Gaswell

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (advocatexxx @ Oct. 17 2002,15:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also, I'm not sure whether this was fixed in 1.85 but I remember that there is somewhat of a 'cheat' on going up/down very steep hills.<span id='postcolor'> Not fixed. I don't mind, though, because the AI isn't too bothered by steep slopes. I actually think the speed reduction (running-to-walking) is somewhat annoying, especially when you're leading a squad of AIs set to aware. They'll all run past you as you struggle uphill...

Another thought on the patch... For some reason the AI seem to behave somewhat differently now. I'm playing the RH campaign again, and I notice all kinds of never-before-seen AI behaviour. Suddenly enemies appear where I least expect them. Great stuff. It keeps me on my toes.

I noticed I can actually hit stuff with the M60 MG now. And so can the AI MGers apparently, which means I have to start managing my squad's MGers properly - not to mention play Resistance again and actually equip guys with PKs. Good fix.

I got the same feeling as DayGlow - I had to adjust to a lot longer engagement ranges. IMHO it made for much more interesting combat, since I now actually have to read the map and avoid clear lines of fire. Also, for the same reason it seems like armor are much more effective as "mobile long-range direct-fire artillery support" when I'm playing as infantry squad leader and have a few tanks/BMPs to put my guys in.

I'd like a new support menu option - fire support. A group (with a non-support unit as its leader/that doesn't include any support units) standing at a "SUPPORT" waypoint should come to the caller's location and behave as per a "GUARD" waypoint. If multiple such groups are available, only one should respond to each caller - same as the existing support calls work today. The group leader AI could auto-call fire support if 1) any of the group's vehicles are damaged beyond X percent or 2) more than X percent of the group's units is dead or wounded. Yes, it's perfectly scriptable - but then again, most things are.

I'd like a new support menu option - fire support. A group (with a non-support unit as its leader/that doesn't include any support units) standing at a "SUPPORT" waypoint should come to the caller's location and behave as per a "GUARD" waypoint. If multiple such groups are available, only one should respond to each caller - same as the existing support calls work today. The group leader AI could auto-call fire support if 1) any of the group's vehicles are damaged beyond X percent or 2) more than X percent of the group's units is dead or wounded. Yes, it's perfectly scriptable - but then again, most things are.

Considering I play OFP almost exclusively from the infantryman perspective I think the aircraft AI is good enough. I don't really care if they don't conserve ammo, or if they miss clear shots now and then. The only problem I have is with the mid-air collisions. But I reckon accidents happen, even in real life. Weapons misfire, pilots become disoriented, equipment fail... In any case, nothing compares to seeing the AI in the air come swooping in with a whole lotta firepower and save your digital ass.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Azz [GUN] @ Sep. 08 2002,15:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">what's the range on a rifle mortar and AI<span id='postcolor'> Range seems to depend on AI skill. Try to crawl closer with the AI mortarman in formation without giving a direct engage order. Sooner or later he'll fire. Dunno about effective ranges of rifle launched mortars IRL, but I know I'd never be able to hit anything at 350-400m in OFP with a mortar.

OFP is still so much better than any other game out there it's not even funny. The feeling you get in any large-scale firefight is just incredible.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (TheRedBaron @ Sep. 03 2002,06:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is there an easy way to aim bombs while flying a10 (lgb).<span id='postcolor'> No, not unless you have a laser target. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (TheRedBaron @ Sep. 03 2002,06:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">oh, and how do you repel from the bottom of a chopper like the chinooke<span id='postcolor'> You can't. Ejecting is your only workaround.

Armored vehicles are death traps, especially BMPs. Do it on foot.

Suggested AI infantry tweaks: - When moving around freely (i.e. "engage at will") and under threat (i.e. "danger"), AI soldiers should sprint, not jog. A sprinter is much harder to hit in OFP than a jogger. Walking cautiously is OK across very short distances only. - When moving around freely and set to "stealth", AI soldiers should walk cautiously, never sprint. Walking cautiously appears to lower chances of enemy AI detection, while sprinting works quite the opposite. - When given a target/watch command, AI soldiers walking cautiously should keep facing their target/watch point, walking backwards/sidewards if need be. Edit: - When ordered to "stand up", the AI should still be able to crouch. The AI will crouch, but not too often.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Aug. 10 2002,06:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Who is a good publisher? If anybody say CM....they should be banned. :D<span id='postcolor'> I happen to think CM is a good publisher. I'm sick and tired of having to wait for months after a "world-wide" US release before the first copies appears where I'm at. With the OFP release it was actually the other way 'round. Feel the pain, US citizens. And making Red Hammer available as a downloadable purchase was brilliant, no matter what you may think of the add-on itself. No distribution delay while the publisher concentrates on the US market. Personally I don't need snazzy PR to encourage me to buy games. If I did, I would've bought every Blizzard game released and The Sims to boot. (Shudder!) For me, it's how the publisher acts in regards to support and community building that counts. You wanna talk bad publishers? How 'bout EA and their clueless handling of the Black & White patch/goodies? I'm not saying that CM have done everything right in the past, but they sure could have done a lot worse. IMHO it'd be better to save those harsh words for a more deserving publisher.

No, there's unfortunately no simple way. You could place a waypoint directly on the building, then select the building pos (if applicable) but you've probably seen how that works. You might need to resort to some scripting. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">this setPos ((nearestBuilding this) buildingPos 1<span id='postcolor'> If you want them to stay inside you'd better disable the movement AI as well.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (You_looking_at_me? @ Aug. 20 2002,15:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">WELL DO IT! DO IT! DO IT!! YOU STUPID MINDLESS HALFING,<span id='postcolor'> I know the feeling...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Munger @ July 20 2002,21:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AI machine gunners are useless.<span id='postcolor'> In addition to MGs being highly inaccurate, the AI MGers always seem to aim too high. Soldiers lying prone are reasonably safe, as the AI MGer will keep firing over their heads.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kojak_2002 @ July 20 2002,18:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">* After telling a soldier to "Watch" a given direction, how do you tell them just to return to normal, and face the direction I am going (without issuing another watch command.) ?<span id='postcolor'> Use the "no target" command. Works to cancel all "target" or "watch" commands, including "scan horizon".

