Raw

Not really, both superpowers have countries which they support with military equipment. One could, for instance, easily put two new countries on the european map (heck, Mission Impossible invented new nations almost every episode...), let's call them Krasnostan and Capitaland. They have a common border and old grudges. Suddenly, oil is found in Krasnostan, near the border, and Capitaland decides to invade to get it. The superpowers do not want to miss this oil, so they start to talk about domino effects and pour weapons and equipment into the area. Close enough to reality to relate to, real equipment used, but direct references to real world politics avoided. I'm not saying this is the way one should go, but it is an option.

I think the point that he is trying to get across is that a fight between to fictional countries (even though they may be using real equipment) would be less politically charged. I don't consider it that important, but I do see the problem. I have played LAN games which has been seriously unbalanced because some people refuse to play Soviet side for political reasons and most people refuse to play US side for political reasons. With fictional countries (or players who understand that they are playing a game, not voting in a effing election...), this problem would disappear. Personally, I prefer to play the Soviet side, but have no problem playing the US side if need be. It is just a game.

Wow, that's one talented little kid you have there! I had to reread your message to check that I got the age right! While not deaf myself, I can certainly relate to the problem and agree that if the game can be made more accessible it would be a good thing. The same goes for other handicaps, for instance would an option to have large fonts with black banners behind it make it more accessible for those with visual impairments. Even for the rest of us, there may be situations where it would be useful. Playing on a laptop on a train or aircraft (OFP works fine there, crashing 737s into WTC in MS Flightsim is slightly unpopular) will not make you popular of you blast the sound at your fellow passengers. I sometimes gather a bunch of friends and we play on my LAN, and the sound level at these occasions when ten people all try to crank up their volume higher than everybody else makes it pretty damn hard to hear anything, let alone think. For me, this is especially hard, since I usually turn down the volume, sneak up on an enemy, crank up the volume to max and hit him with the loudest weapon I have. I don't know about other countries, but here (in Sweden) we have a law that forces software companies to provide accessibility features in their products. This law is excellent, since it forces software developers like me to consider these issues throughout the development. I don't think the law has been tested on a game yet, but it may very well happen. For the people with disabilities, especially children, it is not only about playing the game. It is about being able to do the same things their friends do. A pinball (another big interest of mine) rental company here in Sweden adapted their machines in such a way that they could be used by people who need special equipment to control them (I don't remember exactly how, I think they just plugged their ordinary controller into the machine.). Suddenly, kids who had been sitting at home in wheelchairs could go out and be a part of normal activities with their friends. It does not take a lot to feel like you do not belong and it does not take a lot to make you feel like you do belong. Small things like these make a huge difference. So I say: Do what you can to make this game accessible to people with special needs. Small things that are easy to implement can go a long way. I don't care if it increase the price a little or delays the release a little. If OFP2 becomes as big as OFP1, which I think will happen, perhaps it can start a trend in this area. It could give a lot of goodwill and perhaps "Accessibility enabled" could become an important stamp of approval to have on the box.

Reload animations, while looking nice, eats CPU cycles. Even worse, they would make it more complicated and more work for mod makers to add new weapons. A lot of OFP's popularity is due to its openness for modding.

Could you do a vidcap of that and post somewhere? It must look funny as hell! "It's raining men! Halleluja!"

Excellent idea! Increase the "shakyness" when you are under fire or when you are close to an enemy (running round a corner, suddenly standing face to face with one). If the shakyness could be reduced when in cover it would be nice, but it would be great even without it. It would really make covering fire meaningful and provide a realistic way to make the snipers less powerful. The level of training should also affect this. A rookie will panic more than a badass blackop. Go for it. Even if it's not included in the game, someone should make a mod for it!

That's the only sensible idea in this thread. Mud or snow would make it much more difficult to gou outside the road with vehicles, causing very different tactical conditions. Shouldn't require that much work or CPU power either, as long as the graphics fanatics don't run wild.

Darkpeace, you are still not getting the point. It is not a matter of if the ISPs will like it or not, it is a matter of if their equipment will support it. The broadcast protocols are not a purely clientside solution, they rely heavily on features which must be present in the network equipment to work. At the moment, the support for this on the internet is very limited at best. With no incentive for the ISPs to provide support for these protocols, it is not likely to happen soon. Look at some file sharing development forums. This question pops up all the time on them and it always ends the same way: "It would be great but at the moment it is not possible.". These are guys who, unlike darkpeace, know what they are talking about. Trust me, if it was possible, every file sharing app would use it, since bandwidth management and preservation is by far the single largest problem facing them. Perhaps it will be possible in 3-5 years, but it is not now and it will require significant investments in the internet infrastructure to make it possible. BI could put all the best developers on the task and it would still not be possible since the network is not ready for it. It would be lika having a phone but no line to connect it to. Grow up. The fact thar something would be good does not make it possible.

The thing is that the packets leave the server once, then each pice of network equipment along the line has to understand that there are multiple recipients, and preserve that information as needed or split the packets to several destinations if needed. It is not a question of blocked ports, it is a question of the abilities of the technology in use today. The internet today is not ready for this, there is too much old equipment around. Besides, the ISP's are scared of this, since a single user could start streaming video and other bandwidth intensive stuff all over the world, which would generate huge amounts of traffic once the packets starts to split for different destinations. As I said earlier, this would be the holy grail of file sharing, since a single user could easily serve any number of download as if they were one, breaking the need for an overall p2p network up/down ratio of 1:1. There may be that free lunch on the horizon, but it is not here yet. They don't give a damn anyway, you can usually use your connection for anything. The only thing they really care about is excessive bandwidth usage. This is why they are scared of broadcast protocols. A single user can easily generate far more traffic than his connection would otherwise limit.

The various methods for broadcasting data are nice, but they don't work well, since many ISP's block them and much of the network don't support them. Check any p2p-forum, it is a constant source of discussion there, since a working broadcast protocol would be the holy grail of file sharing.

While realistic, it is totally counterproductive for a game. It will make it harder for newbies and easier for the good players. If anything, make it the other way around, making it harder to hit the more you use a weapon. That will force you to vary your tactics and it will give newbies a chance.

Many errors about Sweden in this topic. They are not Swedish, they are Swiss. A completely different country.

Sweden is not a member of NATO and most likely will never be.

The only "formation" I really miss is a "Run for cover!". At the moment, unless you specifically order each man to covered positions, some will be left standing in the open, where they'll be gunned down. In fact, unless specifically ordered to stay put, the default reaction to enemy contact should be to take cover!

Yes, there are some wierd stuff, I agree. For instance, one of the easiest ways to take out a chopper in OFP is with an antitank weapon... Another successful tactic I used one time on OFP when I was driving a T80 and my cannon got damaged when fighting an M60 was to just charge it and push it into the sea. I doubt that has ever been used in real life... Let me state it like this: The big parts are in place and work as they should. The details still could use some polish.