IceFire

Isreal is a soveirgn state and the islamic world needs to accept that. Any action taken against Isreal by Islamists are acts of war and Israel has the right to act accordingly. Oh, and as for that not having anything to do with Irak or Afganastan, that's not true. They all tie in together.

And start a Nuclear War. Nice, glad to see you thought about that one thoroughly. How about, stop the gung-ho attitude to the world, keep to your own soil, and stop being so bloody paranoid that the world is out to get you. Newsflash, it's not, and it only is if you make it out to be, and if it is, it's probably your own bloody fault. If amerca minded its own business in the first place, America probably wouldn't be in the shit America has found itself in lately. You know, that would be true if it werent for Isreal. The Islamic world has declared war against Isreal. Isreal is an American ally, so we will help them out. That causes the Islamic world to hate us. It is not our fault like some anti-Americans think.

Happy New years people. I am curious, what are your resolutions? I made none sinse I am perfect. But not many others are as fortunate. Anyways, have a good year everyone!

Hi, I was playing OPF and noticed in the cutscene where General Guba makes a tape telling Colonel Blake and Gastovski that he captured a Pilot (Nichols) and to leave the island. Afterwards when asked about what to do about the captive pilot, Colonel Blake says something like "He's going to have to escape on his own". I found that surprising. Considering the code the miltary goes by as to "Never leave a man behind". This is something noone in the military ever would turn their back on. It's supposed to be considered a very sacred code. In famous combat missions, troops stayed with injured comrades and died against impossible odds insead of choosing to escape. So with all how it is "Never leave a man behind" I am very surprised that Blake didn't attempt a rescue for Nichols. Isn't that like a complete lack of respect for such sacred code and tradition? Every soldier fights and takes comfort knowing that if he goes down or is wounded, he wont be left for dead, and that his comrades will protect eachother.

Thank you. I fixed it up alittle. I think.

Hehe, just got home, noy am I drnk! gonna fallk asleep soon. Aneways happy new yearr/

Hmm I just ran for the BMP, immediately got into the drivers seat and immediately plowed down the road ramming anyone who was in my way. As soon as I got far enough I ditched the BMP and made the rest of the way on foot. Don't stay in the BMP too long or you'll get blasted by a hind.

Yes, but in OPF you can shoot an enemy straight in the chest and he will continue to actively run or fight. And the number of times you hit an enemy in the chest in that good general area greatly outnumbers the seldom occasions where you "graze" an enemy or have the bullet grazing his shirt. Why should they have a system that benefits these rare instances of grazing as opposed to what happens more often in most firefights? Which is to shoot the enemy several times to kill them.

Bad ideas based on MOVIES?? How is dying if you get shot in the chest unrealistic?? Believe it or not, if you get shot in the chest you will no longer be able to function at the very least. Even if you survived you would not be able to function for a long time atleast. Your comparison of my system and movies are contradictory. In movies, the hero or villain generally takes several bulllets and still lives. That is movie drama, ... the opposite of what I am suggesting. In real life if one is shot, they are either going to die, or will need to be immediately be sent to a hospital in order to save their lives. I think YOU are the one who watches too many movies. What's wrong with you?

Hi everyone, I'm IceFire Ok, I have one major complaint about something in OPF. The damage system is too unrealistic. Come on. We pride ourselves on this realistic game because of it's realism. But one of the most important things about the realism in the game is very unrealistic. I'm talking about the need to shoot an enemy soldier on some occasions several times in order to drop them. Have you ever aimed through the scope of a sniper rifle at a distant running enemy soldier, and then fire and hit him square in the chest only to see him continue running? I was once hiding around the corner of a building with my glock handgun. A Russian soldier came running by. I aimed, and fired. Each shot connected with him. It took about 5 bullets to kill him. That is absolutely ridiquilous! Listen, I don't want to hear arguments on bullet calibers and whatnot. In real life, you get shot square in the chest with a .45 or a .22 or an M-16 rifle round, eitherway you are gonna drop. Remember, these soldiers don't wear any armor or vests except for their helmets. I have thought about this and have come up with a realistic damage system. Any shots to the HEAD = DEATH Any shots to the TORSO(chest, stomach, back) = DEATH Any shots to the ARMS = Either DEATH or INJURY depending on severity/extent of damage. If the result is injury, that would mean reduced accuracy, stability. Any shots to the LEGS = Either DEATH or INJURY depending on severity of damage. If the result is injury, the soldier would be forced to crawl. Therefore any damage to the legs would AT LEAST drop the soldier to the ground if not kill him. Using these guidlines to design the damage model in OPF2 would greatly increase the realism of the game. The player would not have to shoot the enemy so much to kill him. This would mean much more realistic firefights. And much greater care in avoiding getting shot. That wouln't be bad at all. I remember many, even most missions where I never took any shots. One would be able to better use surprise, and much quicker overwhelm a vulnerable enemy or group of enemies. Think about this and tell me what you think. Thanks IceFire

