.pablo.

i suggest you take note of which servers are running those maps and see if you can contact the people running the servers to add different types of maps. one thing i've noticed, though, is that a lot of people prefer to play those maps, meaning that if the average pub-hopper was elected admin he would choose to play one of those missions rather than something more experimental. the only way to guarantee a change, therefore, would be to convince the people running the servers to remove the cqb missions, which would be difficult (if not impossible). another thing i've noticed, though, is that i wouldn't be terribly excited to be stuck on the same cti/coop/pvp team as some of the people to be found in those cqb servers, and would quite happily let them continue playing those missions as i wait for the next zeus/cia/private game. so, you see, its not just the missions that are necessarily causing this frustration of yours... these are, of course, subjective observations and could easily be completely off. i'm just throwing them in for discussion.

idk, from the previews it looks like they tried to turn it into MoH-of-vietnam...i have only seen screenshots of urban warfare, which should not be what a vietnam-war-themed game should be about. i could be wrong though, i'm working off the brief look i took at screenshots/previews.

WGL 5 is still in its beta stage, so the only server running the latest build of WG is a private beta-testing server; once WGL 5 is released, though, Zeus will be running it.

got an error when i was installing:

so, when is the first night going to be? one of the best ways to get lots of squads involved is to just start playing, even with only a few people/squads, and let it spread by word of mouth.

can't d/l poutine's video, gives a 404 error...

i'm pretty sure apaches don't come in woodland camo, considering they're never in the woods...

i have played on zeus; i just didn't want to completely pull the rug out from under his feet.

did they say what was less realistic? who leads would probably be something to be decided once everyone was assembled on the server

i agree with shinbusan; not too many people frequent the zeus forums, so it would be better to leave this thread here so that other squads notice it. it will most likely start out as FDF, but hopefully Zeus will add WarGames 5 to its server, so we can have some real fun... well, the normal thing is for each team to split up into their own separate channels once the game begins. i doubt it would be necessary to split into sub-channels by squad, but that is another option. then, once a round has finished, everybody goes into the lobby to talk about the mission (what went right, what went wrong, strategies that were used, etc.) that would be an issue of balance, which would be handled by the mission maker (most likely jinef). the thing to remember is that the normal course is for each team to play each side once; so, for example, in bridge assault the defending team has 3 btr's and mortar support, while the attacking paratroopers only have AT guys to deal with the btr's, and no way to deal with the mortar-fire. once the round is over, though, the attackers switch to the defending side, and the defenders are forced to attack.

this has already been achieved by the WGL team; we're still trying to figure out how to disable the scoreboard...

you're getting the wrong idea; it wouldn't be a strict rule, but more of a general idea of how to split up the players. this even happens in pub games with no one calling the shots; people just naturally split up and join the same team as their friends. i see what you're saying about not having many new players, but in my experience games on the zeus server involve a very similar situation: there is a group of players that have played with each other before, and a couple new guys that are just trying it out. CiA and Zeus are more alike than different in my opinion. im not sure what this means... yeah, i've thought about that...setting up the day and time would have to be discussed some in order to establish when everyone would be free...and once in-game, it might get chaotic with so many people. in terms of the "style of play" issue, it would definitely be a change for CiA regs to be playing against humans, as things do become faster paced and generally crazier when playing against other humans that are constantly moving around, but what's wrong with trying new things? that point does make me realize, though, that it would be unfair to ask the CiA guys to try out zeus' style without asking the zeus guys to try out CiA's style. so we could do 2 rounds of bridge assault (1 round defending, 1 round attacking), then 2 CiA missions, or figure out some other way to mix it up (maybe turn it into a regular thing... ). the whole thing would be in good fun; it isn't about "we must win to uphold the honor of our server!", its about "wow that was a lot of fun, we should do that more often!" that is a really good point that i never realized; nobody should confuse a pvp coop with a CTF or TDM. they are really completely different animals, and there just isn't any way to show how better than by having a person play a pvp coop. the main difference, i would have to say, is: - the elimination of respawn (other than perhaps group respawn) - the addition of special weapons (armor, ifv's, helicopters, artillery) - the division of tasks (AT squad, IFV squad, HQ squad, etc.) - the addition of realistic objectives (destroy a bridge, capture a town, etc.) those are 4 things that you will not find in a normal TDM or CTF (but interestingly enough will find in the types of coops that CiA play...) that completely change the way the game is played. i actually still have recordings i took off of teamspeak of long post-match discussions the zeus guys had after we played 2 matches of bridge assault, which jinef still remembers as one of the best 2 games he has ever played in ofp, just due to the amount of tactics that were employed. great stuff.

kick ass! i really want to see a large scale pvp coop (10-20 guys per side). jinef's "bridge assault" mission is perfect for this, as it was made for FDF (which both servers use), has enough spots for large numbers of people (~3-4 squads per side i think), and is just a ton of fun! i don't even care what the teams are, CiA vs. Zeus or we could mix it up, whatever, just as long as we have 2 large groups of people working together in realistic combat! does anyone object to this? would it be too laggy? any ideas?

ah, that clears it right up. thanks!

what is the difference between the LVS and the HEMTT? is there one? here are the fas.org sites for both vehicles, they seem to have similar dimensions, notably ground clearance and height: MK 48 LVS M9XX HEMTT

pvp coops are the key! human opponents are so much more challenging and more fun than fighting the ai!

*takes peace pipe* i'd be up for that, i just think a friendly pvp coop would be a lot of fun for both zeus and cia regs, and would probably lag less (less ai needed) *hands peace pipe to next guy*

well, there seems to be only one way to settle this: fdf pvp coop mission: bridge assault team 1: CiA regulars team2: Zeus regulars when: any saturday/sunday evening each team gets a shot at both attacking and defending. winner is decided by whichever side has more fun. let's get it on!!!

ah, so you're going to publicly announce your mod when ArmA is released; what you wrote seemed to say that you were going to release the finished product the day ArmA was released.

how are you gonna manage that?

the problem, though, is that the sound only changes in volume the further away it is, making it nearly impossible to tell how far away a gun-fight is going on, because it might sound as if it was only around the next bend and yet be >1km away. a good sound system would change the actual sound, so that the lower frequencies of a sound went further than the higher frequencies (example: thunder from far away is a deep rumble, thunder up close is an explosive crack; its the same with weapons). this is one of my top wishes for things to be fixed, if not in ArmA than in ofp2. anyway, to get back on topic, i would definitely pay $35 for a fixed and updated ofp1 engine/netcode; in fact, that's what i've been hoping ArmA would be.

maybe they're going to use it at the end of development to determine the min/req specs for the game...

it's way too big to be the great wall (a mile wide?); besides, look at where the strip begins or ends; it just fades out...

...but can it aim around corners?

sounds interesting...i'll definitely d/l a demo when it comes out. black and white was boring though, i bought the game without playing the demo (silly me), and after a week or so of just catering to my villagers and worrying about whether i was raising my pet tiger correctly, i was just like "screw this, this is work." it's pretty much the same reason i didn't like the sims.