I'm dissapointed

[Pat (ty cake)]

I've really tried to love this installment as an improvement upon the first game, but I find myself really frustrated with the new systems. I feel like the weapons are so limited and their stats all seem so similar. How am I supposed to gauge fire rate and damage? The graphs it shows seem really unhelpful. It's hard to tell what's going to be better, what's going to have attachment options, and why I should aim for unlocking new weapons with almost identical stats, unlike Door Kickers 1. The first game also had units with clear differences in their weapons choices and abilities, but now all of the units have limited weapons, few tempt me to try them out, and the differences they do have feel like after-thoughts. Sure, the grenadier has a grenade launcher on their rifles, but any unit can have seven frag grenades, and the support has an LMG but anyone can equip a wall charge. The differences between the army, CIA, and SWAT seem forced, too. On top of that, if I'm trying to do a SWAT mission, I don't want to use a militia to do it; it doesn't feel as cool as I want it to. I want to have blacked out guys in tactical gear, vector smgs to clear hallways and rooms, and shields that feel badass, but the game forces me to use a generic and unspecialized force.

I'm also discouraged by how difficult it is to keep my units alive. I played through the whole first game and loved it, but the difficulty in this one seems artificial. The missions also aren't as creative and don't do as good of a job guiding you and improving you, which is needed even if you played the first Door Kickers years ago.

I feel like the first game is such a high bar that it couldn't have been improved and expanded. I have such a drive to play these games again, but I think I'll just have to go back to the original to get my fix. I think Door Kickers 1 was a masterpiece, and I feel like Door Kickers 2 can never be as fun.

[The Rach]

So from what I'm reading the game is not what you wish it to be?

1. For starters what you mentioned about the differences in the factions. Of course they're different, what would be the point of having multiple different groups if they all played the exact same? CIA utilises the undercover mechanism, approaching with stealth and using ponchos to conceal your black ops in case the undercover are blown. Rangers are the shock and awe, lots of long range firepower and heavy ordinance. SWAT are close quarters and utilise shields. If everything was the same might as well have been rangers all the way.

2. The game never forces you to use a specific group, you can switch at any point and use whatever faction for whatever mission. And personally I'm glad SWAT in this isn't a tactical uber team, I like the more ragtag 3rd world country police force that it is, it makes me use different tactics and methods to approach each mission. Militia is such a wonderful tool, you can have more of em and you can use them to suppress entire locations.

3. Sure everyone can equip a wall charge, but can everyone use a SAW and suppressing fire a doorway while the closer range units move up un-accosted? Can every unit fire a grenade into a precise spot with out having to make themselves vulnerable? Can every unit take down hostiles from long range with impunity? NO, every unit has its use and their kit is reflective of this.

4. This game the enemies are realistic in that they are somewhat competent, your not fighting crackhead joe like the first game, here you're fighting an insurgent force, they are fanatics and not exactly ♥♥♥♥. I find planning and prep make the day in this game which is what door kickers is all about!

5. I have found the different weapons are more or less cosmetic as a good plan is always gonna win, so long as you have units deployed and applied properly you will always come out on top.

I was following what you were saying until I read "as cool as I want it to be" which is kinda silly to critique and put down this game based around something as basic as that, in essence you don't like the swat faction and the graphs are confusing. You have a hard time grasping the different classes and how they work which is understandable. In essence this game just isn't for you and that's fine.

[axios2006]

Hi,

don't understanding if it's a review (that you already posted, so it's a duplicate in the wrong section), an opinion or a prone to flame rant... Anyway...

Originally posted by Pat (ty cake):

I've really tried to love this installment as an improvement upon the first game, but I find myself really frustrated with the new systems. I feel like the weapons are so limited and their stats all seem so similar.

Limited? From 9mm pistols to Uzi, from Mp5 to M16, from light machines guns to RPG... It's definitely a personal opinion that weapons are "limited". Also, these are the weapons normally used by Rangers, Cia and local SWAT... So, quite realistic.

Originally posted by Pat (ty cake):

How am I supposed to gauge fire rate and damage? The graphs it shows seem really unhelpful.

An RPG rocket give surely more damage than a 9mm bullet. Like a box fed LMG with 200 rounds and automatic fire has more fire rate than a single action gun...

Originally posted by Pat (ty cake):

It's hard to tell what's going to be better, what's going to have attachment options, and why I should aim for unlocking new weapons with almost identical stats, unlike Door Kickers 1.

