Donnervogel

ever heard of advertising They need people to buy it so they make a big fuss about it. What game developers don't? I don't care. I just think it's time for some people to come back to the ground and stop anticipating an all new game. It will still be OFP in one way or another. Brushed up, polished up but the really fancy things we'll get when the next generation game comes out (hence the "next generation")

Sometimes I think some people mistake ArmA for OFP/Game 2...

@Jinef What did I expect? I did expect the british government wouldn't be so foolish to go into this unneeded war in first place I don't need to know war to know that it's stupid and that there is no reason for me that validated to go into a country and kill people when there is no real danger to us and no (realistic) plan and prospect for the future of the country I am going to destroy. Also you can play your "violent game" but you will have to face the consequences. And if you're doing it then PLEASE don't videotape it and sound on it like a sadistic arsehole. It's naive but it's also true. War is stupid, violence is stupid. We should really think harder before we make use of it.

@Jinef oh I'm surely not a British law expert but seing that your country has ratified a varity of international "conventions" I am very confident there are such laws as there are in any other european country. Or do your soldiers never hear about the "laws of war"? We were taught those (rather unwillingly on the side of our superiors) in the army. And of course many soldiers won't think of them in action - but that does not mean they don't apply. And my point was this: If our soldiers forget to think about those things we will run into serious trouble. I don't know about the british army or any professional army for that matter. I'm (against my will) in the swiss sissy army but even there we were drilled and kept hungry and without sleep. But nobody forgot to think for himself because of that. We were drilled to follow orders what you may call blindly. I call it we were drilled to follow orders no matter if we agree or not. Yet that experience actually encouraged us (yes about 90% there hated to be in the army) to study the military law as it allowed us to make the life of our superiors harder by insisting on our rights whenever possible just to make the whole matter complicated and ineffective - in turn we suffered a lot more as they wanted revenge But it was still fun. If you ask me. If a soldiers get "broken" to the point where he won't think for himself he's either a weak personality in that area or he does not want to think for himself. Now I do not have experience from any warzone and hopefully never will. I also do not have experience from a professional army but I've seen a lot of people that have such experiences and yet are able to think about their actions. Which does not mean they didn't do wrong things they were ordered to do. They surely did. But they knew it was wrong.

You can fuck it as much as you want if it satisfies you. But the geneva convention does not forbid you from raping women or comitting many more war crimes. Nor does the Hague convention and other similar ones. As you see we call them conventions - general agreements, not laws. They have no legal power. It's the thigny you have listed 3rd on that priority list there that annoyingly forbids all those fancy war crimes. Yes it's your country. Your country has made a law out of the convention. So you should put it this way: "Fuck my country, Unit, Mission, the militaristic pighead with political ambitions that is my superior, My very own military dictatorship, ..."

Is he an idiot that deserves serious beating? Yes. Is it right to jail him for expressing his retarded opinions? No. Infact I'd go so far and say that when we start jailing people for expressing idiotic and false opinions we're right on the track of the nazis. Only because it doesn't please us what he says and might even offend most of us (like the mohamemd cartoons did with the muslims) we must still respect his freedom to express his opinion. As denoir said, what has happened is hypocrite in the wake of out reaction towards the mohammed cartoon violence. Giving freedoms to people has the effect that some retards will show up and use the freedoms in a way we do not like. But if we restrain people from using their freedoms because we don't like what they do with it we have infact abolished the freedom.

you need fire wire. had same problems when using USB. but no such problems with firewire. seems it can get a lot more power via firewire thasn usb 2

Maybe the FDF ammo is defined in the FDF main config and you can't use the ECP main config at the same time as FDF main config. You'd need to manually edit the ECP config to include the weapon and ammo definitions from FDF mod but that could be quite tricky. And it probably won't be possible to play multiplayer games on servers that use standart ECP with that config then.

that's what I meant with "swaying" and cosidering the fact that you can't aim wrongly in OFP (you always have the sight aligned correctly) a slightly exaggerated swaying makes up for what would be erros of inprecise aiming in RL. I'm not saying the weapon behaves like in RL but the effect archieved is that the precission (with a bit of training) is pretty much like in real life from my conscription experience.

