-Snafu-

I think people are asking because there are other usernames and passwords you can put in besides the classic OFP one from back in the day. Speaking of, I would appreciate it if someone could send them to me.

Thanks very much. :)

Rellikkii The links for Mechanic's cars don't seem to be working. http://ofp.gamepark.cz/_hosted/mehanic/downloads.htm I would really appreciate it if you could fix the links. They are broken from Modena onwards.

It's the same reason why countries make their own cop shows (also see this) and such instead of just showing US Law and Order. People identify more with the characters and the military hardware provides more familiar surroundings. With the different doctrines and tactics of that non-US force (if the player does a bit of research and can use the editor) providing interesting gameplay. In fact, that's one of the key reasons the downloadable modules for CMSF have been so successful. I fail to see how these very reasonable things is raving nationalism. I am sure people would be happy to buy any DLC if it is good quality and they deem it to be worth the money. Many posts on this forum about the BAF DLC are from people who are not British. I would certainly prefer no 'im-a-leet-uber-sf-delta' DLC. Oh and just because Takistan is similar to Afghanistan doesn't mean BIS should use the DLC to put the entire ISAF contingent into OA. It would not be long before they ran out of mission ideas.

Mission sounds great. I'm looking forward to trying it out.

Byker! Byker! Byker Grove! Nice tutorials. Although aimed at the beginner there was a couple things I didn't know about before. Nice job BIS.

Those links aren't for the mini mod. It isn't available on ofp.info AFAIK just the link I posted earlier. Thanks anyway.

A few years ago I found a small Stargate mod that had it's own .cpp but I lost the file and forgot about it. I found the download link again but the file is corrupted. I've downloaded it a few times now. Does anyone have a non-corrupted file?

Well, you're posts are weird. Odd, not always on topic, often goes around whatever point you're trying to make, often insulting, sarcastic, high use of the word 'peasant' etc. In the UK we don't have a gun ownership culture and we're fine with that. The US does and that's fine. We're happy with the way things are. People can defend themselves. It's perfectly acceptable within the law. Read: http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html Two cases in here that demonstrate that: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/man-who-killed-intruder-cleared-of-murder-1915234.html Another: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5889125.ece Oh look another: http://www.thisiswesternmorningnews.co.uk/news/Jury-clears-man-intruder-s-murder/article-1909838-detail/article.html These stories don't get the same attention as the doomsday ones. They just don't sell as much papers.

What is it with you and your posts? Are you an acid? They're odd, only occasionally relate to the topic and hardly make sense. The high and mighty attitude is also funny considering you torrented OA to get your hands on it early. The UK is fine the way it is thank you very much.

Here: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=100768

Conventional war. Nukes are a threat to the entire country and not just the military. I thought you would mention that. None of the articles give any reason why it was undetectable. The USN is the largest and very arguably best navy in the world with a global reach. The crews, repeatedly doing large scale exercises when there is no real threat, simply might have gotten tired and let standards slip. Not all of the necessary facts are known. That incident was also at least four years ago and I fully expect the USN to have shaken up their ASW capability. To say the Chinese submarines are superior and can wipe out entire fleets with impunity based on that is quite a stretch. The position of that satellite was known and it was also undefended. The DF-21D is still in development and might not even work out at all. Targetting will be an issue. I'm sure the USN and US have a few tricks up their sleeve too.

Nuclear war is quite a different beast to conventional war. When you say 'threat to the US military' one logically assumes you are talking about a conventional war of some sort since nuclear weapons are usually aimed at population centres. Even then I don't believe anybody other than the Chinese leadership knows what their actual nuclear capabilities are. Apart from you of course. I'm sure the US would be interested in your expert analysis. You are incorrect. When a nation is in the process of significantly building up its industry and military it is far away from being ready for any sort of major war. For starters the arms industry has to expand then the kit has to be developed, then said kit has to be introduced, tactical and strategic thinking needs to change etc. War is not a game of C&C. Building up a military, especially a modern one, is a lengthy and expensive process. You can't just to tell your military, 'hey go here'. It doesn't work like that. Let's not forget what I previously stated. The Chinese do not possess the ability to project military power across the globe like France, America and Britain. If the Chinese held the Falklands in 1982 they would not be able to take it back. The key asset in power projection is the aircraft carrier and China doesn't have one. If they are going to be in a major conventional war it will be one near their border. This is nothing but half-assed speculation. What is your source for saying they have the most advanced submarines in the world? Where is your source about them having the most advanced anti-ship missiles? They are developing a so called 'carrier killer' missile (I forget the name) and the media, surprise surprise, jumped on the hype. First of all it's not known if it can penetrate defences and do the job. Secondly there is the problem of target acquisition. In other words; speculation. Much like your statement above. In addition you also forget one key thing in your fanciful scenario; the enemy. It gets a vote too. This year's annual report, according to the news sources, focuses on its continued military build-up and criticises China for its lack of transparency.

