, why the hell should the story in GRAW have to mention anything about a developing space program? How is it relevant to taking down a bunch of Mexican insurgents? And think about this, maybe the story in GRAW 2 was written WAAY before the story of Endwar?

[john_chi]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by atacms:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by john_chi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by atacms:
Why are the US tanks still equipped with conventional cannons and no EM railguns. I know that the Army Research Lab are putting some money into this and it makes sense.

Even if you were going to stick with a conventional cannon, where's the stealth shaping. I know that they've done some work with shaping the barrel to reduce the radar signature of the cannon. Come on guys do some more homework. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again the game is set in 2020 NOT 2050. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said 2050 or is your point that you believe this won't be in vehicles til 2050? If this is your argument, I'd ask have you been following the progress of railgun development that you can say no to this? Consider the case I mentioned earlier about nano-based armor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BTW the tank in the trailer was Russian, and I don't think they're developing any kind of rail gun weaponry. The US vehicles are all support infantry fighting vehicles like the Bradely, not tanks.

[atacms]

^^^

John, look at the trailer again, there are two opposing sides, and there are tanks that look like M1 and IFV's that look like a modified Bradley, on the other side are the Russian tanks.

I didn't confuse US tanks with Russian ones, I know they're fictional, but their outlines are similar enough to what we currently have that I can distinguish between the units. You'll see the vehicles that look like Bradleys and you'll also note the tanks that look like M1's besides they're in the screenshots too. You can tell they're not railguns which is my point.

By the way, I was a Bradley mechanized infantryman in the 3rd Infantry Division down in Ft. Stewart so I do have first hand experience.

[john_chi]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by atacms:
^^^

John, look at the trailer again, there are two opposing sides, and there are tanks that look like M1 and IFV's that look like a modified Bradley, on the other side are the Russian tanks.

I didn't confuse US tanks with Russian ones, I know they're fictional, but their outlines are similar enough to what we currently have that I can distinguish between the units. You'll see the vehicles that look like Bradleys and you'll also note the tanks that look like M1's besides they're in the screenshots too. You can tell they're not railguns which is my point.

By the way, I was a Bradley mechanized infantryman in the 3rd Infantry Division down in Ft. Stewart so I do have first hand experience. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, they do look like M1s and have no railguns. My point was that such technologies would not be in wide use anyways and that the M1 itself will be around for a long time won't it? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong (and please do as I appreciate your knowledge as a former mech soldier), but I watch in one documentary that the Abrams will be around for at least 30 + years? I mean you gotta agree with me that with the army cutting back on Land Warrior that any brand new main battle tank is a long ways away?

As for those IFVs, to me they all resemble the ones featured in those Boeing FCS videos on the link I posted so they seem about right.

As for the active camo, even if it did exist by 2020, only a small number of units would have them right? Most would still have ACU as something like the active camo seems pretty expensive for the entire US Army. I mean isn't the reason the Army opted for the ACU instead of multicam was because the later was too expensive?

Now from a truely asthetic point of view, wouldn't you agree that ACU used as a camo for indivual units in the game looks way cooler than if they were to wear a Nano suit like in Crysis? I mean sure that can go invisible, but then it just does'nt look as cool. And when the invisiblity functin is turned off, the suit appears all black with no camo.

[PrinceCaspian5]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TW_Night_Fox:
That's even more BS. GRAW 2 is set in 2015 and it has no hint at a militarization of space. There is no way that you could build space stations and have them fully operational in 5 years. 2020 seems like a typo. I think it's way later than that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
One thing, in GRAW 2 they don't tell you everything about what is happening in the world, so the militarization of space could be going on, but it just doesn't have to do with Mexican rebels, so they didn't say anything about it. Another thing, they probably could put up a space station in 5 years if they really tired, Kennedy said "we choose to go to the moon" and only 7 years later they landed on the moon

And I think that most of the tech is fine, it is only set about 13 years in the future, that isn't a very long time. Also, if you are using GRAW as evidence, then why should they have active camo in EndWar, they didn't have it in GRAW and I would think that units like the ghosts would be first to get such stuff

[mormonplyr]

you guyz are stupid, stop camparing everything, its a game!!!! Who cares whats in it. At the end of the day were all gonna buy it, so why does it matter?