it seems to me you never shot real weapons or you were born as a highly trained spec op firing ultra modern low recoil weapons. the swaying is not so unrealistic after all as FDF is a conscript army and such people are not the best trained in the world as they ususally have better things to do than be in the army but still have to do it so they're not very interested either in being trained in shooting more than they already have to do in the army (I speak out of experience). Plus when you get nervous and scared your aiming becomes worse. The adrenaline makes it harder to hold your weapon steady. Running around during "battle" (even simulated one) with all the extra weight you carry will also influence your ability to hold the weapon steady further. I think you're just overreacting a bit. The swaying in the mod is not that much of a problem. sure it's a change from the totally unrealistic 500m headshot sniping with iron sights that you're used from standart OFP but if you give it a try you can get used to it very well. It also helps to fire little series of 2-3 single shots at the enemy because that increases the chance that one will hit. It's just like my experience is from the army. When you're simulatign a battle you don't have much time to get your aiming right and hitting targets at over 250m meter distance becomes a real pain in the ass with iron sights and all the "battle stress" and the fact that exposing yourself too long for aiming clearly will get you shot. SO it happens fast that your aiming is a bitt inprecise due to the stress and short time available and little bit inprecise on 150+ meter can mean you miss the target entirely. especially when it's moving.

hmm something completly different. forgive me that I can't be arsed to read all 10 pages on this but the topic subtitle brought something to my mind which I would look for in an OFP successor. Make vehicles like jeeps and trucks useful I mean. the Soldiers should have limited range that they can just run before they need rest or get very slow or something like that. so those vehicles will actually be of a good use. you're gonna need a truck or jeep to get to your target. and such a vehicle is easily spotted by the enemy and can be attacked from the air etc. it would add a lot of fun imho. also make it so that the load of the soldiers has an influence on their runnign capabillity and the range they can reach. someone carrying a heavy MG like an M60 should not be able to run across the whole island and should also be a bit slower than someone with an m16 only. so heavier equipped troops would also depend more on vehicles. just an idea. maybe it was already mentioned then just ignore this

well a swiss "Zug" is commanded by a Leutnant normally. A Leutnant is not supposed to actually go into fighting. He's commanding. Of course he got very good training in all areas of combat and would be able to go into combat but his task is to make the others fight in an organised manner and not to go in first fighting is done on group basis. One infantry "Gruppe" is 8 soldiers and a group commander, a Korporal (although since the army reform of 2000 the Korporal rank is repalced by Wachtmeister). The corporal leads his group into combat and does the micro management within his group and reports to the "Zug" comander. a "Gruppe" may still be split into smaller teams or "detachement" for special tasks and those are led by by a Gefreiter or Obergefreiter if available. Otherwise by some capable Soldier. one "Zug" consists of sevral "Gruppen". I don't know how many exactly in the infantry since I'm not in the infantry but I'm a signal man here a "Zug" is about 20-35 people depending on tasks and availabillity of officers as far as I know the german Wehrmacht structure was similar. At least they got both type of units. Zug and Gruppe. I don't know how many people they had in a "Zug" or "Gruppe" though. But I would assume the functions of the different officers and and suboffices are the same as they exist in pretty much the same way in the German, the Austrian and the Swiss army. Also the various Feldweibels is not a rank you would find in the heat of battle at all. A Feldweibel stays in the base or near a HQ/command post ususally. EDIT: The reason I'm telling ti to you is that I guess this organisation would be similiar to the wehrmacht as our organisation and rank concepts are hugley influenced by the prussian army refoms in the 19th century and also a bit by the french army of the 19th century and that applies for the wehrmacht aswell. and is seen up until today in the armies of the german speaking countries

hmm I don't know anything about the Wehrmacht structure. Only thing that I know is how the swiss army handles it and I can maybe tell you a bit about the functions of the ranks. on the Schütze and such stuff. It might be different in the Wehmacht but here is how it is in the swiss army today: Every Soldier depending on his function has a attribute (it's not a rank, since his rank is soldier or gefreiter or something like that) like Schütze (Rifleman), Grenadier (some sort of better trained soldier or rather more specialised - grenadier obviously refering to grenades although today every soldier gets grenade training), Panzergrenadier (Grenadiers that support tanks and ususally are carried in APCs or IFVs to the battlefield), Pionier (engineers), Funkpionier (Radio specialist) and so on. There are lots of those attributes because there are lots of functions. next we have Gefreiter (since we don't autmaticly get promoted to higher ranks with duration of service this rank is basicly only given to soldiers that have done something special that made the NCO proud of them - might be different in the wehrmacht) then the Obergefreiter (this rank is also given as kind of award to soldiers that show extraordinary spirit in ass-kissing their NCOs or to sevral specialists like the cooks, sports instructors, soldiers that have special occupation like organising the ammo depot etc. - might be different in the wehrmacht) those three are the "Mannschaftsgrade" (crew ranks) now the "Unteroffizierränge" (Sub-officer ranks) I gonna write something about those that you mentioned. Unteroffizier: I do not know if that was real rank in the wehrmacht but it means "sub-officer" and there are a number of sub-officer ranks. The lowest sub-officer rank is ususally the Korporal (Corporal) and is the rank for group leaders and some functions that require to have the power to give orders to soldiers. other sub officer ranks are swiss army specific so I won't go into them. it also changed a lot since 2000) generally speaking on "Feldwebel" (old spelling also "Feldweibel") It is the same as Sergeant. Other german Names for this rank include "Sergant", "Wachtmeister" and the nickname "Spieß". it's still a sub-officer rank. his functions are to organise everything concerning the barracks, hygene and logistical stuff. there are different feldwebel ranks. ascending: Unterfeldwebel, Feldwebel, Oberfeldwebel, Hauptfeldwebel, Stabsfeldwebel, Oberstabsfeldwebel I dunno if the functions change much with the different Feldwebel ranks. IMHO it's just to make room for a clear command structure in places where it would be crowded with feldwebels (like large barracks) and to get those guys some awards with longer period of service. the officers. hmm well I think you're kinda right there. I can olny tell you how it is in the swiss army here but I think it would be similar in the wehmacht. Leutnant commands a "Zug" (Platoon) each platoon is speerated in "Gruppen" (squads or teams) which are commanded by Korporals. next higher rank is Oberleutnant (mostly also Platoon commanders or deputy company commander) next ist Hauptmann (Company commander) next is Major (mostly Batallion commanders or part of a staff) next ist Oberstleutnant (mostly Batallion commanders or part of a staff) next Oberst (batallion commanders or part of the general staff then called "Oberst im Generalstab") I won't go into the higher ranks as there the german structure differs very much from the swiss one. hope it gives you a betetr idea.