Almost identical? So a short barreled UZI has the same stats of an Mp5? Can you provide examples or are only generic sentences?

Originally posted by Pat (ty cake):

The first game also had units with clear differences in their weapons choices and abilities, but now all of the units have limited weapons, few tempt me to try them out, and the differences they do have feel like after-thoughts. Sure, the grenadier has a grenade launcher on their rifles, but any unit can have seven frag grenades, and the support has an LMG but anyone can equip a wall charge. The differences between the army, CIA, and SWAT seem forced, too.

No differences? A marksman with a sniper rifle doesn't feel different from a support with a light machine gun? Undercover Cia operator seems equal to a militia sapper? If you feel this way...

Originally posted by Pat (ty cake):

On top of that, if I'm trying to do a SWAT mission, I don't want to use a militia to do it; it doesn't feel as cool as I want it to.

In this game the militia IS the local SWAT... If for you it's not cool... definitely your perception...

Originally posted by Pat (ty cake):

I want to have blacked out guys in tactical gear, vector smgs to clear hallways and rooms, and shields that feel badass, but the game forces me to use a generic and unspecialized force.

Shields doesn't protect you from rifle bullets, RPG or grenades...

Originally posted by Pat (ty cake):

I'm also discouraged by how difficult it is to keep my units alive. I played through the whole first game and loved it, but the difficulty in this one seems artificial.

Have you considered to watch some videos on YouTube? Considerig how many missions are completed with 3 stars, doesn't seems difficult to keep units alive...

Originally posted by Pat (ty cake):

The missions also aren't as creative and don't do as good of a job guiding you and improving you, which is needed even if you played the first Door Kickers years ago.

The large maps with several buildings and open spaces are not creatives enough? NThese large maps were already in DK1: Police Precint, St. George Hospital, Fire Station, Train Staton, Cruise boat.

Originally posted by Pat (ty cake):

I feel like the first game is such a high bar that it couldn't have been improved and expanded. I have such a drive to play these games again, but I think I'll just have to go back to the original to get my fix. I think Door Kickers 1 was a masterpiece, and I feel like Door Kickers 2 can never be as fun.

Your comfort zone is DK1? Totally ok. Only don't understanding the meaning of this post... What do you expected to obtain?

[Cursed Hawkins]

Originally posted by The Rach:

So from what I'm reading the game is not what you wish it to be?

1. For starters what you mentioned about the differences in the factions. Of course they're different, what would be the point of having multiple different groups if they all played the exact same? CIA utilises the undercover mechanism, approaching with stealth and using ponchos to conceal your black ops in case the undercover are blown. Rangers are the shock and awe, lots of long range firepower and heavy ordinance. SWAT are close quarters and utilise shields. If everything was the same might as well have been rangers all the way.

2. The game never forces you to use a specific group, you can switch at any point and use whatever faction for whatever mission. And personally I'm glad SWAT in this isn't a tactical uber team, I like the more ragtag 3rd world country police force that it is, it makes me use different tactics and methods to approach each mission. Militia is such a wonderful tool, you can have more of em and you can use them to suppress entire locations.

3. Sure everyone can equip a wall charge, but can everyone use a SAW and suppressing fire a doorway while the closer range units move up un-accosted? Can every unit fire a grenade into a precise spot with out having to make themselves vulnerable? Can every unit take down hostiles from long range with impunity? NO, every unit has its use and their kit is reflective of this.

4. This game the enemies are realistic in that they are somewhat competent, your not fighting crackhead joe like the first game, here you're fighting an insurgent force, they are fanatics and not exactly ♥♥♥♥. I find planning and prep make the day in this game which is what door kickers is all about!

5. I have found the different weapons are more or less cosmetic as a good plan is always gonna win, so long as you have units deployed and applied properly you will always come out on top.

I was following what you were saying until I read "as cool as I want it to be" which is kinda silly to critique and put down this game based around something as basic as that, in essence you don't like the swat faction and the graphs are confusing. You have a hard time grasping the different classes and how they work which is understandable. In essence this game just isn't for you and that's fine.

Originally posted by axios2006:

Hi,

don't understanding if it's a review (that you already posted, so it's a duplicate in the wrong section), an opinion or a prone to flame rant... Anyway...

Originally posted by Pat (ty cake):

I've really tried to love this installment as an improvement upon the first game, but I find myself really frustrated with the new systems. I feel like the weapons are so limited and their stats all seem so similar.

