Some comments on resistance (spoilers).

[Kopijeger 0]

Overall the resistance campaign was quite a bit more enjoyable than Red Hammer (and certainly less ludicrous), bringing it up to the level of quality evident in the original 1985 campaign. This is to be expected given that it was created by the original BIS team rather than some Codemasters hacks who have watched too many silly action films.

The missions themselves were well designed and fun to play, with the exception of the tank-based ones, which like all such missions I find infuriating because of the great difficulty involved in controlling both ones own vehicle and the others in the platoon. Being the impatient creature I am, I skipped past these after a couple of tries. For similar reasons I am also quite thankful that there were no flying missions in the campaign. Tank and aircraft combat are really the weakest aspect of the game mechanics in what is the finest infantry combat game I have ever had the pleasure to play. I would like to see this part of the game either thoroughly reworked or removed altogether in any follow-up games based on OFP.

Technically, the expansion packs graphical improvements makes almost everything look smoother and more detailed than they did before. The new island is very nice, and I hope we will be seeing some great custom missions in this landscape. It is a small drawback that the textures of some obejcts still suffer from significant dithering effects. This is particulary noticeable on the BRDM. It is also a shame that the game still lacks an HMMWV and BRDM with machine guns, an NSV or DsHK heavy machine gun for the socialist imperalists and a BTR-series vehicle. The new firearms do not add much to the game. I suppose the pistols add realism, but they are not particulary useful. I can personally confirm that the sound of the G3 is utterly inapproriate, the weapon makes a loud, sharp and quite distinctive crack when fired. This makes me question the competency of those responsible for the sound effects. The V-80 is also nice, but it is probably inapporiate to have an early(?) prototype of a new combat helicopter on the frontline in 1982. The greatest technical flaw in the new campaign is the inconsistency of the system for collecting and stockpiling weapons. It is ludicrous that one only get to keep what is carried by your squad and by controlled vehicles located in the designated "safe zone" when the mission ends. It is silly that you do not get to keep weapons loaded in a truck manned by one of your soldiers parked in cover a distance away from the aforementioned "safe zone". It is utterly ridiculous that liberating the capital from the socialist imperalist scum does not net you the weapons they were carrying when they fell, especially given that they were not counterattacking your position afterwards. Also, the capitalist imperialists who assist you in your struggle are curiously stingy in supplying you with weapons: a mere dozen of satchel charges, a handful of each of the firearms, some Stingers and no 84 mms (or Carl Gustavs if you like). Why not hundreds of charges, dozens of rifles and thousands of clips? It is also curious that the first time you get to decide which weapon you should carry, the stockpile contains a couple of LAW rockets, but no launcher for them.

I would also like to comment on silliness in the campaigns plot:

- Gastowski claims that officially he is on Nogova as a private individual and that the whole operation is shrouded in secrecy. Yet later he openly participates in battle wearing something which is obviously a capitalist imperialist army uniform.

- One gets the impression that the invasion was carried out on orders from the socialist imperialist government, what with the communist party of Nogova scum travelling to Moskva in order to request that they are to be installed as vassal tyrants in their homeland. Given this, is it not a rather serious act of war (which could potentially spark a nuclear war) against the "Evil Socialist Empire" when the air forces of the "Evil Capitalist Empire" attacks them openly in the last cut scene.

- Is it not odd that Guba was allowed to continue to command military forces and even received a promotion to general after his failure in Nogova? Especially considering his manic behaviour and willingness to commit war crimes, it is curious that high command did not send him off to Afghanistan to butt heads with the mujaheddin there.