[xxjusticarxx]

Take a look at some of the Department of Defense's future weapon programs from the early 1980s and tell me how well we're doing on those.

Walking exo-skeleton battlesuits (like mechs), one-man tanks with double the firepower, robot soldiers (walking, biped ROBOTS)...etc.

Those future systems teams are there primarily to develop ideas, but the reality of what gets produced is more often influenced by big business contracts and actual budgetary options.

[PrinceCaspian5]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mormonplyr:
you guyz are stupid, stop camparing everything, its a game!!!! Who cares whats in it. At the end of the day were all gonna buy it, so why does it matter? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
All we can do on this forum is go over what little info we have, that is why we are picking apart everything, but you are right, they would have to really mess up to stop me from getting this game

[SuppressingFire]

Well, the game is under the Tom Clancy brand name which has always (to at least some degree) attempt to keep itself realistic.

The stuff I see in the trailer really doesn't seem too far fetched (except maybe the soldier standing out in the open with those mini-guns). I think people are really putting too much into the Army's ability to upgrade and change itself.

It takes a LONG time for things to get changed in the Army, and when it does it's usually to the lowest bidder. Besides, to my knowledge H&K never scrapped the XM8 project anyway. It'd still be possible for the US to adopt a much improved version of the weapon system in the future.

[pettyofficerj]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mormonplyr:
you guyz are stupid, stop camparing everything, its a game!!!! Who cares whats in it. At the end of the day were all gonna buy it, so why does it matter? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it matters because we have some military gronards and sticklers who pay close attention to detail and want this game to be as close to what's expected in our future as possible...

but yes..in the end...the average player will not know what Interceptor Body Armor is, or what an IFV is, or the difference between an m8 and a g36. They'll just buy the game to have fun and won't complain about a lack of realism.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

[atacms]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pettyofficerj:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mormonplyr:
you guyz are stupid, stop camparing everything, its a game!!!! Who cares whats in it. At the end of the day were all gonna buy it, so why does it matter? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it matters because we have some military gronards and sticklers who pay close attention to detail and want this game to be as close to what's expected in our future as possible...

but yes..in the end...the average player will not know what Interceptor Body Armor is, or what an IFV is, or the difference between an m8 and a g36. They'll just buy the game to have fun and won't complain about a lack of realism.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes and I'm one of those sticklers. Like you said I will definitely be getting the game, but there's no harm in pointing out these details.

And you're right that most gamers won't pay attention to such level of detail, but even though games can be fun why can't they in some degree also be educational.

Some might argue that the sticklers shouldn't be so detail oriented, it's just a game, but as the old expression goes, "the squeaky wheel gets oiled/greased." In other words those who push for improvement are the ones who typically get it. So in this case wouldn't you guys prefer to have accuracy in a game?

[atacms]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mormonplyr:
you guyz are stupid, stop camparing everything, its a game!!!! Who cares whats in it. At the end of the day were all gonna buy it, so why does it matter? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With a username like mormonplyr, I would get the impresion that you're Mormon and if that's the case your language isn't very Christ like, lol. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

[pettyofficerj]

a certain degree of accuracy and realism went out the door the moment UBI decided to make a game based on a war which takes place in the future....

[atacms]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by xxjusticarxx:
Take a look at some of the Department of Defense's future weapon programs from the early 1980s and tell me how well we're doing on those.

Walking exo-skeleton battlesuits (like mechs), one-man tanks with double the firepower, robot soldiers (walking, biped ROBOTS)...etc.