Limited? From 9mm pistols to Uzi, from Mp5 to M16, from light machines guns to RPG... It's definitely a personal opinion that weapons are "limited". Also, these are the weapons normally used by Rangers, Cia and local SWAT... So, quite realistic.

Originally posted by Pat (ty cake):

How am I supposed to gauge fire rate and damage? The graphs it shows seem really unhelpful.

An RPG rocket give surely more damage than a 9mm bullet. Like a box fed LMG with 200 rounds and automatic fire has more fire rate than a single action gun...

Originally posted by Pat (ty cake):

It's hard to tell what's going to be better, what's going to have attachment options, and why I should aim for unlocking new weapons with almost identical stats, unlike Door Kickers 1.

Almost identical? So a short barreled UZI has the same stats of an Mp5? Can you provide examples or are only generic sentences?

Originally posted by Pat (ty cake):

The first game also had units with clear differences in their weapons choices and abilities, but now all of the units have limited weapons, few tempt me to try them out, and the differences they do have feel like after-thoughts. Sure, the grenadier has a grenade launcher on their rifles, but any unit can have seven frag grenades, and the support has an LMG but anyone can equip a wall charge. The differences between the army, CIA, and SWAT seem forced, too.

No differences? A marksman with a sniper rifle doesn't feel different from a support with a light machine gun? Undercover Cia operator seems equal to a militia sapper? If you feel this way...

Originally posted by Pat (ty cake):

On top of that, if I'm trying to do a SWAT mission, I don't want to use a militia to do it; it doesn't feel as cool as I want it to.

In this game the militia IS the local SWAT... If for you it's not cool... definitely your perception...

Originally posted by Pat (ty cake):

I want to have blacked out guys in tactical gear, vector smgs to clear hallways and rooms, and shields that feel badass, but the game forces me to use a generic and unspecialized force.

Shields doesn't protect you from rifle bullets, RPG or grenades...

Originally posted by Pat (ty cake):

I'm also discouraged by how difficult it is to keep my units alive. I played through the whole first game and loved it, but the difficulty in this one seems artificial.

Have you considered to watch some videos on YouTube? Considerig how many missions are completed with 3 stars, doesn't seems difficult to keep units alive...

Originally posted by Pat (ty cake):

The missions also aren't as creative and don't do as good of a job guiding you and improving you, which is needed even if you played the first Door Kickers years ago.

The large maps with several buildings and open spaces are not creatives enough? NThese large maps were already in DK1: Police Precint, St. George Hospital, Fire Station, Train Staton, Cruise boat.

Originally posted by Pat (ty cake):

I feel like the first game is such a high bar that it couldn't have been improved and expanded. I have such a drive to play these games again, but I think I'll just have to go back to the original to get my fix. I think Door Kickers 1 was a masterpiece, and I feel like Door Kickers 2 can never be as fun.

Your comfort zone is DK1? Totally ok. Only don't understanding the meaning of this post... What do you expected to obtain?

Surprised the both of you were able to even read that wall of text they built.

[IvantheFormidable]

Originally posted by Pat (ty cake):

I want to have blacked out guys in tactical gear, vector smgs to clear hallways and rooms, and shields that feel badass, but the game forces me to use a generic and unspecialized force.

Then grab the Rangers and steam roll those levels. Nothing is stopping you there.

[Cursed Hawkins]

Originally posted by IvantheFormidable:

Originally posted by Pat (ty cake):

I want to have blacked out guys in tactical gear, vector smgs to clear hallways and rooms, and shields that feel badass, but the game forces me to use a generic and unspecialized force.

Then grab the Rangers and steam roll those levels. Nothing is stopping you there.

They even did a negative review... god this OP is just sad at this point.
https://steamcommunity.com/id/jmtc3man/recommended/1239080/

[JTFVigilCommander - NATO Command]

The one thing I will agree with is the three graphs used for accuracy, critical hit chance and whatever the other one is (can't remember) are not simple to read and understand. Are they impossible to read? No. But the goal of a UI is to make it fast and accessible. If there was an example, or simply more information it would be a little easier to follow along, particularly for new players, not everyone is a firearm enthusiast.

Besides that this game kicks ass, and I love the new update. I don't even do the missions, I just hop into the mission generator and do the biggest levels I can. I look forward to them adding more, I had more fun with this title than I originally anticipated.

[EvathCebor]

Originally posted by Cursed Hawkins:

Originally posted by IvantheFormidable:

Then grab the Rangers and steam roll those levels. Nothing is stopping you there.