- It is rather arresting that seemingly the only Socialist Imperialist soldiers who refuse to commit war crimes and follow the madman Guba are Dimitri Lukin and his colleague Sergei (They are stereotypical charachters: seeming idealists railing against but not ultimately working to topple the corrupt system they are a part of. The rest seem to be either mindless automatons (which they strictly speaking of course are, given that this is a computer game) or bloodthirsty berserkers who have no qualms about killing civilians or captured soldiers or otherwise flagrantly violating the Genéve conventions. The capitalist imperialists and the resistance** are depicted as noble and honourable in comparison, and are never shown to kill surrendering enemies, physically abuse prisoners or murdering people suspected of collaborating with the enemy. I rather suspect the developers thought drawing the gameworld's "moral canvas" in shades of grey rather than the current black-and-white would hurt sales among the general gamesbuying public in certain countries at least. This is of course to be expected, but it would probably add to the realism and make the game's plot more interesting if we saw evidence of moral corruption on behalf of the "heroes".

**: Note that in the real world, such people are usually referred to either "terrorists" (even if they are resisting a foreign invader on behalf of a government enjoying popular legitimacy) or "freedom fighters" (even if it is their stated goal to install a regime more opressive than the one they are fighting against), depending on what stance the referring party takes towards them.

[Tor 0]

Geezz. No good points?

[edc 0]

You mentioned you skipped a few of the missions after a few tries. How did you do that?

[zverushka 0]

Kopjeger, you are a genius, everyone should see this, BIS should see this.

[Kopijeger 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (edc @ July 15 2002,03:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You mentioned you skipped a few of the missions after a few tries.  How did you do that?<span id='postcolor'>

By pressing minus on the keypad while holding the left shift button and typing the letters "endmission" without the quotes. It is an in-built cheat code.

Regarding Tor's post: Did you even read everything I wrote? Or were you simply being sarcastic?

[Kopijeger 0]

I would like to add something to my original statements:

It would help immersion quite a bit if the island natives actually spoke their native language (probably intended to be czech, given the signs posted around Nogova) with subtitles in whatever language is appropriate for the given version of the game, instead of speaking english with affected accents (Why does Troska sound like he is english if he is supposed to be a native of Nogova?). But this sentiment is just a silly little hobby-horse I like to ride. "Evil tongues" would have it that it is too challenging for most anglophones to listen to foreign languages being spoken and then only translated in text. But this is perhaps just untruthful and petty imperial-bashing?

[Spy17 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It would help immersion quite a bit if the island natives actually spoke their native language <span id='postcolor'>

Exactly and if you play the east side your soldiers should speak Russian - like in IL2. Makes you learn languages while playing

[Tor 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kopijeger @ July 15 2002,14:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Regarding Tor's post: Did you even read everything I wrote? Or were you simply being sarcastic?<span id='postcolor'>

Yes I read it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

The missions themselves were well designed and fun to play, with the exception of the tank-based ones, which like all such missions I find infuriating because of the great difficulty involved in controlling both ones own vehicle and the others in the platoon.<span id='postcolor'>

I missed the tank missions and took every opportunity to steal tanks, either an abandonned one or by killing the tank crew if possible.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For similar reasons I am also quite thankful that there were no flying missions in the campaign.<span id='postcolor'>

I particularly missed the chopper missions. If you are having a hard time controlling them, you can use the original single mission "Ground attack" for practice.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The greatest technical flaw in the new campaign is the inconsistency of the system for collecting and stockpiling weapons.<span id='postcolor'>

I find version 1.75 to be a vast improvement over version 1.00 to 1.46. The fact that the weapons you collect in one mission are carried on to the next was a feature that I missed a lot in the elder versions. Also I enjoyed the added features to drop weapons or to put them in vehicles. I really can't see any reason for complaints in this respect.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why not hundreds of charges, dozens of rifles and thousands of clips?<span id='postcolor'>

Did you run out of ammo? Better practice your aim then. No seriously this is supposed to be a small group of people that gathers to fight the invaders. Think of it as your own hometown being invaded. Do you have 1000s of clips hidden in you living room or perhaps in the garage?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is also curious that the first time you get to decide which weapon you should carry, the stockpile contains a couple of LAW rockets, but no launcher for them.

