BravoBill

I will support BIS but that doesn't mean Coddies game will be awful. Then again I don't know what engine they will be using. If the maps aren't as big as OFP1 then I'm not interested. But we'll have to see

I'm another Coop all the way man

As a combat vet I'm quite shocked as to why you wish to see that. We play war games for the sport of war. That being the tactics and strategy of warfare. Even if they did what you want you couldn't even come close to the horror of seeing somebody burned alive in real life. There are some terrors that should be left on the REAL battlefield.

I'm with Tak. We should just the letters OFP to come up with the new name. After all I doubt Coddies has Operation Flaming Pegasus trademarked

Redface, I don't think it's just BIS. It seems to be a common factor of most Czech game makers. Two examples. Vietcong. It's a great game. Hardly any press. Suddenly one week the game's website goes live. Then suddenly without warning the game is released I checked the site one day then the next day it was already shipping the game. Hidden & Dangerous 2. Again a Czech developer and practically no news at all about the game. So it seems common to Czech devs. BIS is also my favorite game developers as well. They have supported OFP so much. It's rare that a company would continue to release patches as long as BIS has

I agree with Kin Hil. I think a US with Russia would be great. It's actually not that hard to come up with conflict with the US and Russia. Take the current situation. Putin is consolidating power and increasingly becoming more of a dictator. This has caused tension in Russia. A civil war is not too unlikely. Especially if it's triggered by outside forces. Take the Ukraine as an example of the political divide that could arise in Russia. Perhaps the Balkans heats up again. Serbs go on the attack. Half of Russian backs them, half doesn't. There you go instant conflict in Eastern Europe. I would like to see some other conflict than US vs Russia but I think from a gameplay point of view it might not happen. After all, what equipment is the US likely to come up against in a conflict? You guessed it Russian. Since you'll most likely be shooting at Russian made equipment why not go directly to the source. At least that way you get to come against the newest equipment

I think what they mean is that the game could keep track of 1,000 units at once. I don't think you'll actually see them. Basically while you attack town B, there is another attack on town A. The game will keep track of such attacks and thus better simulate a real battle front. In theroy you could travel to town A and there will be a battle going on. At least I'm hoping that's the case

Well this option is not something you can simply turn off. It would require some serious codding. I'm not saying I wish for people not to be allowed to evac people. I'm saying that we have to make it worth the player's while to do so. Adding points is a good way to do it. Here is my idea for a system that you can save wounded people. We'll have heal zones. These being a Chopper, medical APC, or field hospital tent. You drag or carry, or load the wounded onto a jeep then drive them to these zones. It's just a middle ground for what your trying to do. If we have to take the time to grab the wounded. Then fly 10 minutes to base, and then 10 minutes back to the battlefield. That takes too much time. We play these games for the tactical action part of the game. Again do you want to spend 6 hours of real time digging a trench so you can have a tactical advantage? No, we don't want to do that. So if we allow people to care for the wounded (a good idea) we must make it so it is both tactical and fun. If not we will have to fly all over the place, then wait for a doctor to be called or wait in line for hours because our wound isn't bad enough. that's not something I think anybody wants to do. If we have heal zones while not being completely realistic, it would provide a new tactical angle for the game.

On the conterary, for every successful title there is 10 duds. Yeah but that's true about almost every publisher. Even UBI which I buy a lot of games off of has some absolute failures Fact is I doubt Atari will let go of Enemy In Sights. Espeically if they publisher a lot of crap. This could be there one shot to make something good this year so you bet they will hold onto it

I just want to know how Enemy in Sight figures into this. Atari is publisher. Atari is a major publisher. Just get out some of the big names they publisher here http://www.atari.com/us/platform/pc?showall=1 That's just for PC. I seriously doubt Coddies is going to buy the game. As for CM making a OFP2 without BIS. I just have to point to Coddies own marketing to show why I won't buy it. They don't support games. They simply make a new game every year and that's your Patch. If you've played CM Rally you'll see exactly what I mean. We could make a patch and fix the game problems but we'll just make you pay for it. BIS has shown they support their product. This is something CM can't say. I'm sticking with BIS myself unless CM drastically changes it's tactics

There is no Genva convention in the virtual world so I am not bound by any such agreements. It's total war baby Also I don't think we will see such a detailed model of damage. Most games use a simple point system. I don't see that this will drastically change in the very near future

I still think we should be able to drag them or something but I'm not in favor of long extractions. If I have to lay on the ground until they clear the area then wait another 5+ minutes for the chooper, then another 5+ minute ride. I might as well frag myself I do like realism but again we do have to make some gameplay issues. After all being a soldier is not all about fighting. I won't play a game if I have to spend 12 hours digging defensive positions around my base So already we have made gameplay consessions.

Spy17 there will always have to be consessions to gameplay. One thing is that getting wounded people out isn't like Hollywood movies. Often you lay there for a while. In an MP game I can assure you I would shoot anybody trying to move soldiers including medics. I would disregard any other troops and just focus on the medevac. Sure it might not be moral but there is no ICC in the gaming world Now if you have to clear the area first what about the guy laying on the ground? Would you really like to lay there for 20 + minutes? I agree it would be fun to move people but we have to find some timely way of doing things

Yeah, to be honest playing MP in a public server can make you loose faith in humanity I think it's a good idea and in a clan match I'd actually play as a medic or medevac pilot/gunner. The problem is to not make it too complicated. Cause even in a clan match what happens if they take over your field hospital? Who wants to be the guy that stands at the tent and does nothing but wait? I guess you could balance that with AA at the hospital.

I think that's the greatest improvement. In OFP I never really felt like I was in a combat zone. I could fly or drive anywhere at any time and never run into an enemy or friendly unit. It would be nice if I could take a wrong turn and then run into another major battle