Broileri

My point exactly. The AK74 is a bad weapon compared even to the M4 in the 1.09 beta. Unlike in real life.

There is a game balance issue with US and Russian assault rifles and carbines that is rather serious, IMHO. The patch improves the M16 and M4. To put it simply, they are very accurate, have a small recoil and do good damage even at long ranges. However, the patch makes the AKs worse than before. Their recoil seems the same as before (although it has been tweaked and now affects the weapon as it should, moving the barrel up, not down). The problem is that they do less damage. The difference can be easily observed in any target practice map (e.g. http://www.kyllikki.fi/missions/co 12 ampumataitotesti.sara.pbo made by Patteri: press 0-0-1 to rise the targets and 0-0-3 to lower them.) In 1.08 the AK74 is almost equal to M16, but in 1.09 beta the situation is very different. In other words, as of 1.09 beta, the Russian rifle calibre weapons are of no match the US rifle calibre weapons. In the beta, even the carbine M4 is much more effective than the assault rifle AK74 at ranges of roughly 150 metres and more. Even if "realism" is not discussed, improving one weapon class considerably for one side and making it worse for the other side may substantially affect game balance that seemed rather good until now. Other than this, the patch seems very good with some excellent new features.

Happy you like the server Hurlo. Mind you, Kyllikki's server is not what you would call an international server in the strictest sense. The language used is primarily Finnish and though most of us are able to speak and write in English, we are used to communicating in Finnish on our server. So there's a language barrier. That in mind, visitors outside Finland are not unwelcome.

However, should you find the English translation, burn it. It's probably one of the worst translations known in the history of translation. Not sure if it's been translated (better) again more recently, though...

'Guerilla' sounds a bit too unorganized, I think. If you are looking for one word, 'ranger' might come closer, but then again it's something completely different in the US army. IMO it's a good idea to just say 'sissi' and never mind how it may sound. (For those who are interested, if any, it's pronounced ['sis-si], not [sisi] as in 'sissy' ) Anyway, they are long range recon/sabotage units, as cam0flage said. Where paratroopers get a free ride, they walk. Â The AI can't use it, and why would you want to let the AI use such a wonderful weapon in the first place. The markings in the vertical indicator are metres, though the accuracy depends on both the altitude of the weapon and the target. As for controlling it, it takes a while to get used to. The mortar is excellent in coop-missions. Suggest you try the following: X <---- Mortar & the player firing it . . <---- Straight line between the mortar & the target, . with the FO inbetween; hills, trees, . some sort of coverage, so the target can't see . the mortar . FO <-----Forward observer: a player with binoculars . trying to stay hidden . . X <-----Target Since the FO has to see the target and the mortar should not, it makes sense to try and position both players in a straight line in regards to the target. As the FO sees where the fire comes down (and how much it misses the target), he only has to give simple orders to shift fire (e.g. "left 200m, add 150m"). It would get a lot trickier should the FO be positioned in any other spot (as it most certainly would in real life) - this way no calculations are needed. The whole thing gets even easier if the forward observer is the mortar's squad leader and can give target or move commands to the mortar.