<span id='postcolor'>

One of your men has the launcher. If you want it remove it from him and add it to your own inventory.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Gastowski claims that officially he is on Nogova as a private individual and that the whole operation is shrouded in secrecy. Yet later he openly participates in battle wearing something which is obviously a capitalist imperialist army uniform.<span id='postcolor'>

He is ironical when he claims he is there in private business. I.e. it's undercover and he can't say anything else. Just like if you have seen Air America with Mel Gibson. The US is not in Laos, yet they have personel and lots of aircrafts there. Confused?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One gets the impression that the invasion was carried out on orders from the socialist imperialist government, what with the communist party of Nogova scum travelling to Moskva in order to request that they are to be installed as vassal tyrants in their homeland.<span id='postcolor'>

They travel to Moscow to try to find a political solution to the conflict - it is stated in the game - perhaps it was in one of the parts you skipped?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">it would probably add to the realism and make the game's plot more interesting if we saw evidence of moral corruption on behalf of the "heroes".<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, in the very first real mission, you can tell the Russians where your friend is hiding. I think that pretty corrupt. Also later on you when you attack the capital, you are instructed that "no one is to leave here a live". I think that is against the Geneva convention.

Anything else? Ohh yes - do you know what an "imperialist" really is? Because you seem to use that word at random.

[lilwillie 47]

I'm only 3/4ths threw right now so I ca'nt completely comment on the expansion but up to this point I think the story is great Course I am from the US(those imperialists you refer too ) and in my opinion that was the direction the story was to lean too, Western power defeating the Communist power.

Remember, this is based back at the height of the cold war, West vs. East, good vs. evil (depending on where your from) and the Resistance over comming the attacking army. Hey back in the 80's they were refered to as Resistance fighters. Terrorists where still considered nut cases that took over planes and always lost. (wait, that still applys). So alot of your assesments, which where good points of arguement, can be interpreted differently.

Gastowski and his "unofficial status". That happens in the real world alot more than both of us will ever know, which is just fine with me.

It was a act of war, during a tense time period, so alot of countrys would turn a blind eye towards it, just to aviod getting their hands dirty in the public eye. So the US plays in the shadows for a time, just like they did in that little thing we refer to as the Iran/Contra deal back in Reagans days.

As for Guba getting promoted, even after he gets his ass handed to him and commits those acts of evil towards the civilians. If he can present a case that smells like roses to his higher ups that he did good then they may buy it. Or they thought he was such a idiot they might as well keep him away from the mother land and stick him on these small unknown islands no one really cares about. Just makes the story good the way they play it out.

Considering todays politics, which are much different than the 80's, hey US and Russia are buds danm near, the possibilty of a future OFP where the US and Russia fight side by side against some evil power that needs to be defeated would be a cool game. Hell I allready have missions and campaigns made where they fight side by side, defeating some evil power that is the resistance forces.

Just some silly Americans comments, do with them as you wish.

[Kopijeger 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tor @ July 15 2002,15:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

I missed the tank missions and took every opportunity to steal tanks, either an abandonned one or by killing the tank crew if possible.<span id='postcolor'>

That is nice. My problem with the tanks are that the AI can't maneuver or shoot in a sensible manner. It can't drive straight or it will often shoot when it cannot hit the intended target, and they do not obey my simple movement order in a timely fashion.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I particularly missed the chopper missions. If you are having a hard time controlling them, you can use the original single mission "Ground attack" for practice<span id='postcolor'>

I can control them well enough. What annoys me is that one is often shot down by unseen and untargetable AAA (though this is primarily in custom missions), that there are no proper countermeasures against missiles and that guided missiles consistently overshoots (many others have reported this problem). These are not a problem in dedicated helicopter games I have played, so I attribute this to poor game mechanics.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I find version 1.75 to be a vast improvement over version 1.00 to 1.46. The fact that the weapons you collect in one mission are carried on to the next was a feature that I missed a lot in the elder versions. Also I enjoyed the added features to drop weapons or to put them in vehicles. I really can't see any reason for complaints in this respect.<span id='postcolor'>