Those future systems teams are there primarily to develop ideas, but the reality of what gets produced is more often influenced by big business contracts and actual budgetary options. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As someone who's followed these programs since the 80's you make a good point. The average development/deployment of a weapon system has been about 20 years.

I've followed the Pentagon's efforts in exoskeletons since they had a program called Pittman and it was being developed by Los Alamos National Laboratory.

In fact when i was studying in college as a mechanical engineer at the time I was able to get the ARL to send me an unclassified report of the program, so yes I'm aware it takes a long time.

That being said, as you mentioned that the "reality of what gets produced is more" a factor of the budget and big defense contractors. And that's my point. Companies like Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics tend to go for the big ticket, big money deals not the chump change they would get with rifles, they want to build the $187M+ a copy F-22's or the $1.65B submarine. The big ticket now is the Army and their programs. Infantry weapons and the need for armor.

Wars can realign budgetary priorities very quickly and the argument can be made for nano tech based armor as a step in that direction. WHY? The cluttered terrain of close range war/battles is where the enemy could hope to cause casualties. Their surface-to-air missiles seem to be ineffective against our aircraft, it's too expensive to have aircraft hence the enemies move toward ballistic missiles. They don't have tanks, but they have men who have RPG's who can hide in crowds. Meanwhile our infantry get shot and blown up. So the trend is to increase armor (ie up-armored Humvees and Interceptor body armor).

Now that it's reached the attention of the public consciousness, the Pentagon decided to go with approx. 2500 MRAP vehicles which are the V-shaped wheeled behemoths that can protect troops from IED's. Just this week, they boosted it to 17,000(!!!) to replace ALL Humvees including up-armored ones. So if this can happen in the short timeframe of a few years, it's really a matter of them deciding to fund a program. And it turns out not so coincidentally that one of the top companies building these vehicles and ceramic armor for troops is developing the next step in infantry armor: NANO based armor.

Look at what the Pentagon is looking at for troops, the nanosuit is the evolution of what you see here. http://www.spacewar.com/images/us-army-soldier-lightwieght-body-armour-bg.jpg

Here's the link: http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Armor_Holdings_New_Flexible_Armor_Tech.html

Sorry guys for blabbling on, I'm just trying to logically present my argument to you. Cheers for your patience and trying to understand someone else's views without considering it spam. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[CrazySunDog]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pettyofficerj:
a certain degree of accuracy and realism went out the door the moment UBI decided to make a game based on a war which takes place in the future.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

...and I would stress the word Ubi

[mormonplyr]

Just because im mormon doeasn't mean that i cant say stupid, mormon teachings are lest strict than you think.

lol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

[atacms]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mormonplyr:
Just because im mormon doeasn't mean that i cant say stupid, mormon teachings are lest strict than you think.

lol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't say that you can't say it, I said it wasn't Christlike...I was an LDS missionary in Bolivia a long time ago. Anyway cheers I'm off topic. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

[INFBoogerMan]

WHO CARES, ITS JUST A VIDEO GAME!!! IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU HAVE WEAPONS THAT HAVE BEEN SCRAPPED, OR PUT ON HOLD WHILE THEY ARE STILL IN THE PRODUCTION STAGE. MAYBE YOU SHOULD ALL MELLOW OUT AND NOT TAKE THINGS SO SERIOUSLY, IT'S NOT LIKE THIS IS WHAT THE MILLITARY IS GOING TO HAVE IN 2020, WE DON'T KNOW! FURTHER MORE, JUST BECAUSE ALL THE GAMES ARE TOM CLANCY DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY ARE ALL CONNECTED LIKE GRAW 2. AND IF YOU DIDN'T CARE ABOUT THE GAME YOU WOULDEN'T BE ON THIS WEBSITE POSTING SOME CRAZY *** RANT, IM GUNNA BUY IT BECAUSE IT LOOKS SWEET AND ALL OF YOU PROB. WILL TOO, SO QUIT YOUR *****IN.