They even did a negative review... god this OP is just sad at this point.
https://steamcommunity.com/id/jmtc3man/recommended/1239080/

The problem with Steam forums is it feels like fans hideouts. You have to love what you buy otherwise you're considered sad or whatever, because here, only positives and hype are allowed, cuz the people here like the product, and can't bear that someone else does not.

If he's disappointed, he's right to write a review about it. That's what reviews are for. It's review section, not advertising section. He loved the first one, bought the sequel, gave it a fair chance, didn't like it and say it. Fine by me.

The guy's not a troll. He's even a Door Kickers player AND lover. He's disappointed, that's his right, there's nothing sad about it, for god's sake.

I like the game (even if I'm here for the campaigns, the permadeath, the squad upgrades and so on, and can't enjoy the game as I'd like to until the 1.0 release), though his critics are VERY valid and well thought. Game feels harsher than the first one, by miles away, even for a franchise veteran. The fact that the game is still Early Access and just a map pack of missions might be one of the many reasons the game lacks the "step by step progression" and feeling of comfort the OP is searching for. Some of the UI does not help either - it is very easy to miss and/or misunderstand stuff, even if you're not a newbie.

Please apologize my english.

[axios2006]

Originally posted by EvathCebor:

Originally posted by Cursed Hawkins:

They even did a negative review... god this OP is just sad at this point.
https://steamcommunity.com/id/jmtc3man/recommended/1239080/

The problem with Steam forums is it feels like fans hideouts. You have to love what you buy otherwise you're considered sad or whatever, because here, only positives and hype are allowed, cuz the people here like the product, and can't bear that someone else does not.

If he's disappointed, he's right to write a review about it. That's what reviews are for. It's review section, not advertising section. He loved the first one, bought the sequel, gave it a fair chance, didn't like it and say it. Fine by me.

The guy's not a troll. He's even a Door Kickers player AND lover. He's disappointed, that's his right, there's nothing sad about it, for god's sake.

I like the game (even if I'm here for the campaigns, the permadeath, the squad upgrades and so on, and can't enjoy the game as I'd like to until the 1.0 release), though his critics are VERY valid and well thought. Game feels harsher than the first one, by miles away, even for a franchise veteran. The fact that the game is still Early Access and just a map pack of missions might be one of the many reasons the game lacks the "step by step progression" and feeling of comfort the OP is searching for. Some of the UI does not help either - it is very easy to miss and/or misunderstand stuff, even if you're not a newbie.

Please apologize my english.

The OP provided a rant. Not a single line of constructive feedback.

"I feel like the weapons are so limited and their stats all seem so similar. How am I supposed to gauge fire rate and damage" Opinion, not a fact.

"The differences between the army, CIA, and SWAT seem forced, too." Opinion, not a fact. Totally different mechanics.

"The missions also aren't as creative" Opinion, not a fact.

Just a pointless copy of his review.

Also, about the game is "just a map pack of missions"... there are already more than 70 missions... nearly a complete game except campaigns...

[The Rach]

Originally posted by EvathCebor:

Originally posted by Cursed Hawkins:

They even did a negative review... god this OP is just sad at this point.
https://steamcommunity.com/id/jmtc3man/recommended/1239080/

The problem with Steam forums is it feels like fans hideouts. You have to love what you buy otherwise you're considered sad or whatever, because here, only positives and hype are allowed, cuz the people here like the product, and can't bear that someone else does not.

If he's disappointed, he's right to write a review about it. That's what reviews are for. It's review section, not advertising section. He loved the first one, bought the sequel, gave it a fair chance, didn't like it and say it. Fine by me.

The guy's not a troll. He's even a Door Kickers player AND lover. He's disappointed, that's his right, there's nothing sad about it, for god's sake.

I like the game (even if I'm here for the campaigns, the permadeath, the squad upgrades and so on, and can't enjoy the game as I'd like to until the 1.0 release), though his critics are VERY valid and well thought. Game feels harsher than the first one, by miles away, even for a franchise veteran. The fact that the game is still Early Access and just a map pack of missions might be one of the many reasons the game lacks the "step by step progression" and feeling of comfort the OP is searching for. Some of the UI does not help either - it is very easy to miss and/or misunderstand stuff, even if you're not a newbie.

Please apologize my english.

Writing a review is absolutely their prerogative, as is this post, whether its sad or not is ultimately up too the individual who reads what they say, as they have the right to view the person how they want.

