Doesn't the orbital strike platform seem kind of weak?

[atacms]

"During our demo we saw infantry units ordered to take cover behind walls and engage other units holed up in buildings. The enemy will also use terrain as cover. Once the US forces in our demo captured more than half the map weapons of mass destruction became available. In this case the weapon was a kinetic rod strike from an orbital platform. This is called in on a building and in a few moments the building is no more. Each map is about one square mile in size."

This is from the Gamespy article. What's the deal with using an orbital platform only to just destroy one building?? I can tell you from what I've been following about the Rods from God, they wouldn't need an entire platform to just take out one building. For that, we could just use our current airstrikes or a few cruise missiles.

My concern is that the limitation of destructability from the superweapon is DIRECTLY tied to the size of maps. Because the maps are so small, then they have to limit the destructible effects.

Compare World in Conflict's nuke which at least takes out a couple of blocks and more than a few buildings complete with blast effects. Can't Endwar be beyond this? World In Conflicts maps are huge as is their horizon view which is why I think they're able to be more generous in terms of the effect of their superweapons.

This makes Endwar's immersion less than credible. Devs, any comments? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

[atacms]

"During our demo we saw infantry units ordered to take cover behind walls and engage other units holed up in buildings. The enemy will also use terrain as cover. Once the US forces in our demo captured more than half the map weapons of mass destruction became available. In this case the weapon was a kinetic rod strike from an orbital platform. This is called in on a building and in a few moments the building is no more. Each map is about one square mile in size."

This is from the Gamespy article. What's the deal with using an orbital platform only to just destroy one building?? I can tell you from what I've been following about the Rods from God, they wouldn't need an entire platform to just take out one building. For that, we could just use our current airstrikes or a few cruise missiles.

My concern is that the limitation of destructability from the superweapon is DIRECTLY tied to the size of maps. Because the maps are so small, then they have to limit the destructible effects.

Compare World in Conflict's nuke which at least takes out a couple of blocks and more than a few buildings complete with blast effects. Can't Endwar be beyond this? World In Conflicts maps are huge as is their horizon view which is why I think they're able to be more generous in terms of the effect of their superweapons.

This makes Endwar's immersion less than credible. Devs, any comments? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

[BTS_Thor_2]

Well this does seem very...how should I say bad, but it all depends how exactly big the maps are. I know it said one square mile for each map but what exactly does that mean in a video game. Are we going to be able to see an entire city or just something really scaled down something like Red Alert in which you could see entire cities and all the great land marks of them but the houses and other commericial buildings weren't all there. This could have a big affect on the game and "immersion" into the game, I mean you can love your troops all you want but if you dont feel like your on a real battlefeild whats the point?

[Mr.Hanky2005]

Well, it said kinetic. Which would mean no explosives. It would be a small area effect weapon. Also it said "in this case" So it's possible that there are high explosive types of warheads, availible for use.

I can give you some picture for better understanding.

Here is an M1A2 SABOT round, it uses purely kinetic energy. It is just a big steel rod

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/7/7f/193px-Sabot_separating.gif

That compared to a high explosive round such as this. It's the M1A2's HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) round.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m830_h2.jpg

Obviously the two are going to do two different levels of dammage.

P.S. The SABOT may looks flimsy but it pack a hell of a punch. This is from one M1A1 SABOT round.

http://www.chinalakealumni.org/IMAGES/2005/T-72%20Brimstone%2013OCT05%20PMT%20Range.jpg

[PrinceCaspian5]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mr.Hanky2005:
Well, it said kinetic. Which would mean no explosives. It would be a small area effect weapon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
actually the rods form god are supposed to have force about equal to a small nuke
i agree with atacms, if all they can do is take out one building, they are way too underpowered, even scaled down they should be able to take out at least one or 2 city blocks, it would be a waste if all it could do was take out one building, an artillery barrage could do a lot more for a lot less money

[atacms]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mr.Hanky2005:
Well, it said kinetic. Which would mean no explosives. It would be a small area effect weapon. Also it said "in this case" So it's possible that there are high explosive types of warheads, availible for use.