Perhaps I was being unclear: I am quite happy with the fact that one has to collect one's weapons; this add realism. What I DO object to is that weapons left lying on the ground right next to the objective you have just captured are lost forever and not automatically collected after the end of the mission. Do you really think that real world resistance fighters lacking weapons and ammunition would ignore weapons left over from a recent victory unless circumstances forced them to?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Did you run out of ammo? Better practice your aim then. No seriously this is supposed to be a small group of people that gathers to fight the invaders. Think of it as your own hometown being invaded. Do you have 1000s of clips hidden in you living room or perhaps in the garage?<span id='postcolor'>

I certainly did not run out of ammo. Again you seem to misunderstand what I wrote. I was referring specifically to the weapons delivered by the americans: there are curiously few of them, though with the exception of the stingers and perhaps satchel charges they are not really needed. I would have expected these americans to at least give me enough rifles of one type to equip a whole squad.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One of your men has the launcher. If you want it remove it from him and add it to your own inventory.<span id='postcolor'>

Very well. I did not notice this. I shall examine it later.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He is ironical when he claims he is there in private business. I.e. it's undercover and he can't say anything else. Just like if you have seen Air America with Mel Gibson. The US is not in Laos, yet they have personel and lots of aircrafts there. Confused?

<span id='postcolor'>

My point is that by wearing such a uniform he needlessly "blows his cover". Most of the time he is seen wearing civilian clothing or unmarked black ops uniforms.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They travel to Moscow to try to find a political solution to the conflict - it is stated in the game - perhaps it was in one of the parts you skipped?<span id='postcolor'>

In the first mission (where you travel to your office) Troska listened to the radio in the fuel station. We hear that communist party politicians have resigned from the coalition government due to disputes over economic reforms and that they travelled to Moskva on undisclosed business. Soon after the soviets invade from Kolgujev. I certainly got the impression that the invasion happened because the nogovan communists convinced the soviets to go ahead.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually, in the very first real mission, you can tell the Russians where your friend is hiding. I think that pretty corrupt. Also later on you when you attack the capital, you are instructed that "no one is to leave here a live". I think that is against the Geneva convention.

<span id='postcolor'>

That is only slightly corrupt, given that they are threatening you with execution. The other point you make is fair, I did not notice that either. But then again in this game enemies always fight to the death unless they have been scripted not to do so. The bit about murdering real or imagined collaborators is something I would like to see because it often happens in occupied countries.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anything else? Ohh yes - do you know what an "imperialist" really is? Because you seem to use that word at random.<span id='postcolor'>

I was attempting to parody popular soviet terminology. Perhaps I was not over-obvious enough. According to my dictionaries, "imperialism" is any sort of policy run by a state/ government which is intended to increase its influence beyond its own borders. A common type of imperialism is to invade foreign countries with overwhelming military force and install puppet governments there. Another, somewhat more subtle form is to provide funding, training, protection or other kinds of support to corrupt and oppressive regimes in so-called "banana republics" and other places in order to protect one's own military and commerical interests. In soviet rhetoric, the United States of America (should perhaps be "Imperial States"?) and its allies was commonly referred to as "imperialist", which they of course were and are, by the definition above. Obviously, the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics ("The Socialist Despotate" perhaps?) were also imperalist, what with their warmongering and vassalisation of foreign countries, though they of course never referred to themselves as such. During the cold war each "imperium" tended to refer to the other as "Evil (insert ideology name here) Imperialists".

Given that I have no stomach for authoritarianism or tyranny, whether physical or ideological, I easily give in to the temptation to mock such rhetoric, whoever espouses it. I shall continue to do this regardless of how eccentric or foolish people might think I am.

[USSoldier11B 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">According to my dictionaries, "imperialism" is any sort of policy run by a state/ government which is intended to increase its influence beyond its own borders.<span id='postcolor'>

Ahhh! Then wouldn't by this definition, the former Soviet Union be imperialists as well? (Not now, back during the cold war)

BTW, just got OFP:R yesterday. Kick ass!

