Gollum1

The demo really got my adrenaline pumping, but I turned the music off. The "fun" techno just tells every 13-year old: "look! killing foreign, stupid ni**ers is fun and manly!" Anyway, I got some low framerates on the MH-6s but when I land it smooths out. I noticed there are some problems with AI pathfinding, or maybe they just need more waypoints. They tend to walk into walls. There should be a higher difficulty level where friendlies and enemies are more accurate and do more damage, you´re king of da battlefield now. If you stand 1 meter from a guy with an 7.62 mm assault rifle, you should get HOLES punched in your body. But it looks like 9 out of 10 bullets are blanks. And when you man that .50 cal you´re just a great silhouette against the sky, but noo the enemies just drive around and get killed. And if you get tired of the MG, you can destroy a pickup with 5 rifle rounds. And it should be more violent! If you blow a truck up and there was a bunch of men on it, there should be some blackened bodies in the wreckage. But the driver´s seat is empty. Bodies disappear, you just get the slightest bit of red to announce that you hit a guy with a white t-shirt with 15 5.56 mm hollow-points. Blood & guts! It´s disrespectful for all involved to try and cover the dirtiness up! It´s all about the $$$$$ But I´ll probably buy it

I think Finnish terrain would be an absolute necessity for the addon, how the hell am I going to get the right atmosphere when I´m flying my Hornet over a desert and towns with French and Czech names? Aaah, korpi...OK, so it might be ugly with WRPedit, but you just HAVE to have real terrain. Keep up the good work, and some pics would be nice, if you´ve got ´em. And on the WW2 "issue" - you´ve got Finns and Russians arguing over who won a war between their nations 60 years ago. I don´t think you´re going to get anywhere. Ooh and nice new emoticon

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Unatomber @ Jan. 06 2003,19:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i dare to say that if there would be a war between Russia and Finland, the Finnish Defence Forces would have all the odds in its favor because every finnish man has been in the army.  <span id='postcolor'> So has every Russian man. Russia has a draft too y´know. Get your facts straight

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DigitalCenturion @ Jan. 05 2003,19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When it comes to Sweden and Finland, i think they both have about equal chanches defeding their country. Finland has more fighting spirit but sweden has better tech. Wars of offensive movements would fail for both countries, i am led to believe. (ofcourse, if sweden had to defend against an eastern invasion, they'd have an huge advantage, cuz whatever invading army has to go thru Finland first. No easy feat, as WW2 showed us  <!--emo&)<span id='postcolor'> Aren´t you a bit biased... And the situation is TOTALLY different than in WW2, Russia would crush the whole of Scandinavia like a fly IF they attacked. In 1939, the average Russian soldier was poorly led, demoralized and poorly trained. Russia realized it had to get its shit together and started removing incompetent political Comisars from command positions, plus they came out with some real hardware like the T-34 and IL-2 Sturmovik. Russia defeated Nazi Germany, contrary to what the Yanks and Brits will tell you. We´re just lucky that America was there in 1945 to stop the Red tide, or they would be speaking Russian in Paris. And Stockholm. And Helsinki. How did I get into this topic?

Yeah, Gr8 idea!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (GranQ @ Jan. 03 2003,20:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">gollum, of course not, but seeing i will serve the army next year or this year i need to think it is the best <span id='postcolor'> Well, if not the best then you can take comfort in it being about 50% bigger than ours Note that I didn´t say better!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Eviscerator @ Jan. 02 2003,05:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the vc were a small terrorist type force<span id='postcolor'> guerrilla

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (GranQ @ Jan. 02 2003,14:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">EDIT: I think buying the CV90 was a political decision *cough*NATO*cough* [] don't want to say you are stupid but sweden is not part of NATO. if that was the reason, why not the warrior or M2a2 ?<span id='postcolor'> The CV90 is more NATO-*compatible*. And don´t get all defensive, it isn´t your patriotic duty to defend an piece of metal Just kidding, of course.

Edit: D´oh, don´t mind me. I read someting wrong. Oh, and no demo mission?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Jan. 01 2003,21:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">lack of modern night-vision devices.<span id='postcolor'> Upgradable.

Great article BTW, explains a lot. I think buying the CV90 was a political decision *cough*NATO*cough*

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (shar @ Jan. 01 2003,14:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Gah, I would really like to read that article. Silly Finnish makes no sense. <span id='postcolor'> Why you...let´s get him, boys! Cam0flage, you hold him down!

I meant more like that the gun shouldn´t show on radar. And as I said, it also makes them harder to kill, which balances them well in-game. And EVERY beta has worked for me just fine. I haven´t been able to lock on with missiles, but the gun and rockets always lock on.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bordoy @ Dec. 29 2002,19:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Indentical twins are NATURAL, cloning isn't.<span id='postcolor'> So?

