quote:

Originally posted by LostSplinter:
Endwar is in the future, you're talking about the present. No one knows what can happen in the future and until you have a time machine that can prove otherwise, that's our specialty.

You mean you didn't get the memo that I DO have a time machine? Cmon get with the program, lol.

Seriously though, I don't assume to know the future and your above statement is obvious. That being said, much of the game is based on a detailed analysis and extrapolation of CURRENT trends both in geopolitical events AND weapon programs and research, so following that same analysis, I've made that assumption & bearing 50 years of leading the world in weapons research both in sheer funding and the number of programs for weapons, I think it's SAFE to say I've made an EDUCATED argument.

quote:

Originally posted by DukeCanada:
I understand and completely agree with you. For example look at the terrorist cells in the middle east. They are not technologically advanced yet they still have the capacity to hurt the most powerful army in the world.

If more then a few devices were taken from America I would also be angry. Even though I am EF I do cherish the fact that there is a sense of realism in the game and I dont really want to disturb that "sense".

Anyways I think the Devs are doing well. They even tell us what techs are in and not in the game. I think that deserves some props

Well the only thing I find sorta....I uno what word is to describe it.... ou dotn need alot to hurt avery powerful army with guerilla tactics, please dont say such things I mean the US army is not waging a total war, so :P if they were iraq would have been razed to the ground by now and the war would be over.

And with Atacams, I totally agree with ye :P

quote:

Originally posted by atacms:
You mean you didn't get the memo that I DO have a time machine? Cmon get with the program, lol.

Seriously though, I don't assume to know the future and your above statement is obvious. That being said, much of the game is based on a detailed analysis and extrapolation of CURRENT trends both in geopolitical events AND weapon programs and research, so following that same analysis, I've made that assumption & bearing 50 years of leading the world in weapons research both in sheer funding and the number of programs for weapons, I think it's SAFE to say I've made an EDUCATED argument.

You’re trying to draw parallels to a futuristic game based on outdated facts. It would be a fair assessment if there wasn’t such a radical change from the world we live in.

In my understanding, the European Federation has taken upon itself to increase control over its populace using a Big Brother mentality. This is why they are better at handling city battles and taking control of buildings and checkpoints. Assuming that the government isn’t completely evil and its intentions are nothing more than to secure the safety of its citizens, it isn’t unreasonable to think that they may have increased research funding into non-lethal in order discourage retaliation in a less lethal matter. People with dead friends would be more likely to rebel against its government than one with a bruised friends.

Cluster munitions are an American soldier’s best friend. Deadly, powerful and completely proficient at destroying absolutely everything it isn’t area. I have no knowledge of how the WMD in game will work but I am more than certain that the rod will be just as proficient at destroying absolutely everything in its vicinity as its current counterpart. Why use lasers to destroy one large target when you can use a missile to destroy hundreds of targets? The rod is simply a more viable weapon and there’s no reason to use lasers unless you’re trying to be precise. The kind of precision needed to stop civilian causality in a city while still destroying a threat...

quote:

Originally posted by LostSplinter:

quote:

Originally posted by atacms:
You mean you didn't get the memo that I DO have a time machine? Cmon get with the program, lol.

Seriously though, I don't assume to know the future and your above statement is obvious. That being said, much of the game is based on a detailed analysis and extrapolation of CURRENT trends both in geopolitical events AND weapon programs and research, so following that same analysis, I've made that assumption & bearing 50 years of leading the world in weapons research both in sheer funding and the number of programs for weapons, I think it's SAFE to say I've made an EDUCATED argument.

You’re trying to draw parallels to a futuristic game based on outdated facts. It would be a fair assessment if there wasn’t such a radical change from the world we live in.

In my understanding, the European Federation has taken upon itself to increase control over its populace using a Big Brother mentality. This is why they are better at handling city battles and taking control of buildings and checkpoints. Assuming that the government isn’t completely evil and its intentions are nothing more than to secure the safety of its citizens, it isn’t unreasonable to think that they may have increased research funding into non-lethal in order discourage retaliation in a less lethal matter. People with dead friends would be more likely to rebel against its government than one with a bruised friends.

Cluster munitions are an American soldier’s best friend. Deadly, powerful and completely proficient at destroying absolutely everything it isn’t area. I have no knowledge of how the WMD in game will work but I am more than certain that the rod will be just as proficient at destroying absolutely everything in its vicinity as its current counterpart. Why use lasers to destroy one large target when you can use a missile to destroy hundreds of targets? The rod is simply a more viable weapon and there’s no reason to use lasers unless you’re trying to be precise. The kind of precision needed to stop civilian causality in a city while still destroying a threat...