[Slasher Doggo 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ahhh! Then wouldn't by this definition, the former Soviet Union be imperialists as well? (Not now, back during the cold war)

<span id='postcolor'>

Far be it for me to put words into anyone's mouth, but yes, that is exactly what he/she IS saying. And very effectively too, IMHO.

And the Soviet Union is no more, so there is no "now" about it at all.

[Kopijeger 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ July 16 2002,02:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ahhh! Then wouldn't by this definition, the former Soviet Union be imperialists as well? (Not now, back during the cold war)<span id='postcolor'>

Normally I would start to wonder if I was being far too obtuse in my writing. But given that Slasher Doggo seemed to have understood what I was trying to express well, I am forced to assume that some people either are to lazy to read my entire posts before replying, or that they are too dense to comprehend what I am writing. By the definition and examples I gave it should be quite obvious that both the USA and the USSR engaged in "imperial adventures" during the cold war. But this is quite a digression from my original post.

[GRaptor 0]

OKAY...... Just finished reading all this. Uh... few things I want to say. You shouldn't think either side (East and West) to be evil. They're just two superpowers at that time. I don't think Flashpoint makes it look like the East was evil. I think it makes it look like Guba was evil. I don't consider myself fighting the real Soviet Union in the game, I consider myself fighting Guba's forces. Now, in Resistance it looks like Guba was taking orders so I may be wrong. However in the original game and Red Hammer Guba was doing that all by himself. As for the soldiers under his command, they didn't know about Guba not taking orders, they didn't think they could resistance they're own comrades, or they agreed in what Guba ordered which would most likely go for the officers. Dimitri Lukin goes under the first, because he didn't know. He was skilled enough and brave enough to fight him though. I think the leaders of the Soviet Union didn't like Guba too much.

Anyway... I thought Resistance was a great game. The island is the best thing about it. By the way, Kopijeger, what I did on those tank missions were get in as gunner. After playing First Strike in the gunner's spot of a T80 I was able to tear the enemy tanks apart. I'm starting to like the T80 as before I was afraid of it usually being on the American side. You can do alot better as gunner instead of commander. It also makes less people in them so you can have more tanks. You can order the driver to go wherever just like in the commanding seat. The only problem is that you don't have radar. But its not so bad. We're thinking too much though. We should just have fun with the game and forget about realism. The closer it gets to realism the closer it gets to war. Already games are being used as motivations to join the army and training tools.

[EBass 0]

Heres my 2 cents.

Firstly I liked the new 5 sidearms. Not only did they add another aspect to the game but I found them TREMENDOUSLY useful. I found in Resistance the best tactic was ALWAYS to take a dragunov with 4 clips, an RPG with 3 rockets and a sidearm. Unfortuneatly I ran out of ammo a lot for my dragunov the sidearm was so useful for last gasp situations and conserving ammo in CQB.

I myself do not like being in a tank. I think they are done well but I find the controls too clumsy for me to use effectivly. Also I hate just blowing up and dying without a chance to save yourself which is why I never ever use BMPs. I kinda missed air missions but not to great extent imho flashpoint works the best as an infantry SIM with other vehicles to interact with as opposed to a tank sim with the option of getting out.

The Island Nogova was fantastically designed, however I wish they could have put in more than one bridge (Yes I know there is another on the Gastofski like island to the north)

The campaign was brilliant better than 1985 IMHO and had some really great twists and cutscenes to interact with the events 3 years later. However I do agree on the weapons thing. After each mission instead of simply leaving and completing it, it becomes a case of loading every single squad member up with RPGs for later using the tedious action command menu which you can only use for one soldier at a time. I also agree that the Yanks could have done a little more to help you out in the weapons department, however if you look at it that way after contraband you need never try to conserve weapons again which would neglect one of the main features of resistance.