I can give you some picture for better understanding.

Here is an M1A2 SABOT round, it uses purely kinetic energy.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/7/7f/193px-Sabot_separating.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Mr. Hanky,

But the whole purpose of the Rods from God is that it's a pure kinetic strike that doesn't require explosives.

It's genesis began when the US Dept. of Defense wanted to take out what are called DHBT (or deeply buried and hardened targets) via non-nuclear means because the only way they could take out these targets would be with a nuclear strike.

The tungsten penetrators launched from space would be large enough and would have enough force (remember F=M/A) due to it's hypersonic velocity that its explosive potential would be derived strictly from a function of its speed and mass. It would literally disintegrate its target with related wind, blast and thermal effects minus the radiation of a nuke. Here's a pic so you can see that its size is definitely much larger than an APFSDS round from the M1 that you showed. http://img.timeinc.net/popsci/images/tech/tech0604rods_485x500.jpg

Here's a Popsci article: http://www.popsci.com/popsci/technology/generaltechnolo...0004eecbccdrcrd.html (http://www.popsci.com/popsci/technology/generaltechnology/df869aa138b84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html)

So that's why if this is THE game that will represent such a weapon for the first time, I'm surprised and disappointed that in the game demo that Gamespy saw, they only saw ONE building destroyed after using the orbital strike platform (or Rods from God).I can assure you, that at least in projected plans for the real weapon, it would take out more than ONE building, more like one entire base!

Finally if you want to read up more on the issue of the military's attempts to destroy DHBT targets you can check this out:
http://etd.gatech.edu/theses/available/etd-08252006-151...ell_c_200612_phd.pdf (http://etd.gatech.edu/theses/available/etd-08252006-151213/unrestricted/branscome_ewell_c_200612_phd.pdf)

Look at pp. 89, 140 and 181 for a synopsis of the issue. Enjoy!

I'm telling you M.DePlater and Ubisoft should have gotten me for some tech consulting (sorry for tooting my own horn).

[atacms]

Guys for those who've played World in Conflict, don't you think the destructibility of super weapons in Endwar should at least match if not EXCEED the power of that nuke minus the radiation?

It's said that a Rod from God would have the explosive impact as a decent sized meteorite.

What do you guys think?

[Zalen2005]

You have to consider the strategic implications in a game where the 'scale' is immediately prevelant. You probably don't play World in Conflict over the shoulder of an Infantry Platoon. i'm assuming that a tank or helo can't just blow a builing down with one volley, so the ability to just sink the building with the push of a button is pretty significant, strategically speaking from a gameplay perspective. I mean, if there's a unit there, you just instantly made an entire unit into marshmallow. That's a little more than 8% of your opponent's army that's now very very dead. And the rods from god are probably also not the only support weapon that Europe has. I'd certainly prefer a 'superweapon' that doesn't end the game with one well placed blast.

[BTS_Thor_2]

Thank you Mr. Hanky, but I understand how the Rods from God are supposed to act and that is why I was suprised that they could only take out one building. I've read up on alot about them recently and from my understand the rods are not only supposed to make a big boom but also to shake the ground like a very strong earthquake so for them to only take out one building is very unrealistic.

[AlphaDelta219]

well a very large, very fast moving kinetic projectile could in theory cause the damage of an explosive. go look at meteor craters. the crater can be thousands of times larger than the actual meteor.

[Mr.Hanky2005]

I stand corrected.