You make an excellent argument for why the EF would want to invest in non-lethals together with DE, due to the need to reduce collateral damage. That being said, there is NO country currently (and the trend is accelerating not decelerating) that beats the US in terms of weapons research, actual working prototypes and DEPLOYED weapons whose sole reason for existence IS the reduction of collateral damage.

Examples: LCDB - I believe that's the acronym, it stands for Low Collateral Damage Bomb - a munition with less explosive fill and the aim to reduce shrapnel flying at a far distance. One would imagine that the only legitimate reason for something like this is that you DON't want to hurt innocents.

Got to get on a plane, but we can finish this later, you do make a good point however with the urbran warfare scenario.

You guys think POW's will take account in this game? I mean, if EF are pimping the non-lethal weapons to halt the enemy. Do you think you can capture and ransome some of the more experienced units of the enemy? Or you think people won't care enough to spend money/resources or however this game works with points for them?

(Sorry if this was brought up, didn't search for it. I just figured it also works under this topic since the EF have the non lethals and it might make sense.

quote:

Originally posted by Joker_Of_Hearts:
You guys think POW's will take account in this game? I mean, if EF are pimping the non-lethal weapons to halt the enemy. Do you think you can capture and ransome some of the more experienced units of the enemy? Or you think people won't care enough to spend money/resources or however this game works with points for them?

(Sorry if this was brought up, didn't search for it. I just figured it also works under this topic since the EF have the non lethals and it might make sense.

I WISH and HOPE that is the case as otherwise, having non-lethals makes NO sense in the game. Let's hope it has a true gameplay value rather than being a gimmick.

Maybe it just means disabling weapons such as EMP's that disable radio communications or whatever. Or is that electronic warfare?

Man, we've been discussing this for so long, and FINALLY you make a thread on it. Haha. Yes, it really isa quite annoying how they are getting all of our tech.

quote:

Originally posted by aznpwnerp:
Man, we've been discussing this for so long, and FINALLY you make a thread on it. Haha. Yes, it really isa quite annoying how they are getting all of our tech.

Didn't you see when I made this thread? All the way back in August of LAST year!

There is NOTHING similar in any European army that I'm aware of.

The XM1063 will "suppress, disperse or engage personnel" and "deny personnel access to, use of, or movement through a particular area, point or facility.

quote:

Originally posted by atacms:

quote:

Originally posted by aznpwnerp:
Man, we've been discussing this for so long, and FINALLY you make a thread on it. Haha. Yes, it really isa quite annoying how they are getting all of our tech.

Didn't you see when I made this thread? All the way back in August of LAST year!

Well, I meant reviving it.

Unless they change a lot from the beta, the EUC doesn't even have non-lethal stuff, just like the JSF doesn't have any stealth stuff. (Riflemen don't count as stealth)

8|

I agree with atacms as it stands now, Us should get their stuff and the Euro's should get theirs (although I'll miss my microwaving).

The entire faction specific upgrades seem kind of a gimmick as of now since non was really "feel-able" and showing off different playstyles that worked.

They'd have to revamp almost everything though, and I can just feel de arcade dripping of it as of now and having this feeling they won't do it.

And if euros are so urban (information gathering nd stuff) why don't we have faster infanftry able to clear buildins at low levels and getting more defensen inside or possibly even ambushes, better spy probes, sattelite imagery, th e works.

They don't have to be upgrades but could just be stuff to be context sensitive order (ie, ambushing from a building)

Bottom point: Give the U.S.A. their TECH, and give all sides some really faction specific stuff.

EF - Information and fast warfare

JSF - High tech(drones) and stealth

Russia - Hard hitting power and damage upgrades (pure utter bluntness/sledgehammerness but already implied from what I've seen, level 7 att for infantry I believe ???)

well i'm really not sure what to say about this

on one hand, the JSF would fit with Drone technology (the MQ-1C warrior for example) and stealth technology is also on their side (F-117 nighthawk for another example) so suddenly swapping the europeans to that would kind of still keep this argument going but the other way around.

while on the otherhand, the JSF do have the current lead in laser tech.

i know this is an EXTREME longshot, but how about we go making our own little piece of the storyline to how this all happened, for a base example:

---
The US government, keen with the success of UAV and other more "safe" options for troops (especially in the current climate of tension on Iraq with casualties and so forth) decided to redirect funding from laser technology because A: a UAV is significantly less in cost to produce than laser based weaponry (including fuel,transportation)and practicality (deployment times ect ect)

now the Europeans, not so advanced when it comes to this, take a keen interest in Laser technology, after all the American goverment would not be to withdrawn in sharing this technology, as it's all defensive weaponry, and the Europeans figured they could adapt it to keep up in the Arms race,(which the US has a fair lead in currently in my opinion)

one of the European researchers has a "eureka moment" and creates an adaptation of the first fully functioning offensive Laser weapon that could be deployed in combat and ran efficiently, this expansion on this research continues to grow and grow till BAM the Europeans are the leaders of Laser based weaponry, while the JSF, having focused on other technologies, easily outgun in Drone Stealth and a variety of other technology the Laser research funding provided.