Hi everyone, I'm IceFire Ok, I have one major complaint about something in OPF. The damage system is too unrealistic. Come on. We pride ourselves on this realistic game because of it's realism. But one of the most important things about the realism in the game is very unrealistic. I'm talking about the need to shoot an enemy soldier on some occasions several times in order to drop them. Have you ever aimed through the scope of a sniper rifle at a distant running enemy soldier, and then fire and hit him square in the chest only to see him continue running? I was once hiding around the corner of a building with my glock handgun. A Russian soldier came running by. I aimed, and fired. Each shot connected with him. It took about 5 bullets to kill him. That is absolutely ridiquilous! Listen, I don't want to hear arguments on bullet calibers and whatnot. In real life, you get shot square in the chest with a .45 or a .22 or an M-16 rifle round, eitherway you are gonna drop. Remember, these soldiers don't wear any armor or vests except for their helmets. I have thought about this and have come up with a realistic damage system. Any shots to the HEAD = DEATH Any shots to the TORSO(chest, stomach, back) = DEATH Any shots to the ARMS = Either DEATH or INJURY depending on severity/extent of damage. If the result is injury, that would mean reduced accuracy, stability. Any shots to the LEGS = Either DEATH or INJURY depending on severity of damage. If the result is injury, the soldier would be forced to crawl. Therefore any damage to the legs would AT LEAST drop the soldier to the ground if not kill him. Using these guidlines to design the damage model in OPF2 would greatly increase the realism of the game. The player would not have to shoot the enemy so much to kill him. This would mean much more realistic firefights. And much greater care in avoiding getting shot. That wouln't be bad at all. I remember many, even most missions where I never took any shots. One would be able to better use surprise, and much quicker overwhelm a vulnerable enemy or group of enemies. Think about this and tell me what you think. Thanks IceFire

Hi, I'm IceFire. I'm looking for some user made French Foreign Legion type campaign in Africa. This would be cool. As long as it is well done and authentic.

Hi I'm IceFire, I want to know about war games that have are very immersive and believable in their story line with a thick plot. You know the types of games. Half-Life while not being a war game really was the start of this trend of immersive story lines and environment. Medal of Honor also did an excellent job of this. The thing that is really key here for me is the fact that they use real native language speakers here. In Medal of Honor Allied assault you could hear real German conversations and you would wonder what they were saying. Perhaps if a German person was playing he would understand what was being said. I thought that would be cool. It's an extra detail put in that made the environment really believable even though most people don't speak or understand German. Operation Flashpoint also did this a bit with spoken Russian. This was cool. I was wondering if any of you know about any other games that do this. Most games only have English spoken and the foreign languages sound fake and made up as if by saying "Ching chong chong" they are making believable Chinese to young kids you probably don't care or pay much attention. I think Delta Force 2 used made up Arabic and African in it's games. They didn't sound real. Anyways, can anyone else mention games that have the quality I mentioned above? Not faked languages in it either.

Hi all, I'm IceFire. I was recently playing Delta Force 2 and I noticed the enemies yelling and talking. I was wondering if the languages spoken in the game were authentic and real, or if they were just made up to sound realistic. Does anyone here know Russian, Arabic, or African or any of the other languages in the game? I dunno, I'm curious. You can IM me if you know the answer since I check these forums less and less frequently these days. And what about OPF 2? Is it coming out soon? Thanks IceFire

Howabout you can still fire with a pistol while you are dragging, or better yet the man you are dragging can return fire as he is being dragged.

Ok, fine. No more yellow boxes. Then why not we make it so that when the commander calls out a target, he clearly points at the direction of the target with his arm? That would give it a MUCH more realistic feel. You would have to look at the direction he is pointing at.

Yeah, about movement. That's the part that there isn't really in books. That mostly is learnt in training as that is learnt through being physically guided in the movements during training. There are alot of sublties in it that takes just doing over and over like it's your life. Talk to an infantry man, he would probably be your best source. But I don't think they are allowed to disclose military procedures such as that. A book probably wouln't tell you how to go prone, how to crawl, how to sneak around. That is stuff you just learn by intense training until it becomes instinct. join the miltary to learn that. Stuff on how to build a trap and shelter is more straightforward. Moving is something professional soldiers spend their time in all that basic combat training mastering. You can't just pick that up in a book. Even if one were to describe to you how it is done, you probably wouln't be able to do it right because you just havn't been through the training that hones it down to precice instinct.