[SkyRaptorRUS]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by INFBoogerMan:
WHO CARES, ITS JUST A VIDEO GAME!!! IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU HAVE WEAPONS THAT HAVE BEEN SCRAPPED, OR PUT ON HOLD WHILE THEY ARE STILL IN THE PRODUCTION STAGE. MAYBE YOU SHOULD ALL MELLOW OUT AND NOT TAKE THINGS SO SERIOUSLY, IT'S NOT LIKE THIS IS WHAT THE MILLITARY IS GOING TO HAVE IN 2020, WE DON'T KNOW! FURTHER MORE, JUST BECAUSE ALL THE GAMES ARE TOM CLANCY DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY ARE ALL CONNECTED LIKE GRAW 2. AND IF YOU DIDN'T CARE ABOUT THE GAME YOU WOULDEN'T BE ON THIS WEBSITE POSTING SOME CRAZY *** RANT, IM GUNNA BUY IT BECAUSE IT LOOKS SWEET AND ALL OF YOU PROB. WILL TOO, SO QUIT YOUR *****IN. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
relax...calm down http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[TW_Night_Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by INFBoogerMan:
WHO CARES, ITS JUST A VIDEO GAME!!! IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU HAVE WEAPONS THAT HAVE BEEN SCRAPPED, OR PUT ON HOLD WHILE THEY ARE STILL IN THE PRODUCTION STAGE. MAYBE YOU SHOULD ALL MELLOW OUT AND NOT TAKE THINGS SO SERIOUSLY, IT'S NOT LIKE THIS IS WHAT THE MILLITARY IS GOING TO HAVE IN 2020, WE DON'T KNOW! FURTHER MORE, JUST BECAUSE ALL THE GAMES ARE TOM CLANCY DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY ARE ALL CONNECTED LIKE GRAW 2. AND IF YOU DIDN'T CARE ABOUT THE GAME YOU WOULDEN'T BE ON THIS WEBSITE POSTING SOME CRAZY *** RANT, IM GUNNA BUY IT BECAUSE IT LOOKS SWEET AND ALL OF YOU PROB. WILL TOO, SO QUIT YOUR *****IN. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Okay, Kyle. I see this is your first time posting so I'm going to be nice. Don't do that. Don't type in all caps, don't insult other forum users, and don't complain because people are using a forum for discussion. That's what there here for. If you don't agree with something then support your side of the argument istead of screaming about why you think your fascist opinions are better than others. Why don't you take some of your own advice; mellow out, and don't take things so seriously. I am guessing you are a minor because of the way your are handling yourself is extremly immature. Grow up. Then come back here.

Good day.
-Fox

[LordTenacious]

Active Camo? Rail guns? If you want that, go play CnC3. Otherwise, quit your whining OVER A TRAILER.

[CrazySunDog]

Yeah well, I think this thread is spiralling into a session of hair splitting, so I'm going to bring some perspective back into it. When I was around 10-12 years old (circa. 1989), I thought by the year 2007 that there would be flying cars in everybody's space-port, that by now I could fast forward and rewind time, and I would never have to work, that's what my clone is here for....fast forward to present day, circa. 2007. I've shed some innocent naivety, but still hope for flying cars.

This game takes place around 2025, and I'm sure that flying cars will NOT be a household item. History has taught us that just because something is possible does not mean its PLAUSIBLE. (I'm referring to the complaints of BDU's and weapons.) Oh, and BTW, in this storyline the US is in the middle of a crisis, so the military spending, not so much...

Oh, and an observation to the OP and any other's who relate the Tom Clancy name to realism, the relationship between TC and realism is coincedental at best; that's the point of military fantasy!! It's toy soldiers in a sandbox, and thats the beauty of it!!

