Sith

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Another thing you would like to do in situations facing tanks is beeing able to stick your m60 inside the drivers "peek-hole" and empty a clip in his face and in anyone behind him. throwing in a grenade would also work just fine<span id='postcolor'> They use prismas/mirrors (and various optical sensors) these days to give the crew a view of the outsides. Those "peek holes" are WW2 stuff And err...sticky bombs? The chances of effectively using one of those, combined with the chances of a soldier actually carrying one with him...are practically non existant

Ah you guys beat me to it...posting on the forums and working on a school project at the same time aint working out too well As for the OFP engine: it's possibilities are indeed endless. It is actually possible to make a player bubble in OFP, using the createUnit command. However, we're still testing how (CPU) effective this is over the standard way OFP handles units (always present on the map). Both amos and Random bring up 2 valid points against a fully dynamic campaign that allows for "character hopping". One being the fact that the familiarisation with your squad and combat zone will practically disappear (both in singleplayer and multiplayer). This was mentioned before in the thread and IMO really is the biggest con on the whole character jumping thing, because I feel extensive interaction between the player and NPC/AI teammates really is one of the next big steps in these kind of shooters. The second is a new one (AI mess-ups in Falcon4)...but very true indeed. Having such a fully dynamic campaign is a pain in the royal rear to make "glitch free". There simply is no way you can test and tweak the game enough to ensure that the AI never messes something up real bad. You'd have to prepare the AI to react correctly to every single weird situation in the game, or severely limit their influence on the course of the campaign, otherwise you could get situations like where all your your side's supply trucks are piled up, just because the first two had a collision and the AI wasnt programmed to react correctly to that particular situation. Or a certain objective cant be completed because some enemy soldier is hiding his coward ass in the bushes, resulting in the commanding AI to send way too many troops to "conquer" that town...which in it's turn will make the front so weak that the enemy will just smash through it. I know...these problems each have their simple solutions, but the fact is that there are thousands of situations like this where the AI might fuck up, so there's no way to take it all into account and 'learn' the AI what to do in such a situation. Having a partially dynamic campaign will greatly reduce problems like this, since you can actually test most of the possible paths through the campaign (although it'll still be a time-consuming process).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Everybody except me knows about Conquest Is it a completely new game, or is it based on an existing engine ?<span id='postcolor'> It's a fan project that allows the player to participate in a completely dynamic battlefield, with advanced AI tactics, vehicle purchasing and upgrading, etc. Basically OFP goes RTS. You can find the website here and the trailer here. I'll stop the pimping now Let's get back to the topic's original subject: dynamic campaigns in OFP.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is there anyway you can make it so I cant come to these shitty ass forums anymore? I mean sure you can ban me, but I want it so when I type in the address it doesnt show up anymore, like I get a 504 or something. I keep telling myself I'm not going to come back because all of the losers who like to bash my great country, but then I find myself reading their fucking stupid posts, getting enraged, and then posting why they are so fucking stupid. I just want you to do something, or else I will have to do something, perhaps this server is a little vulnerable eh?<span id='postcolor'> Here, let me help you... Oh....and any attack on the server will result in legal actions, so I'd be careful if I were you

Ok that's enough

And since it wont affect the game at all (just shows the text in the top corner of yer screen), I dont think we should worry about this 'bug'

Bucko: As we have stated many times before, Conquest is an ongoing project. We dont have any deadlines, due-dates, or time schedules. We work on it with intervals, so sometimes we leave it to rest for a few weeks, and then come back and work some more on it. We dont 'owe' anything to anyone, so we take our time and will release it when we feel it's done. This might sound a bit strange to some ppl, but the thing with Conquest is that it covers so much new ground in OFP editing, that we spend much more time thinking out new scripts and AI routines, then that we actually need to work them out. So far, about 90% of the project exists on paper, but we do know that every single part of it is possible. The biggest chunk of work is the advanced AI scripting, and that's what we're working on right now. So is the command system finished? Well...depends on what you see as a 'command system'. If you mean the interface that allows you to move your units/squads from town to town etc, then yes, that part is already done. But it also is one of the easiest parts (relatively speaking). There are already several missions out there that use such a system (made by spinor).

Dude....somebody's targeting u with a laserpointer on yer throath! Great idea btw...the moderator team will look into it

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">wat the fuk is HALO?<span id='postcolor'> High Altitude, Low Opening. It's a special type of parachute insertion often used by special forces. They jump out at a very high altitude (so the plane wont be noticed) and make a very long freefall, before opening their chutes at the very last moment. This way they can get into enemy territory without being spotted.

