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.

We have to focus on what part of realism we think is central to the game. I consider stuff like introducing a vehicle 2 years early or slightly altering it's armour (Which in reality is so mixed up with random factors like exactly where and which angle you hit that it becomes difficult to judge anyway. Blow a thread of a tank and it is just a piece of static artillery.) is minor. Sometimes this is done by mistake, sometimes it is done to provide a balance in the game by providing a counterpart that one side misses. For instance, west does not have any serious counterpart for the BMP series. The BMP (1, 2 & 3) is superior to the west vehicles (for every given year) designed for the same purposes. It has better armour, firepower, mobility, lower profile and so on. They are also manufactured in more than ten times the number of the west MICVs. This could be reflected in OFP, but would it make a good game? By beefing up the west MICVs a slightly, we have a more playable situation. The realism I want is already in the game (but can, of course, as always be improved). It is the fact that (more or less) it will behave like real life. Real, proven tactics work fine. OK, sometimes you can cheat the AI by fooling a tank so that it gets stuck in a forest, but most of the time, real tactics work best. Things like "If you're hidden and spot the enemy, don't shoot if you don't have a good shot." or "Try to get them in a crossfire." or "Lay out some suppressive fire with the machine gun while the sniper finishes them off." works, much like in real life. I like the fact that you can't run, jump and shoot accurately at the same time. I like the fact that the maps are maps, not playground obstacle courses. This is the type of realism I find important. If I were to give suggestions regarding realism, I would consider these higher priority: - When shot at, AI's run for cover if cover is nearby, not just drop to the ground where they can be shot like fish in a barrel. - Sniper rifles are too good. Don't let them drop back to exactly the same spot after the recoil of the previous shot. Force the player to have to take a new aim between shots. - Better AI usage of buildings and windows. AI's guarding or moving through a town should use buildings better. - Less bouncy physics. Tanks don't bounce when hit by a machine gun. - Longer view distance when flying, at the cost of detail. Making a good approach to a target is much harder than in real life because you can barely see beyond the tip of your nose. - Better 3D models for wrecked stuff. Most of it is just a mass of jumbled polygons that you get stuck on. - AI doing suppressive fire with machine guns. These things would make a much larger difference from a realism viewpoint than nitpicking over minor details.

Would be nice, but there's probably a lot of things that would give more bang for the buck. This is a common problem in request/suggestion forums. People tend to think in terms of all the cools stuff that could be done instead of thinking in terms of a certain amount of money for development and what they consider important enough to use part of that money.

What about some sort of "docking" on windows, logs and other stuff that can be used for support, much like the way you man a fixed machinegun today. That could also help with the very hampered field of fire you get when firing through a window. Walk up to a real window and pretend thet you are a sniper, you'll see what I mean.

Re swearing: I don't care much either way. Some colorful language could spice up the feeling, but if it is overdone it just get ridiculous. What I'd want to get a feeling of war is if sometimes when people got wounded they'd scream and continue to scream until they pass out, or just wimper or cry, maybe screaming for a medic. When your base/city is under siege by a sniper and you hear screams and crying all around, you'll begin to understand what it is like. It would put some dirt and blood into the war, far away from the idealistic and false depiction of war as a clean and surgical operation.

Have you tried rearming, refueling or repairing? It's a mess, usually it consists of ordering the support people who is supposed to do it out of their vehicles, jump in yourself, drive up to your vehicle, switch to your vehicle, order repair/rearm/refuel, get out, drive the support vehicle away, order the personel back inside it and get back into your own vehicle. This is not exactly optimal or realistic. I want to be able to land a chopper, order the mechanics in and they'll refuel, rearm and repair the chopper and I'll be ready for another mission. I don't want to run all around the airport doing it myself. If I leave a vehicle around the mechanics, they should start to fix it up without me having to tell them, at least if it's in a friendly base. The same goes for AI medics. When there are wounded around, they should help them unless specifically told not to. It is their job, they should be able to handle it. When an AI unit has a specific purpose, a specific task, it should be able to do it on its own initiative.

Yeah, they drive to me, but they either park to far away or sturt bumping my vehicle until either vehicle is destroyed or just drive around trying to decide where to stop. They should be able to do that kind of micro management without my intervention...