[atacms]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CrazySunDog:
Yeah well, I think this thread is spiralling into a session of hair splitting, so I'm going to bring some perspective back into it. When I was around 10-12 years old (circa. 1989), I thought by the year 2007 that there would be flying cars in everybody's space-port, that by now I could fast forward and rewind time, and I would never have to work, that's what my clone is here for....fast forward to present day, circa. 2007. I've shed some innocent naivety, but still hope for flying cars.

This game takes place around 2025, and I'm sure that flying cars will NOT be a household item. History has taught us that just because something is possible does not mean its PLAUSIBLE. (I'm referring to the complaints of BDU's and weapons.) Oh, and BTW, in this storyline the US is in the middle of a crisis, so the military spending, not so much...

Oh, and an observation to the OP and any other's who relate the Tom Clancy name to realism, the relationship between TC and realism is coincedental at best; that's the point of military fantasy!! It's toy soldiers in a sandbox, and thats the beauty of it!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You do raise some good points about the futurists not always delivering what was promised and I'll have to say that it wasn't my intention to get a few people riled up about my "ranting." And to those who would say it's just a game, obviously I'm aware of that.

Having said that I was merely trying to make my case for some things that I'd hope were in the game. I've been following Pentagon programs, strategies and the evolution of technology and trends in warfare for more than 15 year by attending conferences and even fielding the occasional question at these meetings to US Army program managers (PEO's as they call them). So when a game comes along that begins to encapsulate some of these ideas that I've been following for so many years I might get a little excited.

You're right that any relationship between TC and realism is based on fantasy, but I'd disagree that it's coincidental. It seems they've studied quite a few programs to show what weapons would exist in the 2020's. Of course the developers will choose to put in what they decide to put in, but I was simply making my case for why I thought some weapons should be like this or like that. Look at the effort they made to make a plausible scenario for what is the "powder keg" that erupts into WW3. The issue of missile defense and the reaction it is causing with some hardliners in Russia is rooted in reality. Putin feels that the US missile defenses are destabilizing and it's causing some Russian politicians to react with a militaristic tone. The geopolitical picture vis-a-vis Russia and the US is quite different from the mid to late 90's. So these guys are trying to strive for accuracy; I'm just merely pointing out things that I think may help them with more accuracy.

Anyway, for those who would say why bother with this "ranting", I would hope that GAMERS would be curious and ask "what about this or that". Do games always just have to be about playing and not learning. Can't a game stimulate curiosity to the point that you do research and see if there is any validity to the case that the game is making or in this instance the case that other forum members might make without being cut down and not making a logical counter argument.

It would seem too simple to say it's just a game. Why not for example try to research a book or a magazine or a website and see is there any truth to the fictional world and weapons that Endwar is portraying.

My posts have not been in the spirit of complaints but the intention was constructive criticism. I definitely plan on getting the game, but I'm just raising some issues and welcome polite well thought out counter arguments for why someone would disagree.

Cheers to all! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

[CrazySunDog]

atacms, well stated...

While I would prefer the type of game you describe (with almost infinite detail), I couldn't help but steer the topic elsewhere...


I wasn't trying to single you out, just trying to shed another aspect onto the subject.

Anyway, I'm sure it will be a great game

[SuppressingFire]

By the way... Did anybody get a good look at the weapons and such that the Russians were using? It looked sort of like the Halo Battle Rifle or something... Maybe like some strange variation of the Chinese assault rifle or something?

[CaptainHarlock]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TW_Night_Fox:
After just one time watching this trailer I can already tell it should not have Mr. Cancy's name on it.

First off. What's with the low flying helos? Military aircraft of today can circle an area at 40 000 feet and hit a target the size of a tool shed. So why, in this time in the future are they flying lower than the buildings in the city while shooting at a target the size of a football field? When you fly that low you can crash into things and get shot down by SAMs and stuff. (both of which happened in the trailer.)

Second, Why the XM8? Why is this weapon, which was CANCELLED in 2003 in a game that is in the year 2050? (or whenever this game is set)Surely you could have realized that there would be a 2050 era weapon that they would be using then. This is like having a game that is set in 2000 but all the soldiers are using M1 Garands. It's stupid.