oh hmm looks like the US succeeded cross breeding apes and human beings...

you might want to check out the jungels on Tonal island made by BAS though AI can't really handle them

I don't get why someone would do such a thing to himself based on free will but if it is what you want... well good luck. I am doing my "school of recruit" in the swiss army at the moment. 21 weeks of senslessness, boredom and incompetence. Unfortunatly I am required to do my service (unless I want to pay lot's of extra taxes to compensate). I hope you will have more fun.

*cough*click*cough*

It's cheaper than water in the US and Europe too.

@IsthatyouJohnWayne Hmm I'm not going to answer your points now because I feel denoir pretty much said anything I would want to say and because I lack time now. To clear you up. I am Swiss, I live in Switzerland. But I am also Czech and thus EU citizen.

Because it would give the EU a betetr position in global competition. Not only on economical level (where it seems to work quite well now) but also in political matters. I don't know about you. But I don't feel like becomming a puppet of world powers again. I want that europe has it's say too. At least when it concerns european interests. Right know europe is poltically just pathethic. We keep quarraling with each other all the time and it's too easy for nations like the US to "shut us down". With a common foreign policy we wouldn't stop quarraling maybe. But we would have a common representation. Off course it would make it harder for single nations to go on their adventures in the desert but IMHO that's a good thing. I'm not interested in europe becomming world police or colonial power again. We've seen to what it leads and it never was anything that I consider good. Nevertheless we need to take care of our interests and we surley have more weight when 25 nations speak in a common way than splitting in 25 parties that keep disabling each other. Also it would increase the efficiency of the process a lot. Right now, every time some major agreement is about to be made they need to call in a EU summit, then the head of states fly in quickly (mostly they come too late) have some dinner and fly home the next day and let their diplomats argue for a week to reach the consesus that there is none. That's no way to govern anything... And common defense... why not? more security, more cost efficient and less likely to get involved in wars in which it has nothing to do. Well without reforms there's not much the elected representatives can do in Strasbourg (Parliament). And the first step of this reforms was the constitution. Although there need to follow a lot more before we get a proper european parliament. Also the legal superiority... well I'm kinda suprised the brits bitch most about that as the brits are those that have negotiated out most speacial regulations that exclude them from things other have to do. So the brits kinda have the least of it. And also remember that the EU doesn't have formal superiority. Those laws get agreed on in treaties that your government signs and then includes in the national law. Formally every nation has the possibillity to reject those laws. Although that would lead to some major conflicts between the EU member states. Also as it is now. Most laws that are regulated on EU level concern ecomomy. You need that for your oh so beloved free market. I don't know about every country but here the regulations for the market and the general economy represent the largest fraction of the law. So that's not very surprising to me as the economy is where the EU has made most progress. Well the two sides that never can agree are genrally France and Britain. The other differences are sorted out relatively easy. France is as guilty for this as Britain but unfortunately for Britain, France is closer to the opinions of the rest of the continent while Britain often stands alone. With all this differences it is of course impossible to get any agreement "on the point" as you put it because when France and Britain start bitching about their extra regulation, then - of course - the germans will whine about their interests too and Poland and SPain and so on. So it ends up being a document that is not understandable for the normal citizen. But that's the fault of all those nations that are unable to make compromises in their area of interest. That's also a reason why we need common EU policy. As long as each nation can so powerfully defend it's own interests against the rest of the members and come trough with it it is impossible to reach any good agreement. If we had a proper legislation on EU level with the parilament playing a serious role in it we could finally make some progress with majority decissions that don't get vetoed all the time because somebody is being stubborn. Of course there should't be majority decissions for everthing. But some things just need to have a bigger chance to get accepted in order to reform the EU institutions and give them some efficency, which they desperatly need.