[PrinceCaspian5]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zalen2005:
i'm assuming that a tank or helo can't just blow a builing down with one volley, so the ability to just sink the building with the push of a button is pretty significant... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
true, but a good artillery barrage could probably take it down pretty quick
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zalen2005:
...And the rods from god are probably also not the only support weapon that Europe has. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
europe doesn't have them, the US does

[atacms]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zalen2005:
You have to consider the strategic implications in a game where the 'scale' is immediately prevelant. You probably don't play World in Conflict over the shoulder of an Infantry Platoon. i'm assuming that a tank or helo can't just blow a builing down with one volley, so the ability to just sink the building with the push of a button is pretty significant, strategically speaking from a gameplay perspective. I mean, if there's a unit there, you just instantly made an entire unit into marshmallow. That's a little more than 8% of your opponent's army that's now very very dead. And the rods from god are probably also not the only support weapon that Europe has. I'd certainly prefer a 'superweapon' that doesn't end the game with one well placed blast. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You make a good point and it's exactly the one that I'm making in a different way. Regarding World in Conflict, no you don't play over the shoulder of a single platoon, but still the impact of their nuke is much more powerful than a single block. It can have strategic implications, but doesn't end the game. What I'm suggesting is that the lethality of the orbital strike in Endwar and I'm sure other super weapons in ENDWAR are DIRECTLY limited to the "scale" of the map. World in Conflicts maps are HUGE, so they don't have artificial limitations like it appears it does in Endwar. So the fact that the map is SO small in Endwar is causing the developers to place arbitrarily limited and restricted parameters of how destructive the weapons are. Also I should point out that a special weapon (or superweapon as they say in RTS games) although they can be used for whatever situation you want, it makes sense that they be used in a "strategic" role, not a tactical one such as taking out a building. I don't want a superweapon that would end the game with one use, but it should definitely have more power than just a tactical application such as the destruction of 1 building.

The only time I would think taking out a single building would have strategic implications in war is if it had a HVT (or High Value Target) as the US did when they struck the Dora Farms in the beginning of the Iraq war in the hopes of taking out Saddam.

[BTS_Thor_2]

Theres a good point here. When you think about it imagine your 12 units and say you have 2 infantry supporting a tank unit then a rod from god comes and takes out 3 city blocks killing all those men and possibly some around them that would be a huge advantage and unfair one at that. Maybe having it not have such a huge kill radius is a good thing.

[PrinceCaspian5]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BTS_Thor_2:
Theres a good point here. When you think about it imagine your 12 units and say you have 2 infantry supporting a tank unit then a rod from god comes and takes out 3 city blocks killing all those men and possibly some around them that would be a huge advantage and unfair one at that. Maybe having it not have such a huge kill radius is a good thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
it isn't unfair because the enemy can do that to you as well, and when they have the opportunity to do that i am sure that they would

[KJ_White]

well you could be being mislead by the article, the strike is focused on a fortified building so maybe the article is too. this building may have had nothing near it and gamespy may just not care about what it did to its surrounds you have to remember these things that it's most likely in how they have written the article not the game itself.

[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:
well you could be being mislead by the article, the strike is focused on a fortified building so maybe the article is too. this building may have had nothing near it and gamespy may just not care about what it did to its surrounds you have to remember these things that it's most likely in how they have written the article not the game itself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I still think that the lethality of weapons and the distances they can fire are DIRECTLY tied into the size of the maps.

Too many games I've played before had this as a limitation and the physics calculations made the developers less than ambitious. I can think of Joint Task Force as one of those games. It had destructible environments and I asked the devs about allowing rubble to act as cover and they said that then the MAP would be littered with it and they'd have issues with PATHFINDING and AI in having to make new calculations on the fly. They also limited your view to a small portion of the map.

My point is the game wasn't tweaked and optimized enough to take advantage of high end PC's enabling long distance view, large destructble elements due to the amount of processor power and extra work they'd have to do with coding and pathfinding. I wonder if Endwar is also having this problem like Joint Task Force had in terms of limitations of processor power, pathfinding, graphics and physics calculations they'd have to do due to having a larger map with weapons that have larger lethality?

If Endwar talks of a MASSIVE battlefield (umm, is 1 sq km, MASSIVE??),
...and if Endwar talks of future warfare will they represent the weapons (like Rods from God)in an accurate fashion in terms not just of appearance(graphics), but also physics and a SOMEWHAT accurate representation of how TRULY lethal they'd be?