Third. ACU. Why would they be using ACU? By that time the soldiers should be using Nano-camo. A camoflauge that incorperates nano technology that can varry the way light hits you to make you seem invisible. The Army is working on this technology and they have claimed to have perfected it and start fielding it by 2025. Before that the soldiers will be issued Multicam starting around 2009. The army adopted ACU in 2005 but shortly after signed a contract with Crye Precision to use their pattern in 2009 when the ACU contract will expire. (Why is ACU in GRAW 2 anyways? GRAW 1 and GR2SS got it right.)

Anyways, I'm going to watch the trailer a few more times and see what I can find. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all you have to remember one thing; it's the FUTURE! The game is supposed to take place around 2030 or so.

Secondly, realism is supposed to be an means to enhance a game but not an ultimate end. There are always going to be unrealistic elements to any game. You have to recognize that it's first and foremost a GAME. Not some kind of reality simulator. So just suspend your disbelief and go with it. If you sit there and scrutinize every bit of minutia you're not going to have fun with it.

[S.V.A.R.O.G.]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SuppressingFire:
By the way... Did anybody get a good look at the weapons and such that the Russians were using? It looked sort of like the Halo Battle Rifle or something... Maybe like some strange variation of the Chinese assault rifle or something? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Russians have their own models for the Spetsnaz, search for OC-14 Groza or VAL, for ex.

[Kaona]

EndWar takes place in alternate reality. As mentioned in several posts here, there was no war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So its fine to see canceled weapons in our timeline appear in the game

[dazaw05]

you have to remember that in the story it says that afetr oil ran out russia had it all and since the war started i don't think the west would buy oil frm russia never mind russia selling it to their enemies. So in 2020 they wouldn't have enough resources to research new weapons they would use anything they could old or new. Plus they need it to fight the war.

[rumsteak]

wait for the gameplay images, remember this is cinematic so its suposed to get you anxious about the game, can't think of anything better than some explosions... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[Mr.Hanky2005]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kaona:
EndWar takes place in alternate reality. As mentioned in several posts here, there was no war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So its fine to see canceled weapons in our timeline appear in the game </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just because it takes place in an alternate reality does not mean we should see canceled weapons. Whether the war in Iraq and Afghanistan happened, or the head designer or the XM8 spilled steaming hot coffee on himself, it doesn't change the fact that the XM8 would melt when fired.

That's my 2 cents.

[Inquisitor_Zeal]

OR... it could be a new version of the XM8, we dont know that it is even the XM8 at all it could be a weapon designed by HK(i believe thats who made the XM8 originally) to look like it since its a sick looking gun! Plus in one of the videos on IGN i think it was, they showed a up close picture i think it was of either a soldier carrying one or it was a concept drawing of it, but it looked like the XM8 but it said XMX on the side so it is very possible that its NOT the XM8.(i dont have time to look up the exact video right now so im not posting a link)

[Da_Costa1982]

This forum is quite interessting, yet I believe atacms should be hired by UBISoft to help the devs cause he raises a whole lot of reasonable questions, you have merit in this topic. (and I'm the type of person that doesn't give a damm about the war in the future). But I'll just wait and see how the thing is going to be... please carry on the forum and cheers to you all.

[KJ_White]

xm8 sucks it has a shorter barrel than the m4 and is bigger than it, i don't see how they could really improve that unless they found a way to overcome the drop in accuracy caused by the shorter barrel

[atacms]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Da_Costa1982:
This forum is quite interessting, yet I believe atacms should be hired by UBISoft to help the devs cause he raises a whole lot of reasonable questions, you have merit in this topic. (and I'm the type of person that doesn't give a damm about the war in the future). But I'll just wait and see how the thing is going to be... please carry on the forum and cheers to you all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gracias por el voto de confianza,

Translation: thanks for the vote of confidence.