A satchel may not be ideal for this situation, I've blown jeeps halfway across the island (literally!) with a well placed satchel... A handgrenade and a setdamage may be more suitable.

Since I happen to know a bit about road construction, I'll add my 2 cents. In most cases, the pavement of the road is slightly above the surrounding terrain. How much mostly depends on the type of ground and the need for groundwork (for instance, if you have real winters, you need to do more groundwork). It also depends on the hight differences of the surrounding terrain, since you want a road that is straight and level if possible (for traffic safety reasons and to make it easier for trucks). Different countris may also have different height of the road surface for another reason. Most countries remove some of the old asphalt before putting on a new layer, keeping the old level. In countries where asphalt is cheap (mostly oil producing countries), this is only done on (for weight reasons) or under (for clearance reasons) bridges, in other cases they just add a new layer, raising the road surface. At the sides of the road, there are almost always ditches. This is to get water off the road. The pavement is usually sloping slightly outwards for the same reasons. Roads without ditches are usually only seen in desert terrain, and often not even there. Ditches also has another purpose. They are supposed to stop a vehicle going out of control from bouncing back onto the road and possibly into oncoming traffic. For this reason, the current trend in road design is to make fairly deep and wide ditches, with a slope of about 30 degrees. Since this wide and deep ditches can look a bit scary (and ugly), it is popular to plant some mix of local grass and flowers to make them look nicer. In most civilized countries, the pavement has painted road markings. As a bare minimum, this means a center line. In most cases, side lines are also painted for safer driving in low visibility. Some countries also place raised studs, often with reflectors, to enhance the lines. These make a distinct rumbling noise when you drive over them. They are never used in countries where snow is common, as the snow ploughs destroy them. In countries where snow is common, there are usually poles, sticks or posts every 50-100 m along the edge of the road. These are there to increase visibility when the road markings are covered by snow and ice, but also to make it possible for the snow ploughs to see where the road is. Roadsigns are used much more than in OFP. Roadsigns are sometimes accompanied by painted markings on the pavement, especially around intersections or pedestrian crossings. Another thing that is missing from OFP is that in most sharp curves and curves near steep slopes guardrails are used. These are designed to catch and stop a car as gently as possible. There may also be guardrails in the middle of the road for large roads.

I agree, accellerated time would be great. It adds not only another tactical element, it adds variation. I have not had the opportunity to test it yet (I'm completely out of disk space until I get my four nice, shining 300 GB disks...), but from what I've heard it sounds great. I have to ask one thing though. Is there respawning? Since one game could take a lot of time, it is quite annoying if you get killed by a lucky bullet after three minutes. On the other hand, I don't like unlimited respawns either, they make it a question of stubbornness, not skill. There should be some limit to the respawns, some cost attached to them. Perhaps prisons/prisoner camps where you can earn respawns (for the team) by liberating prisoners? Maybe if you don't have any respawns left, you respawn, but the enemy gets something as well (perhaps a complete squad or three or a tank or helicopter)? Maybe slow respawns, arriving by small boats? Perhaps capturing an airport could make respawns faster by allowing them to be airlifted in? Just some ideas.

Using multiple computercontrolled choppers in formation is a scary thing. I once did a mission where two squads where airdropped outside Lipany (on Nogova) and had the air support of two Mi-17. The mission was to liberate Lipany, which was defended by 150 or so men, two Bradleys, two M113 and five jeeps with MG's and some unarmed vehicles. These units have random movements and a fairly good AI (once they pinpoint the ground troups it gets hard...). The Mi-17s should take care of the thick skinned vehicles and provide air support for the ground troops. This mission was designed to be a coop multiplayer mission, so when testing it alone it was hard. After spending way too much time testing the lose-triggers, I decided I needed some help, so just for testing purposes I added four squads of six Hinds each with orders to search and destroy around Lipany. They were placed far apart (so that they should not collide). Of these 24 choppers, 8 collided when trying to get into formation, 10 collided in midair over Lipany, 2 where shot down by friendly fire and the remaining 4 crashed into the church tower (talk about having the protection of the church...), and I still had to go in on foot and clean out the remaining troops (10 men or so). So, after that experience, if I ever need to do a mission with several choppers, I'll set them to fly at different altitudes and send them in a few at the time. In other words, handle them with care.