Denoir´s point about trains is exactly what I was going to say. Keep up the good work! I´m initially for cloning because it´s the same as being a twin and people were using the same arguments against IVF as the ones expressed in this thread. But the consequences for the clones... (who are normal people, just because you have Hitler´s genes doesn´t mean you´re going to take over the world, the clone can just as well be a friendly, quiet accountant who looks like him) Think about it, hatred against clones leads to prejudices and the notion that they´re "just clones". Which, in turn, leads to slavery and lynchings. Clone soldiers? They´re "just" clones, and they´re inferior, hence, expendable. So cloning isn´t bad, people are bad

6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (shar @ Dec. 31 2002,136)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if this has been asked before, but will you peeps include the CV9030 you bought off us rather recently?<span id='postcolor'> I don´t think it has been mentioned...aren´t the CV9030s supposed to be in Jaeger brigades? I saw a picture of one in an FDF leaflet, but only remembered it just now. I´m seeing nothing but praise for this IFV, except it´s very expensive. Edit: And could you please make a website!? It doesn´t have to be anything fancy, but it´s pretty cumbersome to log on to the forum, go to the addons forum, find the Finnish thread and go to the last page all the time. Or maybe I´m just lazy Also, the website would give us a nice overall view of how the mod is progressing.

Great final version, I can´t find anything wrong with it! The AI always kill ZU´s for me, and for those complaining about not being able to lock on with missiles...it´s REALISTIC! And it works great since the ZU´s aren´t as powerful or quick to fire as Shilkas or Tunguskas (fictional addon, BTW) so they are less effective but also harder to kill. And I don´t know a single plane or chopper in OFP that only has missiles, try using your MG or rockets! Happpy new year!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AKM74 @ Dec. 27 2002,20:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">10. AI gunner didn’t engage ZU23 = fixed   (even if I’m think it not good idea.)<span id='postcolor'> Me neither. Remove. Otherwise, you´ve fixed every little thing that was wrong with this gun. It´s got to be perfect now!

WOW!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (TaNK_Em @ Dec. 27 2002,18:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree i was in a F117 and i couldent lock on with the missles.<span id='postcolor'> No no, you´re talking about something completely different. IRL you can´t lock onto a little gun like you could on a 70-ton tank either, but the question here is that the AI doesn´t attack the gun at all, altough they do for me *cough*readb4ypost*cough*

*bleeet* OT alert, OT alert *bleeet*

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Papageorge @ Oct. 27 2002,07:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">... You are aware of the hole point of this Post correct chronicles? The M2A2 Bradly is a light tank. The BMP, BMP2, and BMP3 are Armored Personal Vechiles.<span id='postcolor'> Are YOU aware of the hole in YOUR post? The BMP2, BMP3 and M2A2 are roughly equal IFVs. That´s infantry fighting vehicles.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Papageorge @ Oct. 27 2002,07:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">... You are aware of the hole point of this Post correct chronicles? The M2A2 Bradly is a light tank. The BMP, BMP2, and BMP3 are Armored Personal Vechiles.<span id='postcolor'> Are YOU aware of the hole in YOUR post? The BMP2, BMP3 and M2A2 are roughly equal IFVs. That´s infantry fighting vehicles.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Dec. 26 2002,07:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In OFP troops cannot fire their weapons on top of a vehicle therefore making them sitting ducks to enemy. And there is no difference in the case of mines or rockets in OFP, when they hit the vehicle all will die without depending where they sit. So, I suggest that the preference to sit in BTR-70 is first the compartment THEN the roof if there is no space inside. In OFP game terms sitting on roof is suicidal - you're better of riding trucks in that case! Please change preferences to sit inside first + extra men outside. And it still will be cool <span id='postcolor'> Trust one of my own countrymen to support me Couldn´t have said it better myself.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (chaztheducky @ Dec. 26 2002,05:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">mlrs mean multipule launch rocket system(only 95% sure) and is an artililary system.its not used to shoot down aircraft. the only other thing that we shoot down aircraft with is a stinger or a automated vulcan cannon. just to let you know <span id='postcolor'> Yep, the MRLS is artillery. But about the new beta: it´s really great, but just a couple of fixes: 1. What´s the point of having a commander if he doesn´t have a radar? Now, the gunner has the radar and makes the commander useless, just an observer. The commander is in charge of spotting targets, so even if there isn´t a radar on the ZU-23 IRL, he should be the one to have it, at least it simulates him "looking around" and scanning for targets. 2. Smoke would be nice. 3. Shouldn´t they have to reload once in a while? They have a bunch of ammo boxes there that they don´t use, don´t tell me that the ones they already have on the gun contain 500 rounds API-T AND 200 rounds HEI-T (ahh, I don´t know) The new optics look very sharp and professional, cool Keep up the good work!