[Inquisitor_Zeal]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Da_Costa1982:
This forum is quite interessting, yet I believe atacms should be hired by UBISoft to help the devs cause he raises a whole lot of reasonable questions, you have merit in this topic. (and I'm the type of person that doesn't give a damm about the war in the future). But I'll just wait and see how the thing is going to be... please carry on the forum and cheers to you all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I second that

[atacms]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Inquisitor_Zeal:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Da_Costa1982:
This forum is quite interessting, yet I believe atacms should be hired by UBISoft to help the devs cause he raises a whole lot of reasonable questions, you have merit in this topic. (and I'm the type of person that doesn't give a damm about the war in the future). But I'll just wait and see how the thing is going to be... please carry on the forum and cheers to you all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I second that </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks guys, I'll remember to pay you later, just kidding. Honestly though I do appreciate your comments. I just like to use the forum to have gamers think about what's going on in the storyline and the units/equipment/tactics, etc since it appears the developers went to some trouble in researching it to make it quite accurate.

[AlphaDelta219]

all you guys are taking this way to seriously. its a game based partly on FCS with lots of speculation involved. the EU and Russian units are, id presume, based on equivalents of the US FCS program or atleast designed on what would seem plausable.

[SuarezB]

holy ****, what a bunch of know-it-alls. so you expect them to predict all your wet "future military hardware" dreams? Wtf, ppl. this game looks really nice. if you don't think so, f*** off and find another forum to ***** in...

[Mr.Hanky2005]

SuarezB, settle down. They are entitled to their opinion.

[rumsteak]

loool there have to be some guy to come and insult everyone...

i do enjoyed all comments, but can we just wait for some gameplay?^^ then we'll have something more real than cinematics..:P

good posts though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

[atacms]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SuarezB:
holy ****, what a bunch of know-it-alls. so you expect them to predict all your wet "future military hardware" dreams? Wtf, ppl. this game looks really nice. if you don't think so, f*** off and find another forum to ***** in... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I've said before I welcome educated opinions that differ from mine provided that you've done your research. To not even make a substantial argument based on what you know about the future of military trends and weapons, is pointless.

If you've seen my posts you'd see that I am excited about the game, but that doesn't mean one can't point out potential issues or comments. Please come back with a well thought out logical argument backed with links preferably or even better, personal experience in the military.

[rumsteak]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by atacms:
If you've seen my posts you'd see that I am excited about the game, but that doesn't mean one can't point out potential issues or comments. Please come back with a well thought out logical argument backed with links preferably or even better, personal experience in the military. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...after all, this is the best time to point possible issues, irrealistic stuff etc..because the game is still UNDER DEVELOPMENT...

atcms rulles...ppl, lets gather some troops and send some tanks to conquer UBI and make atcms president (well not president, but some important job, like directing game developing..that would make some interesting games...and hei dont forget PC's!!)

[KJ_White]

unfortunatley i don't see anything changing, my understanding now is that they are just ironing out the flaws and polishing it up but not actually changing anything now.

[atacms]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KJ_White:
unfortunatley i don't see anything changing, my understanding now is that they are just ironing out the flaws and polishing it up but not actually changing anything now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[Da_Costa1982]

Hey SuarezB Unfortunatly I must give credit to atacms. I really wished they gave atacms some credit cause he clearly knows what he's saying. By the way to KJwhite as well cause it's true, I think that they are just polishing all that stuff by now.