Errr...wtf? People are wondering whether certain things are possible in OFP, and I gave them an example of those things we actually worked out ingame already. What on EARTH is "premature" about giving such examples? Get yer facts straight before telling some1 to shut up!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not sure I understand what you mean by this, how would a dynamic battle field kill realism?<span id='postcolor'> He was referring to the fact that jumping from character to character will destroy immersion and realism. CCCP: You have no idea how awefully close that all is to Conquest We did borrow some of our ideas from Falcon4 and EECH, so that explains it. The only exception is that you wont be able to select what mission you're gonna play, but you'll get one assigned to you from the General (unless you play as General that is).

How long ago did you submit your O2 request? One week ago? And how many requests do you think BIS got since then? You can be pretty damn sure that this number runs well into the thousands, so please hold yer horses and wait for your turn. Thank you

My point exactly

It's a simple mission similar to Clean Sweep. Not worth downloading the entire demo for, if you already have the full game.

Very old screens indeed

Havent seen this posted here, and to my knowledge this trailer is rather new: New Episode2 Trailer (Quicktime 5 required) This is without a doubt the best EpII trailer I've seen so far! By the looks of it, GL has indeed gone for a much 'darker' feel for this part....I like it Your thoughts?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't see how this would be a problem. If the game was dynamic and you take a town, a counter attack would very well be a possiblility if it was a stratigic point.<span id='postcolor'> I never said this to be a problem. As a matter of fact, like I said before, this is already pretty possible in Conquest. The thing is that I forsee the player missing out on alot of dramatic scenes when he's able to jump from place to place in the campaign. It'll kill every bit of character building. Denoir: Once again....Conquest does just that Oh...and great avatar...RG is my hero

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One suggestion after reading about your mines prob, maybe actually a suggestion for bis. Maybe there's a way to make units avoid an area. I was thinking you could script so that when ie mines are detected that waypoints are created so as to give the unit alternate routes. Then I remembered you can't create waypoints mid game.<span id='postcolor'> We havent updated the page in a while...but rest assured, we already found a way to solve this

Sounds very interesting indeed. I think it can be done, but you'll have to define the generated mission "boundaries" very well to avoid any fuckups.

Mission balance is another issue indeed. As for EECH's campaign: It worked because you could select what mission in what combat zone you wanted to play, and because a flightsim doesnt rely on tiny details as much as an infantry sim does. OFP's gameplay relies quite a bit on character interaction and familiarisation (sp?). If you're gonna allow the player to jump to any area of the map and perform any mission available, this will alienate him from what IMO is the best part in an infantry game: getting to know your team m8s and area of operations, the whole immersion thing. Like when you have to fight real hard to conquer a town and you succeed, and then the next mission requires you to defend it from an enemy counter-attack. That kinda stuff makes you feel that you're actually there.

DayGlow: what you just described is Conquest in campaign form. We're currently working on such a dynamic AI battle script, so I can already tell you quite a bit about it. But it's not all good news... In Conquest, the whole dynamic battlefield thing is represented in just one mission. This works out fine (gameplay wise) because you have a relatively small scale conflict ("just" one big mission), so we can pretty much control what's going on. Now if we take this to campaign level (and possibly larger maps), the biggest problem that pops up is mission diversity. AI generated missions lack all the excitement we know from the OFP campaign missions, since the AI will usually stick to missions like "Conquer this area", or "Defend this town", combined with time consuming troop movements all over the place. This is fun and all for the first....5-6 missions, but after that gets REALLY boring, since you always end up playing exactly the same mission types over and over again. To keep a campaign exciting for your average gamer (so not just army nuts), you will need an exciting, story driven campaign, with lotsa action and dramatic moments. In a fully dynamic campaign this is not possible. You can however, have a partially dynamic campaign. You make a whole bunch of exciting missions, and link them up depending on the previous mission's outcome. If you do this right, you can have like 10 possible endings to a mission, each with their own follow-up mission, giving you the impression of a totally dynamic campaign. The big downside to this solution is the fact that you'll have to make tonnes and tonnes of missions, and check all possible paths through the campaign to see if they all work out well. As for BF42: Espectro, I really think you have some wrong ideas bout that game there m8. BF42 will NEVER be anything like OFP, since it's a 100% arcade shooter. You play OFP for realism, immersion, stuff like that. If you've ever played Codename Eagle, you'll know that you wont have to expect those in BF42. BF42 indeed looks good, I sure will give it a try...but it's a totally different game than OFP.

Then that person does not know his games very well This game has so much more to it than CS, real tactics for starters. I really like all the little extras they put in there, like the weapon addons, player classes, the scout/intel officer thing, the bomb disarming (not in the demo tho), etc. Great game if you can find a good server