A wound from an AP mine can certainly be lethal and so can a bullet wound without immediate first aid. I don't think taking a shot at someone with an assault rifle is any more humane than trying to blow somebody's leg off with a mine. The point is to make the enemy unable to fire his weapon back at you. I seriously doubt the first thing in your mind in the battlefield is how easy a death the enemy will have.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'd say a "real" old-school adventure is a game where you really "adventure", you cannot die or get a "game over" no matter what you do, no time limits or anything, just examining things and solving puzzles. Monkey Island and such being perfect examples.<span id='postcolor'> Agreed. It's a shame they just don't make those any more. The last one I've played fitting that description was Gabriel Knight III: Blood of the Sacred Blood of the Damned. It was excellent. The (early 3D) graphics seem a bit outdated these days, but the game has such a strong storyline I have to play it again at least once a year. It's like re-reading a good book.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Goeth[kyllikki] @ Feb. 01 2003,20:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wilco @ Feb. 01 2003,19:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Goeth[kyllikki] @ Feb. 01 2003,19:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Couple of people dead, so what? What is this big grief s..t.<span id='postcolor'> Alright then, 6 of your family dies, so what....nobody cares about your losses.  That's how you say it.<span id='postcolor'> Exactly. People die everyday and i don´t see a reason why this should be any different and special occasion. If you feel extra pain in this case maybe you sould put up dead astronauts foundation or something.<span id='postcolor'> Goeth is right, of course. And all wrong. It's interesting how differently people feel about things like this. How is someone's death more important than somebody else's? Shouldn't be, despite what they died "for" or how futile was their death. But that's not how the world runs. Remember Princess Diana's death? It was a very big thing at least in this part of the world. For months before that the head news had been about the mass murders in Algeria (entire villagefuls of people having their throats cut open and thrown into a well). I don't know how many noticed, or if it was different elsewhere in the world, but the instant she got killed there was nothing in the news for days but the accident - but that didn't mean the killings would have paused for awhile in Algeria so the world could mourn Diana's death. It meant the news agencies carefully considered how important did people think the death of a celebrity was compared to the deaths of Algerian civilians. And they did well, of course it was Diana's death people wanted to know about. Surely a tragedy, but how did a fatal car accident become more important than the murders of civilians? It was all over the news; the general public had read about Diana in the tabloids and she felt like a real person, someone everybody knew; there was loads of film material from the accident. There was no film from Algeria (it was too dangerous for anybody to get there), people hardly knew where the place was (somewhere in Africa, a whole other continent); nobody knew the people who were getting killed. You only read and heard about it so it almost felt like a rumour. The astronauts are something of national heros in the US. We saw the shuttle breaking apart in the sky. The strong reactions about Columbia in this forum are all but uncomprehensible. I apologize if my viewpoint seems too cynical to someone. My condolences to anybody feeling involved with the tragedy.

Kyllikki Vietnam Pack was just a collection of Vietnam addons made by various authors. It became obsolete the instant SEB Nam Pack (1.0 and now 2.0) was released. Suggest you use it instead. (It can be found everywhere, Kyllikki's addon section among others.)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (cam0flage @ Jan. 11 2003,12:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Some coastal artillery would be essential!<span id='postcolor'> Definitely. A battery of 100mm, 130mm or 150mm coastal guns would give a Russian unit a very good reason to invade even a small island. An island with three guns in fixed positions and a fire control tower... The Finnish side of the Gulf of Finland is full of batteries like that. It makes attacking the southern coast via the sea tricky, to say the least.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Edge @ Jan. 09 2003,14:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Even if someone creates Suursaari, the result will be very different from original: I am not sure if it would be that fun to play on island covered by dense forest (about 90% of the surface)...<span id='postcolor'> Actually, I think it would. Sure there should be some large open areas as well, but I would love to see some wide-spread forests. Ought to be more like mixed forest though, not just pine trees... Take a look at cam0flage's picture. Not exactly what you would call tank terrain, is it?

LDD Kyllikki salutes all those who have fought and died for their country. The picture, taken by Kegetys, is from LDD Kyllikki's Company Inspection that was held in tribute to Finnish Independence Day. On Dec 6 Finland has been independent for 85 years. BIS, thank you for a great game. (For a full-sized picture, go here.)

LDD Kyllikki salutes all those who have fought and died for their country. The picture, taken by Kegetys, is from LDD Kyllikki's Company Inspection that was held in tribute to Finnish Independence Day. On Dec 6 Finland has been independent for 85 years. BIS, thank you for a great game. (For a full-sized picture, go here.)

Overall an excellent addon! Great work! </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Blake: I hope the SEB team will improve the promising-looking mortar with some sighting equipment. I think it's easy to implement compass (with degrees as in tank commmanders view) to mortar and elevation, possibly even range gauge. Currently firing the mortar is very inaccurate and it's impossible to judge distance.<span id='postcolor'> I agree, any kind of a better aiming system would be great, be it an actual mortar sight (which would be excellent) or a simple script as in the old Goetterfunke's artillery piece, displaying compass degrees and range in metres. However, what bugs me more than the missing sights is how the mortar actually works. The higher you aim the tube, the closer the rounds are supposed to land to you. Not the other way round.