---

I will be honest, this was made up in about 2 minutes in my head, it's a shell of an idea explain the idea i had, if anyone wants to create a new one, upgrade the above one or anything, go right ahead
-
Ding (now has a headache and needs caffiene)

Well this is V. interesting here, I can flip turn your whole argument.

Why isnt EUC getting drones as well as non lethal weapons?

The reason why EUC would develop Non-lethal weaponry (lol)

Why isn't Europe getting Drones?

quote:

Originally posted by UK_Will:
Well this is V. interesting here, I can flip turn your whole argument.

Why isnt EUC getting drones as well as non lethal weapons?

The reason why EUC would develop Non-lethal weaponry (lol)

Why isn't Europe getting Drones?

Well despite dingbat's good attempt as to why the EF wouldn't have drones and the JSF would, the point is the EF DOES get drones in the game. They also have some stealth, so my issue is notwithstanding the claim that each faction gets specific technology, the JSF DOESN'T get any tech that is ONLY for the JSF.

The stealth and robotics tech is ALSO something that the EF has, HOWEVER, the EF is the ONLY faction with access to non-lethals and directed energy weapons.

That's a big inconsistency especially when you consider the things I've mentioned about the research.

Anyway, like I said I know that the reason that the devs did it for balancing in theory, however in practice it leads to an imbalance because there are certain techs that one faction has exclusively , while the other (the JSF) doesn't have that tech.

quote:

Originally posted by atacms:

quote:

Originally posted by UK_Will:
Well this is V. interesting here, I can flip turn your whole argument.

Why isnt EUC getting drones as well as non lethal weapons?

The reason why EUC would develop Non-lethal weaponry (lol)

Why isn't Europe getting Drones?

Well despite dingbat's good attempt as to why the EF wouldn't have drones and the JSF would, the point is the EF DOES get drones in the game. They also have some stealth, so my issue is notwithstanding the claim that each faction gets specific technology, the JSF DOESN'T get any tech that is ONLY for the JSF.

The stealth and robotics tech is ALSO something that the EF has, HOWEVER, the EF is the ONLY faction with access to non-lethals and directed energy weapons.

That's a big inconsistency especially when you consider the things I've mentioned about the research.

Anyway, like I said I know that the reason that the devs did it for balancing in theory, however in practice it leads to an imbalance because there are certain techs that one faction has exclusively , while the other (the JSF) doesn't have that tech.

well i can't argue against that , it does lead to a visible imbalance in that sense, but i cannot really see the whole picture because i have not experience with the game, it may have been balanced out in some way only the private beta testers have seen, and us unlucky enough not to have participated are (and will most likely stay till stress test/release due to the NDA) totally oblivious to a lot of the in-game balancing mechanics.

so for now, on our current viewpoint, yes it looks horribly imbalanced that the EF get access to Stealth and drone technology (though i am unsure if EF should have a lesser form of drones, they do currently have Predator UAVs and would most likely continue to use them, though i doubt they would be nearly as effective as current Endwar tech drones) while lasers are locked away from the JSF...

-
Ding

It's a result of the devs looking at what Europe is currently pursuing in terms of military tactics and strategy. For example the Dutch concept of the so called "inkblot" in COIN ops(which is actually pretty old and was AFAIK first used in Indonesia, albeit it in a more violent form)and the EU focus on urban warfare(several of the largest MOUT training facilities in the world are located in the EU, for example Marnehuizen in The Netherlands, which emulates an entire town, complete with sewage systems etc.)
It's pretty much a logical extrapolation, Seeing as EF that soley focussed on information warfare instead of something that also gives a acute/instant battlefield edge over your opponent, like what the russians and the JSF have, would be grossly underpowered.

[/QUOTE]

Well the only thing I find sorta....I uno what word is to describe it.... ou dotn need alot to hurt avery powerful army with guerilla tactics, please dont say such things I mean the US army is not waging a total war, so :P if they were iraq would have been razed to the ground by now and the war would be over.

And with Atacams, I totally agree with ye :P[/QUOTE]


they didnt raze iraq to the ground cause there is still oil to be found in that land
heck, they wouldnt even be in iraq if it wasnt for the oil.

Eruope never really believed in killing, from watching futureweapons.