It could be interesting if done right but it would probably be in the spirit of the grossly inaccurate Alan Clark's The Donkeys. Gary Sheffield's Forgotten Victory is an excellent history of WW1 and firmly rejects many of the myths put forward as fact. That way cheesy clichés and myths would be avoided.

Have you ever heard of logistics? The Chinese are not a threat to the US at the moment. They are in the middle of heavy development of their military industry and armed forces. They are in no state to engage in a major shooting war with the US. It doesn't matter if they posses a big army with lots of weapons as they do not have the ability to project that power across the globe nor keep it supplied. If China is going to fight a major conventional war it will be one near its borders. Even then supply will still be a massive issue. It's a logistic impossibility to put such a large force in combat. With modern gear armies will be struggling to maintain the necessary ammo, spares, fuel, food etc. Industry would never get geared up in time to replace losses. They don't even posses an aircraft carrier. There are only three reasons to have an aircraft carrier and that is power projection, power projection and power projection. At the moment I highly doubt they are a threat to the USN and I highly doubt their submarines can, as you (apparently an expert on everything) put it, wipe out their fleets with impunity. They might be a threat decades down the line but certainly not at the moment.

Obviously it wouldn't be like that but something along the lines of what zachanscom said. It would be in the spirit of ArmA, realistic but not the level where you feel like hammering a nail into your head.

Hell yeah!

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=102202&highlight=Ons You can get it there.

With Canadian military operations and history clearly outlined to the uninformed at the end of the day it's up to BIS. Depending on how successful the BAF DLC is I guess. If they do go with it I would not have it set in Takistan but somewhere else. Just because Takistan is similar to Afghanistan doesn't mean BIS have to model the entire ISAF contingent. Even though there are a lot of nations there the Takistan setting would get stale pretty quickly. The missions in each DLC would probably land up being largely similar to each other. If the BAF DLC is well received an ADF one would look like the next logical step to me. Something loosely based on East Timor would be great IMHO. Any quality DLC would be much welcomed though. ONS. Been around since OFP days IIRC.

Lost Brothers Weapons 1.1 http://www.multiupload.com/GSZ0QY6FYH

They are in your profile file.

I believe it's from the Marine Assault Pack. http://ofp.gamepark.cz/index.php?showthis=5544&newlang=eng

The first report posted cites figures from the ISAF CIVCAS Database as well as utilising other databases. The second report which is by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) includes a section in their report detailing how they arrive at those statistics. They explain their process in information gathering and analysis. It is very thorough. The report by the Afghanistan Rights Monitor also includes a section to explain their methodology. Again, very thorough. They establish and explain that, yes, their statistics are not 100% accurate and likely never will be. Their figures, however, are reached through detailed research and analysis utilising many sources and they do their best to make sure the information is as accurate as possible. They do not come up with figures and sweeping statements based on half-assed perceptions and feelings. It does not contradict Pathy's as he has already explained. Perhaps you should have actually looked at it. Are you serious? Why would I do your research for you? When you put forward an argument you provide evidence to back it up. You don't tell others to do it for you. How do you think university would go for you if you attended, handed in a report that put forward an argument, with no citations and no bibliography, and when questioned on that told the lecturer to go find it themselves?

You are needlessly complicating the issue. You made an outstanding claim. When you do that you provide evidence to back it up. Not others, they did not make that argument, but you. That is how it works. You failed to do so. Pathy challenged you and provided three different studies to show your assertion is false. He was not posting his 'feelings' on the topic. He was posting facts. It does not matter if you 'feel' you are right. Your feelings on the subject are irrelevant. Facts and evidence matter. The facts show that you are incorrect. You are right that studies should be challenged but you have not challenged them with anything other than 'if' and 'but'. You may be proven right in 50 years time when more evidence comes to light, however, the facts available to us now show that your 'feelings' are not correct. I feel it is the Irish and their ancient desire for global domination. Beware the Clover...