The graphics have been notably sharpened (not that this is any good to me at 650mhz and 128mb ram) I have to touch things down a little which annoyed me, however I do agree that things look better and I also like the blood splats

I also believe the sounds are better than ever before.

The subtle changes to the editor are also useful.

However it seems to me in the campaign the Soviets rely too much on armoured power. This is probably due to the developers seeing it as the only way to negate the stockpile of arms you accumilate. However most of the later assaults simply hang on being able to launch enough RPGs from a good position to kill a tank before it bombards you with HEAT.

One last thing why is Victor Trotska a total skitzofrenic? He knows James Gastofski implying he probably worked for the US special forces. In the cutscenes he sounds like an English aristocrat yet in the game he sounds like a Siberien Vodka sipping commie. COme to that why is everyone skitzo? I mean look at any OFP characters expression and it'll keep changing every 5 seconds smile frown grin yawn look angry suprised (probably just to show they can change expressions ingame) By the way WHO IS TAZMANIAN DEVIL I mean after the end it seems like BIS just put him in as a handy excuse to reveal you information that your unsophistiated resistance scouts could not have got. Personally I reckon its a Red,

[pearce 0]

Did everyone else have shortages of ammunition? I found that i had far too much, in any given mission i could easily equip everybody with a RPG lancher and i gave half my guys sniper rifles. There never seemed to be any shortage of ammo and that kinda killed any sense of resistance representing a guerrilla conflict. Also i think Victor Trotska may have read a book about guerrilla tactics and then decided that he didn't like the idea. Who ever heard of a resistance movement engaging in mass tank battles against regular troops? He even states in one cut scene that they have absolutely no chance of winning but as the campaign progressed i was half expecting him to unviel his plans to embark upon a full scale invasion of Russia.

[CanVagabond 0]

Kopijeger - "Perhaps I was being unclear: I am quite happy with the fact that one has to collect one's weapons; this add realism. What I DO object to is that weapons left lying on the ground right next to the objective you have just captured are lost forever and not automatically collected after the end of the mission. Do you really think that real world resistance fighters lacking weapons and ammunition would ignore weapons left over from a recent victory unless circumstances forced them to?"

Uhhh...carry the weapons or put them in a transport. Now, if the transport is full and so are your men when you leave, the you ARE GOING TO LEAVE THEM. You don't HAVE the resources to salvage every weapon around.

Now, I'd like to have seen a mission or two where you "clean" up a battlefield or have transports move in and a cutscene fills them(I dunno if troops can be scripted to clean up).

The point is that you are part of a very small(but apparently decievingly small, since you know, you can wage quite the tank battles) that has to keep moving or you get smoked(though you can wipe out regiments on your own)

The point is, it is a game that has some flaws, and this isn't one of them since it works with the game.(except for the idea of this...safezone?)

[EBass 0]

lol yeah I know but hey its only a game, I thought however it was the funiest thing ever in that cutscene u see at the beggining and then again near the end when Victor seems dead and then just rises out the ground with blood all over him. He was a corpse and then he just gets up and on my game he acctually had a bullet hole in his head LOL and he just says blah blah blah (Oh can I have some brains please Im starving)

[EBass 0]

Another funny thing about the ending was after totally decimating the soviets down to one poorly defended last base they then just realise oh look actually we can easily win and totally smash the resistance if it wasent for the sudden and bloody late US air support great military tradition to uphold though

[ale2999 0]

o boy I just finished the last cutscene, and I can tell you guys that this game is terrific, with a great story. I can't see how people still complain. The story compells u to see the end like a movie, the new sidearms and rifles are gr8 and the grafix are way improved (to any1 wining about gfx : its not possible to have gr8 graphics with maps of this size, not with todays computers at least), and mp is nice to play. Thank you Bis. (Its funny how if u finished the other campaigns u get more of what its said in the cutscenes)