[atacms]

http://medialib.computerandvideogames.com/screens/screenshot_184220.jpg

Although not a screenshot of an orbital strike in action it does give more evidence of what I'm talking about the size of the maps AFFECTING the range of weapons and their lethality and how it STEALS away from the game's realism and immersion.

The helos have to come in close to hit the JSF Tank, despite the fact that you have a "semblance" of long distance view, it's limited to not even a block away. What's the advantage in using a helo when you could have used a grunt with an RPG with less chance of getting that helo shot down?

Accuracy and realism in Endwar should not just look at graphics, but accuracy in RANGE, LETHALITY, MOBILITY and PROTECTION of that particular unit.

Here's another example where it appears that units have to close in at knife fighting distance to take out their enemy.
http://media.1up.com/media?id=3319852&type=lg

And yet another one where you can see on the left side some M1's taking on Black Eagles. You can see that they are forced to fire so close from almost 1/4 of a block away. This has to do with the size of the map being so small.
http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/813/813722/tom-clancys-endwar-20070820040405937.jpg

SO these are all examples of why I think the lethality of the orbital weapons and ALL weapons in Endwar have short firing ranges and lethal effects due to the small map sizes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

[Mr.Hanky2005]

Atacms, If you didn't already know, an M1A2 can fire from a mile away on the move. Now how big are maps? 1 square mile. Do you want someone to be able to get an M1A2 and fire at you from there Base of Operations? Obviously the range has to be scaled down.

[atacms]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mr.Hanky2005:
Atacms, If you didn't already know, an M1A2 can fire from a mile away on the move. Now how big are maps? 1 square mile. Do you want someone to be able to get an M1A2 and fire at you from there Base of Operations? Obviously the range has to be scaled down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am a former Bradley infantryman who served with 3rd ID so I'm aware that the M1 can fire close to more than 1 mile away, that being said if the enemy in Endwar has clear line of sight I'm ok with getting shot at at that distance. You've just proved my point that the map is FORCING things to get scaled down and destroying immersion and realism that Tom Clancy games strive for and Endwar is advertising as immersive and a real battlefield experience as far as games go.

Make the map bigger, adjust the parameters and they will have solved more than a few issues:

realism in firing range of weapons (not a Comanche shooting a tank from 20 meters away!)
realism in lethality of weapons(as in the Rods from God)
immersion and demonstration of line of sight
expansive maps that truly make you feel like you're in the capitals of Washington, or Moscow or Paris.

If I get shot at from all the way from the enemy's base of operations, I'm assuming that there will be a few things:

1. countermeasures
2. push me to adapt real battlefield tactics such as mobility, camoflauge, combined arms, etc

and again it will demonstrate the true lethality of tomorrow's battlefields and the advanced technologies of 2020.

How many RTS games STILL show fighitng distances as IF they are WW2 weapons? How do weapons in Endwar then not be different from all those WW2 RTS games in terms of how close they shoot at each other? for that sake they might as well use Sherman tanks and bazookas rather than M1's and Javelin missiles.

This destroys the immersion and realism. I love the idea of this game and will get it, but I'm hoping they take these points into consideration in how it affects some of the key things UBISOFT has been advertising ENDWAR to be: a very immersive, pseudo-realistic, MASSIVE battlefield with WW3 weapons (weapons which should reflect close to accurate firing ranges, lethality, etc, otherwise you've got beautiful weapons BUT arcadey gameplay).