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ July 28 2002,11:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">don't see too much use for it in infantry missions.<span id='postcolor'> Well, I for one would like to be able to control an infantry platoon. It'd be nice if a set of units could have a formation leader not in their own group (using doFollow/commandFollow), but I haven't been able to make that happen. Even if I could, I'd need some scripting to replace the formation leader if he's shot, preferably an icon on the lower display to show him as a squad leader, and a new command to report squad status.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ July 28 2002,11:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">don't see too much use for it in infantry missions.<span id='postcolor'> Well, I for one would like to be able to control an infantry platoon. It'd be nice if a set of units could have a formation leader not in their own group (using doFollow/commandFollow), but I haven't been able to make that happen. Even if I could, I'd need some scripting to replace the formation leader if he's shot, preferably an icon on the lower display to show him as a squad leader, and a new command to report squad status.

Regarding an earlier suggestion to use "engage at will": "Engage at will" can be dangerous. Guys will scurry ahead across wide open fields to take "cover" by standing upright(!) near some bush(!). All too often you'll see one or two guys sprinting ahead, only to be surprised by an enemy off their LOS. To make matters worse, they sometimes seem to put a higher priority on completing their movement than returning fire. Little or no sense of self preservation. Formations and concentration of fire is much more effective, especially against AI squads who always seem to walk into a firefight piecemeal using "engage at will". What I would like to see is an AI soldier who'll immediately drop to one knee and start shooting at the closest target in range, unless I tell him otherwise. Edit: Did some testing, and found that the AI can be much more effective when set to "engage at will". Specifically, they will be quicker to fire their weapons if left to their own devices (which is most of the time, unless you're a micromanagement god). The problem of unit cohesion remains if you're constantly using "engage at will" with "danger" or "stealth", but the improvement in reaction time is IMHO well worth it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ May 12 2002,12:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Makes me wonder why he made such a statement, because it is not going to help jack shit, except maybe get assassins after him. Is he trying to woo for international support?<span id='postcolor'> Acknowledging the state of Israel is a no-brainer for any Palestinian president. By doing so he seeks to strengthen his image as a serious and willing participant in any forthcoming peace effort. In comparison, the Likud party votes to reject a Palestinian state. This is a politically stupid move, which I'm sure Mr. Sharon would agree.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ May 07 2002,17:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If what they're quoting from the British press is true, then the same can be said about the British press as well, couldn't it?<span id='postcolor'> Yep, and you may not be surprised to hear that the Norwegian press can appear somewhat pro-Palestinian in their Middle East coverage at times too. It's usually quite moderate stuff, though, except for a few smaller contributors who don't display any great desire to be taken seriously. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ May 07 2002,17:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe that's the problem - we tolerate biased, sided and emotional journalism. This is a general problem and it seems to have gotten much worse in the last 2 or 3 decades than it was before. So it seems, at least to me.<span id='postcolor'> Agree. It becomes ever more important that people draw their news from several different sources, and keep in mind what kind of connections (political, financial, ethnical, religious, etc.) these sources may or may not have. Hopefully we end up with a situation where the combined versions of a certain story give us a proper understanding of the actual event. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ May 07 2002,17:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Apparently I was not intellectually capable of controling my emotions (degenerative gene from my father's side, maybe? ).<span id='postcolor'> No sweat.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ May 07 2002,16:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Are you not intellectually capable of questioning the page I pointed out that you have to go out on a limb and just dismiss them out of hand without basis?<span id='postcolor'> LOL! Yep, that's exactly it. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ May 07 2002,16:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I never knew that propaganda was by definition evil or wrong.<span id='postcolor'> Well, they pretty much put their foot in their mouth by claiming to promote journalistic integrity and then have an editorial style that comes off as much too propaganda-ish. That's the funny part. Again, despite your questions about my mental capacity, I don't say that they're not potentially correct in every regard. It's just that their editorial style is too blunt to take seriously. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ May 07 2002,16:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If HR is correct in their highlights of the British press, it might be you that's reading the Bolshevik slant on life.<span id='postcolor'> Could be, could be. I'll keep HonestReporting.com bookmarked. They're a great read. Look, I don't object to strong editorial agendas, or even journalists letting their personal feelings and opinions colour their reporting. It can't be helped, and it's usually not very hard to spot. However, when they come on as strong as HonestReporting.com does, they tend to lose some credibility. Which, if we assume that they are right, is quite sad indeed.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ May 07 2002,15:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I disagree.<span id='postcolor'> From what I can read about HonestReporting.com, I can't help but question their neutrality. In fact, the HonestReporting.com site comes off as being so blatantly biased that it's rather laughable. Don't get me wrong; I'm not implying that HonestReporting.com doesn't provide honest-to-God reporting, but I'm saying that their journalistic style comes off as bordering on propaganda. Maybe a slight adjustment would benefit their credibility? But they're a funny read, nonetheless, in a Pravda sort of way. Guess I'm just used to another level of news reporting.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ April 23 2002,16:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The reference article: "Tyskland" it is funny that it is called like this, it is a very very old name here! (tusk = german )"<span id='postcolor'> The article is from a Norwegian newspaper, and "Germany" is "Tyskland" in Norwegian. Hence, a "German" is a "tysker".