Any news on this one? To echo others, basically all you'd need for indirect fire in general (in addition to being able to fire the thing at angles from 0 to 45 (artillery) or 45 to 90 (mortars)) is an accurate compass for horizontal direction and one for vertical, though it would simplify things if the vertical indicator showed just the accurate range.

Good idea... I wonder how easy/difficult/impossible it would be to include some sort of vertical indicator so you'd see the angle you are firing at? It would make controlling indirect fire much, much easier. (And add that kind of a thing to a tank and you have a crude form of 100-125mm self-propelled artillery. )

Just dropped the info for comparison, I don't demand anyone comes up with a towable 120mm mortar tomorrow. I agree that the lighter caliber mortars would be perfect to start with. I'm very anxious to see any kind of proper mortar in the game. Still, the 52mm sounds a bit small to me especially if the sighting system really is that simple. To me, somewhat complex system including a range (ie. vertical) indicator as well as an accurate compass (like eg. in the tanks) would be the very essence of mortars. But, that's just me. All in all, I'm very much in favor to the movement/targetting/shooting routines advocatexxx has proposed. Very good ideas.

120krh92 The 120mm mortar used by the Finnish army, manufactured in 1992. Info from http://www.mil.fi/kalustoesittely/00050.html (in Finnish): Towed Heavy Mortar Caliber: 120 mm Max Range: 7,3 km Weight of HE-ammo: 12,8 kg Rate of Fire: 15 rounds per minute Weight: 500 kg Crew: 6 In game terms I'd make this kind of thing stationary or movable by truck. Rate of fire should perhaps be about a round in 8-12 seconds for a single player.

81KRH71Y This 81mm mortar is used by the Finnish army, and it's probably not very far from the 82mm (was it?) used by the Russians. Specs (as far as I remember them, it's a few years since I was in the army): Max range dependent on ammo type and charge: from 5 to 6 kilometres (much less with illuminative rounds, I'm sure). Min Range: the more you raise the tube, the closer the rounds land. In practice I doubt it would be fired any closer than say 100 metres in any case. Rate of fire: Typical fire mission in an attack is 18 rounds per one minute. Depending on the size of the crew and how skilled the loader is, it takes 2-4 seconds to fire a round. The round takes off the instant it hits the bottom of the tube. There is no "trigger". Basically the loader just keeps lobbing rounds into the tube at the mortar leader's commands. The Finnish army uses a crew of 5-7. This big crew can carry the mortar (in three 20kg pieces) and the necessary equipment fast enough: The mortar squad is supposed to keep up with an infantry platoon. I'm sure it's possible for two people to carry the whole mortar and even some ammo, if properly motivated. While it's fairly slower than with the whole crew, two people have no trouble effectively firing the mortar either. I like advocatexxx's ideas. In game terms, I'd make the mortar of this caliber completely fixed, movable by vehicles, or movable by two players (ie. one carrying the mortar and the other some ammo) about as slowly as it is in the game to move while aiming a law. Setting up the mortar should take a while, maybe up to a minute. Rate of fire would be 3-4 seconds. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> And first of all we have to invent an AI usable indirect fire and threat assesment script and chuck in real world physics for the rounds (maybe) <span id='postcolor'> IMHO If it can be done, real world physics are the way to go. It would be great to see the round flying high up from the mortar or, in the other end, looking up and seeing a small spot growing fast </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">didnt mortar crews have a laser range finder as well(dont know about 1985 if they had finders then)<span id='postcolor'> In the Finnish army it's the fire observer squad that has the range finders.

Indirect fire. IMHO that's the only thing the game really needs - both on-field artillery and mortars (especially mortars though, from 60mm to 120mm). Fire observers and some kind of fire shifting method would be nice.