[Mr.Hanky2005]

I will agree that if there is a clear line of sight it should be possible. I also sent an email to the devs, asking them about somehting on this subject. Let's hope they answer my question. As it will answer the whole point of this thread. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[atacms]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mr.Hanky2005:
I will agree that if there is a clear line of sight it should be possible. I also sent an email to the devs, asking them about somehting on this subject. Let's hope they answer my question. As it will answer the whole point of this thread. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Mr. Hanky2005, I just don't want Endwar's gameplay to be arcadey due to map restrictions. Really appreciate you bringing the issue to their attention. http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

[atacms]

http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/790/790983/endwar-real-time-armageddon-20070522062859523.jpg

This might have been an orbital strike and if you look at the smoke plume and debris plus the explosive force one would HOPE that such a strike would take out more than that single building which seems to be engulfed in flames. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

A perfect example of the level of destruction from a weapon that had alot of force was shown in the movie Independence Day. The blast was focused on one building, the Empire State Building in NYC, yet the propagation of the blast forces, wind, thermal impact was impossible to be contained within that single building. Ok don't flame me, yes I know it's a movie, but the physics play out, you would not be able to take such an object with that kinetic force and limit the destruction within the footprint of that building.

[Mr.Hanky2005]

atacms, in that picture it looks as if there is a projectile at the helicopters 1 o'clock. It might be possible that, that particular building was not hit by a "Rod from God", but a rocket from the helpicopter or another unit off-screen.

[atacms]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mr.Hanky2005:
atacms, in that picture it looks as if there is a projectile at the helicopters 1 o'clock. It might be possible that, that particular building was not hit by a "Rod from God", but a rocket from the helpicopter or another unit off-screen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the more I look at that screen the more I think it IS a a Rod from God projectile strike because I can't imagine any tactical weapon causing so much plume and rubble to come up. Whatever it is, I think it would be silly if all it did was take out that single building.
QUestion for the devs, is that an orbital strike and will it only destroy that single building?

[PrinceCaspian5]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by atacms:
Actually the more I look at that screen the more I think it IS a a Rod from God projectile strike because I can't imagine any tactical weapon causing so much plume and rubble to come up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
it may not be an orbital strike, remember the rods from god aren't the only special weapon, there are bombs that could do way more damage then that, maybe that was an air strike

[KJ_White]

well the little pop up when holding the cursor over the image selector in the sreenies page on the us site says its a jsf superweapon for the screenie. but u may find that they've designed the maps so that the line of sight is kept to a minimum like in cities u have all the buildings and maybe in the country u have forest and hills blocking line of sight, so u may have a realistic range its just they keep lines of sight small, unlikely i kno but its an idea.

[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:
well the little pop up when holding the cursor over the image selector in the sreenies page on the us site says its a jsf superweapon for the screenie. but u may find that they've designed the maps so that the line of sight is kept to a minimum like in cities u have all the buildings and maybe in the country u have forest and hills blocking line of sight, so u may have a realistic range its just they keep lines of sight small, unlikely i kno but its an idea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


So then this may very well be the Rod from God superweapon. If they've made adjustments to the line of sight in cities, it doesn't make sense that they open it up ONLY in rural areas because it would negate any advantage of using "stand-off" or long range weapons in urban areas. If you follow the development of the FCS or Future Combat Systems, it's predicated on attriting the enemy with long range strikes prior to closing with them in close range battles. Hence the use of the PAM & LAM(Precision Attack Missile & Loitering Attack Munition) to attack targets from long range. Even the Excalibur GPS guided artillery round is being used in Iraq to take out insurgent strongholds within urban environments from more than 20km away! So this is what I'm saying they need to make the map bigger to allow for a true representation of today's weapons, that's not even talking about weapons the world will see in 2020.

C'mon UBISOFT don't just change the models/skins of tanks and still treat them in Endwar like we're still using WW2 weapons, OMG, if that's the case, what a lack of immersion!


UBISOFT said they're making a big deal about if it's in your line of sight and you have a weapon in range, then you're good to go.

[KJ_White]

good thinking, i'm thinking it is all related to line of sight too. lets hope it is, and it's not like how the rocket buggy's have a larger range than base defences in C&C generals and the scud truck can only fire about the same range as a ranger lol

[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:
good thinking, i'm thinking it is all related to line of sight too. lets hope it is, and it's not like how the rocket buggy's have a larger range than base defences in C&C generals and the scud truck can only fire about the same range as a ranger lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I'm afraid that it will be similar to C&C Generals' arcadey and unrealistic representation of how far weapons can fire.