I don't believe they're a troll however I do believe that them posting a review and then essentially duplicating the sentiment here is odd. A review with little hours invested, many opinions on the game that are not factual flaws, as well as it now feeling like they wanted to rally or validate their opinions on the game. Also they have not once responded in this forum post too any of the responses like mine and axios' which detail where their 'criticisms' are more or less not true or misguided.

Imo when someone makes a post in the forum that generally goes against the well accepted view of the game and then doesn't even try to defend their point it starts to sound like a flame or rant post. I also find it rather sad that they made a review with so little information about the game due to lack of playtime and mostly opinions.

If they had genuine criticisms about bugs, maybe some difficulty elements that the devs could work with and improve then for sure I would simply comment and move on. But people are not appreciative of random complaint posts and what feels almost like bait.

[Cursed Hawkins]

Originally posted by The Rach:

Originally posted by EvathCebor:

The problem with Steam forums is it feels like fans hideouts. You have to love what you buy otherwise you're considered sad or whatever, because here, only positives and hype are allowed, cuz the people here like the product, and can't bear that someone else does not.

If he's disappointed, he's right to write a review about it. That's what reviews are for. It's review section, not advertising section. He loved the first one, bought the sequel, gave it a fair chance, didn't like it and say it. Fine by me.

The guy's not a troll. He's even a Door Kickers player AND lover. He's disappointed, that's his right, there's nothing sad about it, for god's sake.

I like the game (even if I'm here for the campaigns, the permadeath, the squad upgrades and so on, and can't enjoy the game as I'd like to until the 1.0 release), though his critics are VERY valid and well thought. Game feels harsher than the first one, by miles away, even for a franchise veteran. The fact that the game is still Early Access and just a map pack of missions might be one of the many reasons the game lacks the "step by step progression" and feeling of comfort the OP is searching for. Some of the UI does not help either - it is very easy to miss and/or misunderstand stuff, even if you're not a newbie.

Please apologize my english.

Writing a review is absolutely their prerogative, as is this post, whether its sad or not is ultimately up too the individual who reads what they say, as they have the right to view the person how they want.

I don't believe they're a troll however I do believe that them posting a review and then essentially duplicating the sentiment here is odd. A review with little hours invested, many opinions on the game that are not factual flaws, as well as it now feeling like they wanted to rally or validate their opinions on the game. Also they have not once responded in this forum post too any of the responses like mine and axios' which detail where their 'criticisms' are more or less not true or misguided.

Imo when someone makes a post in the forum that generally goes against the well accepted view of the game and then doesn't even try to defend their point it starts to sound like a flame or rant post. I also find it rather sad that they made a review with so little information about the game due to lack of playtime and mostly opinions.

If they had genuine criticisms about bugs, maybe some difficulty elements that the devs could work with and improve then for sure I would simply comment and move on. But people are not appreciative of random complaint posts and what feels almost like bait.

Yeah we usually have a term for someone that blindly jumps to someone's defense like that, whiteknighting. They even commented on that review defending their opinion and that's just it, an opinion but how they come off it like they are trying to spin their opinion as hard facts, honestly DK1 had an issue for me where it only had one or two guns that were worth running on your officers and some classes were objectively better than others, it was appalling that it felt that way, in DK2 however every single gun, every single class has a purpose, has a place, I like that about DK2 I love having variety in the loadouts and soldiers in a squad to the point my Rangers squad is literally split down the middle for two different tactics one for going loud and one for going dark.

[Pat (ty cake)]

Originally posted by axios2006:

Originally posted by EvathCebor:

The problem with Steam forums is it feels like fans hideouts. You have to love what you buy otherwise you're considered sad or whatever, because here, only positives and hype are allowed, cuz the people here like the product, and can't bear that someone else does not.

If he's disappointed, he's right to write a review about it. That's what reviews are for. It's review section, not advertising section. He loved the first one, bought the sequel, gave it a fair chance, didn't like it and say it. Fine by me.

The guy's not a troll. He's even a Door Kickers player AND lover. He's disappointed, that's his right, there's nothing sad about it, for god's sake.

I like the game (even if I'm here for the campaigns, the permadeath, the squad upgrades and so on, and can't enjoy the game as I'd like to until the 1.0 release), though his critics are VERY valid and well thought. Game feels harsher than the first one, by miles away, even for a franchise veteran. The fact that the game is still Early Access and just a map pack of missions might be one of the many reasons the game lacks the "step by step progression" and feeling of comfort the OP is searching for. Some of the UI does not help either - it is very easy to miss and/or misunderstand stuff, even if you're not a newbie.