Hey everyone, I just thought I'd mention to all those who were talking about how the US wouln't have the capability to wage this war without significant casualties. You know who you are, about 6 months ago you were all talking about how we would take on heavy casualties in Baghdad and it would be very costly to American lives. Well ha ha, we've won. And with very little casualties. You could count our dead on 2 hands, or maybe 4. But hey, all you talking like you were actually knowledgable about how we would be caught up in all this CQB in the streets. It's all done and over and it's good time we say "Ha ha, told ya so". So what do you say to that?

Yes, I just read them, and nowhere does it say that it can't be helped by strenghthening the muscles in the eye. It reads pretty straight forward. The eyes are shaped a little elongated. So the vision is less focused in some aspect. So?

Sure you can learn the tactics, techniques and everything else involved from books. But I don't think you can REALLY learn learn them like a professional soldier unless you are professionally trained. There are just some things that can only be learnt under specifically designed instruction in real life. Like training your mind, learning to detect enemies, mental preparation, adjusting to stress, things that only a trained eye of a professional can teach a recruit with many hours and weeks of training.

Oh, and Mr. Mad Dentist person, all those eye conditions are not what I am talking about. Those are all diseases and stuff. I'm just talking about normal poor eyesight, far sightedness, nearsightedness, bad eyesight from stress on the eyes and whatnot, or just eyes that are a bit weak. Believe it or not, most people who have eye trouble don't have any of those diseases listed, they just have bad eyes that arn't that sharp.

Mr.Milli, what you are talking about is that your eyes are "damaged". That's not what I mean. I am talking about simply poor vision. Just due to age, or strain or just plain having bad vision. I'm not talking about if it is damaged or you have things disconnected in your eye.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrMilli @ 26 April 2003,02:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ April 26 2003,00:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Icefire asked me to post this for him. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How bad was your friends eyesight? What age was he? He didn't just happen to grow out of mildly bad eyesight did he? By the way if you have eyesight problems not wearing your glasses will just make things worse.<span id='postcolor'> Actually wearing glasses only makes your eyes worse. Â Why do you think people keep needing thicker and thicker lenses? Â people don't get thinner and thinner lenses, do they? Oh, and as for my friend, his vision was pretty terrible. Â He needed glasses to see, or things would be blurry. Â If he didn't have his glasses, he would have to squint pretty hard at things to see them ok. Â He was 22 at the time that he corrected his vision. Â Last I heard he has far better than 20/20 in both eyes.<span id='postcolor'> thanks for the comedy<span id='postcolor'> You don't believe me?? It's so simple and you people insist that you are right. You are wrong! I already told you that it is better to improve your vision instead of getting glasses or surgery. But noooo. That site you linked was a site for lazer surgery. Why don't you people go talk to an eye doctor, he'll tell you. You people don't know anything but you all talk like you are all experts!

Hmm, on the internet for free? Â I'm sure you could find some, don't know where though. The internet isn't the best for that sort of information. If you really want in depth info on that sorts of stuff, you are going to have to go to a book store. Â Baldon, or Barnes and Nobles are excellent. Â They have tons of in depth info on that sorts of stuff. But to tell you the truth, if you really want to learn that for real, you are going to have to join the military for real. Â That's the only way you're going to learn that type of stuff, and how to execute it all. Books can give you information that you can learn about. Â But you will never really be capable to really use it without real professional real world instuction by a military organization. But if you just want to read information for reference info, books are the only way you're going to get it, and even then it wont be complete. You will only learn basic simple stuff. Alot of the real world techinques used by miltaries arn't even published. They are only used by miltaries. I was recently in the book store looking for a cook book when I went to check out the miltary section. One that caught my eye, and that you would probably like was called something like "SAS survival techniques". If was very direct and informative, it even told how to evade dogs, how to disable dogs, how to build shelters. How to build a hide in the ground as a trench around the trunk of a tree. Lots of stuff. But most of all these books and stuff are primarily just aids. They won't tell you all the steps required to do it all. Only the military can teach you all that.

Actually Anzac day is a day for the trees. It is a day celebrated world wide where people go and plant trees. I remember in elementary school when on Anzac day we would go and plant a new tree in the playground of the school. It's nice to have a day reserved to pay respect to the trees which provide us with oxygen, clean air, beautiful scenery, shade, and a place for children to play in.