Look at the pic here that I posted earlier: http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/902/902336/img_4817285.html

Are you telling me that's how close the helos have to be to fire at tanks? Is their line of sight that small and the range of the weapons so short?

[F94jh7duj]

<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 KJ_White:
good thinking, i'm thinking it is all related to line of sight too. lets hope it is, and it's not like how the rocket buggy's have a larger range than base defences in C&C generals and the scud truck can only fire about the same range as a ranger lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I'm afraid that it will be similar to C&C Generals' arcadey and unrealistic representation of how far weapons can fire.

Look at the pic here that I posted earlier: http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/902/902336/img_4817285.html

Are you telling me that's how close the helos have to be to fire at tanks? Is their line of sight that small and the range of the weapons so short? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The way the image looks I thinks so but remember that EndWar is not like any traditional RTS games known and it looks very revolutionary than any known RTS games.

[atacms]

JUst from the info they've released I can tell it will be VERY different and I love the WW3 setting in 2020 cause I love realistic future weapons, but I'm hoping it as the developer Mike DePlater said in an IGN video interview, "we're keeping what happens in the battlefield very realistic" so I hope that screenshot was a TERRIBLY bad representation of the range of the weapons, otherwise it CONTRADICTS his statement at least in that aspect.

[F94jh7duj]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by atacms:
JUst from the info they've released I can tell it will be VERY different and I love the WW3 setting in 2020 cause I love realistic future weapons, but I'm hoping it as the developer Mike DePlater said in an IGN video interview, "we're keeping what happens in the battlefield very realistic" so I hope that screenshot was a TERRIBLY bad representation of the range of the weapons, otherwise it CONTRADICTS his statement at least in that aspect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree

[KJ_White]

could be set up as an action shot, but for the helo to fire it needs direst line of sight unless its being lasered by someone on the ground, but yeah it is all a bit close especially with the helo's flying at such low altitude making them even more vunerable to even small arms fire, i wonder if in this game ur rifle men will be able to fire at the helo's if they are that low?

[dazaw05]

If ubisoft doesnt make the maps bigger then they're going to ruin a perfectly good game with great potental. I dont see why they don't listen, it is on nearly every forum page so i don't see why they dont do what everyone, the customers, want. Also in the trailer you can clearly see the Rod of God superweapon can easily take out more than a building. If in the game it doesn't have the ability to do what it does in the trailer then that will be another down point. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[xxjusticarxx]

The "massive" battlefield doesn't refer to the 1 square km pitch where you face off against an opponent; it's talking about the larger, persistent world battle.

[SkyRaptorRUS]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by atacms:
"During our demo we saw infantry units ordered to take cover behind walls and engage other units holed up in buildings. The enemy will also use terrain as cover. Once the US forces in our demo captured more than half the map weapons of mass destruction became available. In this case the weapon was a kinetic rod strike from an orbital platform. This is called in on a building and in a few moments the building is no more. Each map is about one square mile in size."

This is from the Gamespy article. What's the deal with using an orbital platform only to just destroy one building?? I can tell you from what I've been following about the Rods from God, they wouldn't need an entire platform to just take out one building. For that, we could just use our current airstrikes or a few cruise missiles.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybee the building was very big http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
But this is really strange and bad...in EndWar trialer we see how few cinetic missiles destroy the whole Pris... and here - only 1 building.
and the developers said they wont the game to play the same way as in the rendered movies in all other RTS games...
Lets just hope for the future.


P.S. If I'm correct, Russia uses nuclear missiles in EndWar. I hope those nukes will be POWERFULL ENOUGH to blow up two buildings http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

[KJ_White]

maybe the building was the louve http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif i've probs spelt it incorrect my bad on that