Please apologize my english.

The OP provided a rant. Not a single line of constructive feedback.

"I feel like the weapons are so limited and their stats all seem so similar. How am I supposed to gauge fire rate and damage" Opinion, not a fact.

"The differences between the army, CIA, and SWAT seem forced, too." Opinion, not a fact. Totally different mechanics.

"The missions also aren't as creative" Opinion, not a fact.

Just a pointless copy of his review.

Also, about the game is "just a map pack of missions"... there are already more than 70 missions... nearly a complete game except campaigns...

I feel like my stance on the weapons being too similar is supported by how little the stat graphs change between weapons of the same type. The calibers may differ and the descriptions are different, but where they'll excel and fail aren't clear. Some other gripes I have about the weapons, why do sniper rifles and LMGs have an aim speed of "half" at 0 meters? Shouldn't there be a long aim speed at 0 meters, rapidly rising to the quickest at 1 meter and then dropping off for long-barreled weapons while pistols and CQB weapons show immediate readiness at 0 m ranges? Since you want constructive feedback, the scale of the graphs should be larger. I'd argue that 0 - 10 m ranges are far more important to list than 40 - 50 m aim speeds. Obviously 50 meters is going to take a second, so like 150 m, is it worth including? I would lean towards elaborating on the smaller ones.

When talking about the accuracy at different ranges I have the same issue. The graph should reflect a benefit of using CQB at close-quarters over a long rifle, but sniper accuracy is 100% at every range. Obviously not the case until probably 1 m, which is a stretch even then if not held at-the-ready.

The weapons descriptions also say things which make no sense like with the CQB rifles when they say they won't "drop targets past 15 meters." This makes no sense. The Hush Puppy should be able to reliably drop targets given that you have the opportunity to aim your shot like you could when you stealth fire. There's no mechanic for increasing accuracy if you aim for longer, and I don't think there should be one so OP that you can do easy take downs with the hush puppy, but there should be an accuracy bonus if you're not urgently aiming. All that to say the descriptions turn me away from some of the CQB guns because the benefits are not obvious from the graphs and the descriptions make them sound like pellet guns when used outdoors. There needs to be a damage drop off graph, at least for each ammunition when you select them, if it's going to claim severity like that.

I think the weapons and their UI need a lot of work until I'd personally have enough information to enjoy shopping around for them and understanding their performance before spending the stars to try them out. As for the other things you pointed out, they're opinions. I don't feel the need to explain or justify them because, like some others have pointed out, they're partly experience-based stances and subject to change as I keep playing. It's also an opinion piece by nature so

[HarambesFistVictim]

Originally posted by Pat (ty cake):

I want to have blacked out guys in tactical gear, vector smgs to clear hallways and rooms, and shields that feel badass, but the game forces me to use a generic and unspecialized force.

Blacked out uniforms. Go visit Nexus Mods and download the mod( I do believe there is a multicam black mod.)

Vector SMG, is in a mod I believe.

"Generic and unspecialized Force? I do believe you play as Rangers or Delta in this game, as well as a local Swat unit, so it could be like the ANA/ANP or Afghan commandos. And then theres, without mods CIA... Who is pretty special.. CIA...

[76561199083063683]

"generic and unspecialized force", well the thing is they're a GREENFOR/INDFOR faction supported by BLUFOR factions, they're not wearing all black with tactical gear and Kriss Vectors, they're in the desert and probably aren't that well trained in clandestine stealth operations, the point of them is that you have to adapt to their outdated gear (no good armor options except Sappers, less modern arsenals of weapons except for M4s, Swiss SMGs and such)

in one thread asking if the CIA and SWAT will have more gear, the response is that they will, and that makes me happy since it will make the SWAT stand out more, currently your only mod to add more stuff for them is the IOV mod (PASGT helmets, CAR-15s, BARs, MAC-10s and SG550s), not too modern but better than nothing)

[axios2006]

Originally posted by Operator_Max1993:

----

in one thread asking if the CIA and SWAT will have more gear, the response is that they will,----

Hi, may ask you the source of the info?

[76561199083063683]

Originally posted by axios2006:

Originally posted by Operator_Max1993:

----

in one thread asking if the CIA and SWAT will have more gear, the response is that they will,----

Hi, may ask you the source of the info?

of course, here it is
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1239080/discussions/0/3361398331721226437/