[Kopijeger 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (GRaptor @ July 16 2002,20:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I don't think Flashpoint makes it look like the East was evil. I think it makes it look like Guba was evil. I don't consider myself fighting the real Soviet Union in the game, I consider myself fighting Guba's forces. Now, in Resistance it looks like Guba was taking orders so I may be wrong. However in the original game and Red Hammer Guba was doing that all by himself. As for the soldiers under his command, they didn't know about Guba not taking orders, they didn't think they could resistance they're own comrades, or they agreed in what Guba ordered which would most likely go for the officers. Dimitri Lukin goes under the first, because he didn't know. He was skilled enough and brave enough to fight him though. I think the leaders of the Soviet Union didn't like Guba too much. <span id='postcolor'>

These are good points. Even so, I find it arresting that the soviets are never shown to even hesitate in carrying out vicious and senseless order, such as the convoy ambush in Red Hammer (Regarding RH: it seems inconsistent that in the first couple of missions you will fail if you shoot too many unarmed civilians (Here these renegade soviets give at  least some regard to the conventions designed to protect civilians in war.) but in the aforementioned ambush mission you are told that the order to destroy the convoy comes direct from Guba himself.). It is also curious in the 1985 campaign that the officers close to Guba who must realise how dangerous his plans are, what with nuclear warheads and all that, still obey him. Are they too stupid or too scared to do otherwise.

Regarding your advice on tank warfare: I am quite aware of the technique you are describing. It is only a small improvement, given that the AI driving is as atrocious as ever and the considerable difficulty involved in tracking moving targets. I did have some success with parking ones tank in a high spot and shooting at enemy tanks far below in the original campign though.

You are probably correct in pointing out that I am "reading too much into" a not very detailed and quite inconsistent gameworld. But it amuses me to do so, so I shall keep at it .

[Kopijeger 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CanVagabond @ July 17 2002,02:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Uhhh...carry the weapons or put them in a transport. Now, if the transport is full and so are your men when you leave, the you ARE GOING TO LEAVE THEM. You don't HAVE the resources to salvage every weapon around.

Now, I'd like to have seen a mission or two where you "clean" up a battlefield or have transports move in and a cutscene fills them(I dunno if troops can be scripted to clean up).

The point is that you are part of a very small(but apparently decievingly small, since you know, you can wage quite the tank battles) that has to keep moving or you get smoked(though you can wipe out regiments on your own)

The point is, it is a game that has some flaws, and this isn't one of them since it works with the game.(except for the idea of this...safezone?)<span id='postcolor'>

I know that they have to be carried by your men or kept in a transport! What I do object to is that I LOST ITEMS CARRIED IN A MANNED URAL PARKED A DISTANCE AWAY FROM THE FINAL OBJECTIVE IN A MISSION! Also, when I captured the capital, I should be able to aquire at least the most valuable items left behind (do not need firearms, can use antitank-rockets and explosives) after the battle. I am not  going to abandon the capital to the soviets agaign, and I am not in such a rush to reach the next town that my men cannot pick up the spoils of war after the battle! The current collection system simply does not work in a realistic or even sensible manner (except to artifically limit one's abilities in-game), though this is merely annoying, it is not a fatal flaw.

[Placebo 29]

How many times do we say it, Red Hammer was made solely by Codemasters, not Bis, you cannot equate anything in RH with original Opf campaign or Resistance

[Kopijeger 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @ July 17 2002,16:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How many times do we say it, Red Hammer was made solely by Codemasters, not Bis, you cannot equate anything in RH with original Opf campaign or Resistance <span id='postcolor'>

I already knew that, but since Red Hammer was published as an "official" expansion, I tend to think of it as being "officially" part of the game's story. Perhaps this is simply a kind of mental sloth.

Given the well-known fact that severak ridiculous missions are present in Resistance (though to a lesser degree than in Red Hammer, which I perhaps should not compare it to), I wonder if there are any talented mission-makers out there who would create a more sensible resistance campaign, one where there are no large-scale direct assaults or armoured battles, but where the action instead focuses on supply interdiction, sabotage and ambush of isolated enemy units. Can anyone tell me if something like this is in progress?