Besides here's another unrealistic stuff me as someone that works with the conception of fisical space, find very strange the presented scenarios, cause the cities from now to the time the game is going to take place haven't changed a thing!!! I keep on mentioning this: the cities and fighting scenario don's even look like real cities at all (they look like boxes with really empty, clean and organized spaces around them)! There are a whole bunch of detailing work missing. We're talking about the near future that is also cool cause we can make alternative scenarios with visual references to the past. Hey I'm not even asking the devs to be sensitive enough to hire someone to conceptualize the built space, but man they completly screw up in this part. Bilal 20 years ago created a whole surrealistic Paris in a militarized future and he did that quite easlily by just changing some small stuff. In this case that doesn't happen. I would also advise the devs to check on movie "Children of Man" to notice the miltech of UK's army in a near future, as well how cities could present themselves in a falling decaing future! And by the way check on the movie "Enemy at the Gates" to see what a city engulfed in conventional warfare looks like after war (hell they didn't called it Ratzenkrieg (war of the rats) for nothing)! It's better this whole fighting maps really turn into swiss cheese rapidly otherwise the realism would loose (what in my opinion would really kill the game)...

[zsorrell]

I say shut the hell up. Its all about the gameplay. Are you going to complain to EA for unrealistic games? NO! Because they're fun. A little bit of unrealism can make things more fun sometimes. The project reality mod for BF2 sucks. I hope i have now ended this thread so i can continue my atacms thread.

[Mr.Hanky2005]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zsorrell:
I say shut the hell up. Its all about the gameplay. Are you going to complain to EA for unrealistic games? NO! Because they're fun. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, so do not tell people to "shut the hell up"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I hope i have now ended this thread so i can continue my atacms thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just because you think your opinion is better then everyone else's, does not entitle this discussion to be ended.

You have not "ended this thread".

[KJ_White]

go hanky! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

[GenEndWar]

Dude, first of all, the year is 2020, so some unrealistic aspects could be possible. And some things they need to change about real-life military to make the game more fun. This isn't really that far in the future anyway. And how much fun would the game be with invisible people? That's just stupid.

Just trust Ubisoft on their decisions, I'm sure they'll make this game great. I'm sure I'll be getting this game at the release.

[Da_Costa1982]

Hey I don't doubt the game is going to be great. I'm a many years old RTS "veteranum" so as gameplayer I'm a little qualified (as anyone really) to say that this game brings NEW stuff to the RTS scene. (not as much as I would like but still some very important that believe me are going to raise the bar on future developments).

I also say and please notice this that detailing is extremelly important to create a good environment as well as gameplay, and as a fan I'm just a little fustrated cause in six months time there will be no time to fix and use many stuff I and hundreds of others said in these forums. KJWhite is right! they're just triming some edges by now. Their focus in game play procedures (and they are right doing this!)


I second much stuff about miltech in the future that other members talk about in these foruns, hell and they have many more reasons to be pissed off (believe me!!!)The game as a Clancy seal of quality so in fact they better listen to these guys instead of me (although what I said in my opinion is not 100% rubish...). Well I just pity that, but hell the devs aren't superman. I'm just happy they made a breakthrough in the RTS universe. And they will do it!

[S.V.A.R.O.G.]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Da_Costa1982:

And by the way check on the movie "Enemy at the Gates" to see what a city engulfed in conventional warfare looks like after war (hell they didn't called it Ratzenkrieg (war of the rats) for nothing)!
... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oh, for the good of the game I hope it resembles nothing even remotely close to that... thing called "Enemy at the Gates".

[myrsnipe]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by S.V.A.R.O.G.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Da_Costa1982:

And by the way check on the movie "Enemy at the Gates" to see what a city engulfed in conventional warfare looks like after war (hell they didn't called it Ratzenkrieg (war of the rats) for nothing)!
... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oh, for the good of the game I hope it resembles nothing even remotely close to that... thing called "Enemy at the Gates". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, Stalingrad is a worst case scenario.

[atacms]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by S.V.A.R.O.G.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Da_Costa1982:

And by the way check on the movie "Enemy at the Gates" to see what a city engulfed in conventional warfare looks like after war (hell they didn't called it Ratzenkrieg (war of the rats) for nothing)!
... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oh, for the good of the game I hope it resembles nothing even remotely close to that... thing called "Enemy at the Gates". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why not, please explain?