Uhmm afaik most French people are totally pro EU. They wouldn't want to leave it. They said no to the constitutions, that's true. They didn't say no to the EU though. And for the french part a large block of the no camp was against it because for them it didn't go far enough in certain areas. And another large block simply had no idea what they were voting on. And only a relatively small block voted against the constitution because it went too far. I don't really know much about the Netherlands. From what I heard they blame the EU for all sorts of things that aren't really the problem of the EU, but rather their own government. But that's an old story in many member states anyway. Just blame the EU so you don't get the blame. But I'm not so well informed about the Netherlands. The French opinion is very contrary to the british opinion where most people seem to be against the EU itself and the constitution is going too far for them as they already have trouble accepting the current organisation. So those are different reasons. But there is a decisive thing about it. The British don't want the same EU as most of the continent. They're going in a different direction. I don't want to kick them out. I personally think it would be a big loss for the EU and I think the EU needs britain somehow. But when the british people don't want to be in the EU, why should they be there? I want an EU with a population that knows why it's good for them. If they think it only hurts them and thus sabotage attempts to make the whole thing more democratic (right now it's totally unbearable for my democratic sense) and gives it more effectiveness then it would really be better to go on without such nations. This EU constitution was a fiasco yes. But the EU itself ins't IMHO. I think this constitution was made unacceptable for many because of too many compromises between too different visions. Also it turns out that the governments made a terrible job of informing the public about what the constitution is. Firstly it's not really a constitution in the traditional sense. It does not lay the foundation of a centralised state. It also doens't replace any existing constitutions. I don't know about the english term but the german term is "Verfassungsvertrag" which means as much as "constitutional threaty" and it pretty much says what it is. It's a threaty that should contain the organisation of the EU and fix some important basic laws. Rather than having lots of different threaties doing pretty much the same but obsolte in many points as the EU expanded. Also it would have given us some new instruments towards more democratic organisation which is really needed as I think.

I answered to this in the European politics thread as this is not the right place for EU politics.

Quote of Bordoy from the Iraq thread: oh god I keep hearing that shit. It's like everybody reads the brtish equivalent of the Pravda and believes it. Just think further, why did they say no? Partially because of internal politics. But that wasn't the entire no camp. Also the left was against it because it wasn't social enough. And why wasn't it social enough? Because there most social stuff can't go through as the brits would oppose it. And be honest to yourself. If you were first to vote on it you had said no too. Only because you don't have a referendum now doesn't mean you're all of the sudden for it, huh? The point is that the UK has totally different goals than most of the rest of the EU. And the EU has to make compromises that pleases the brits but pisses off the rest. I agree now. The UK should leave the EU. There's too much trouble and problems because of them and they don't even want to be a member. So I see no more reason why they should be in the EU. They shall try their luck alone or join the USA or whatever. Just don't hold up the others. If they might want to join again later they're welcome. But not for every price. They can join but under the same condition as the rest. No more special rebates and ego trips. The EU will be able to move forward much better with more similar minded members.

Uhmm don't be misguided. CHina nowdays has quite nice weapon technologies and is developing a state of the art high tech industry branch as we speak. Give them some years and they won't only have millions of soldiers but also modern weaponry (maybe not for all of them but who cares, the rest can be sent in as cannon fodder) Also the masses alone are not to be underestimated... look at the Soviets in WW2. At some time the only the amout of PoW the germans had to take care of almost broke their neck (so they just decided to either kill them or let them starve)

psst... I'd say you were a little off on saying that the EU could scare the US. We have yet to find a country to fill in the USSR's shoes to scare us into conflict. I'm not sure if theres been any anti-EU campaigns but I'll keep my eyes open. As harley 3 1185 said, its more of an economy scheme. its not going to pull military threat behind it. If it ever goes that way, look out for another cold war. This time, we hold the majority of the nukes. Well well there is some problem about the calculation methods between the US and the EU... I didn't find the original source on the net yet. But I found an article quoting from it. so: Europe's No Basket Case Also remmeber that the EU has high costs from having to support countries that got their economy totally destroyed by the soviets. But those countries have high growth rates now. I don't know for how long but it could easily be that in some years those countries have catched up to something like east german standarts (which are significantly lower than the west german ones). But then the EU GDP would be significantly higher. Also read this: A productivity primer