Second

Isn't this already in or is that some mod which has minimum range? I've shot my own men with M203 from pointblank range. Grenade hits but doesnt' blow-up and they just die.

In MOH: airborne, there is this way to control cover stances and leans. You aim and press movement key and character alerts his stance by that (leaning, high kneel, low kneel etc ). Pressing shift key enables character to move while aiming. It's bit too complicated and hard to learn (i've played it thru 3 times and yet i'm not very good at controlling character) and should be simplified bit more. donnu how Ravenshield works in the end, seems too slow, might work well in controlled situation (like bolt locked rifle) but don't work in situations which requires fast reflexes. I could be wrong, i dont' have experience on that. Vietcong yet has presented best way to do it from games i've played, it good, immersive and simple. Don't aim and you go bit lower in kneel and prone (with prone as low as one can get, cheek pressed to soil). When you aim you lift rifle to shoulder and take aiming stance, which is bit higher. That is simple and very-very effective way to play cautiously and use cover in best possible way, it suits very well in wilderness where there are lots of horizontal cover like rocks and fallen trees, ditches, root growth on soil etc. Why games haven't started to use it more? I don't understand. Does it encourage players to play game too cautiously to suit developers idea or what?

Only Guba was "evil" not Soviets. Soviet troops were on the way but you worked with resistance and US until they arrive. American campaign was made 1st and you defeat soviets in the end. They couldnt just make Soviets win in Red Hammer. Guba led rebels, this is reason why Red Hammer went like it went... Well Red Hammer has one of most horrible stories i've played in games ever, and given the quality of stories in games overall that speaks a lot. So in the end did Soviets win when Guba and his unit got destoryed? It wasnt' Soviet union's goal to start ww3 or to get Everon or Malden under their influence. It was Guba's personal goal because in his mind Soviet Union was getting weak. But i believe in Resistance he was operating under Kreml's orders, so basically Soviet union could be seen as bad in there... Then again every nation could be seen as bad by that definition. Yet by my understandmant Guba was one&only responsible for ruthless acts against civilian population (which in the end made him bad). Moscow gave him order and he dealed with it on his own. Who was bad guy in movie Apocalypse now? US troops overall or that high ranking officer who needed to be killed? I admit that i've never seen that movie completely (i've skipped the end of it every time i watched it). Just crossed my mind.

I just want BIS to deliver as great and up-to-date AI in combat as possible. I can then tweak it's behaviour the way i desire it to work (aggressiveness and such) with already given script-commands from days of OFP. I already can change alot of things, what is problem is that AI is dumb in too many ways in basics of shooter AI. It doesn't lean, it doesn't peak... It doesnt' do anything, but shoots accurately and moves slowly and mostly idiotically. If BIS doesn't improve/implement those aspects to it's AI then modders can't do a damn thing. This was problem in ArmA already. Given scirpting language was powerful enough. Hardcoded AI sadly sucked donkey's balls. So i say, BIS give us good AI and don't improve moddablity as i already have pretty powerful tools to change the way AI plays.

It does indeed. Ofcourse there is this small risk that n00b designers don't get nothing out of it. They open it, look at huge amounts of buttons and menu bars and stuff... And quits it as tool looks too powerful and too complicated to learn easily. I've had those weak moments with atleast Vietcong, Farcry, Crysis + Oblivion's and Morrowind's modding tools. Only editors which i've used are simple ones. There might be more deeper, but first impression has to be this: "Hey! I can handle this in hour or two". ArmA/OFP's editor is good example of this, simple at start but very advanced (and complex) in the end. Maybe they should at least keep the beginner mode as simple as possible.

I prefer the way OFP had it. Fixed zoom, not too much. Plain and simple and i liked it. ArmA went too far with scalable zoom and control keys... At least it should remember which zoom i was using last time. Resetting it to default each time is pain. And the way i felt that my character will hit his eye into rear sights each time i zoomed in.

Are you taking about European Battlegroups which are gathered from units of multiple nations? Like NBG (Nordic Battlegroup) or EUBG. Or are you after some absurd Europe country? Leave that to modders (if they bother). It's huge task for developers to model all that kit which those have. NBG forexample has 5 different nations. Each having their own gear, from rifles to uniforms + vehicles. Ps. Europe ain't nation and hopefully will not never come one.

Talking about troop density. Modern tactical idea presented to me is that mechaniced battalion will assault in 1 kilometer wide line. 2 companies in front, 1 kept in reserves. Batallion is supported by tank-company 2 platoon in front one behind in reserves(one tank per mechaniced platoon). Troop density is insane 1 man per 6 meters, one IFV per 50 meters, one tank per 170 meters in front which is 1000 meters long (reserves are still waiting behind), try that in ArmA and you'll see that it's shock and awe, very much. Assault is supported by 60-120 tubes caliber varies from 81mm to 155mm Or 82mm to 152mm. Thay can barrage defenders positions with 50% of that capacity for many minutes. Try that and it's horrible. In regular ArmA game no-one lives thru it, fortifications can't protect enough. This is the principle in open terrain. In Sahrani there might be just few locations where this can be used at it's potential. Dunno does it contribute anything. Well that is one example. I tried it in ArmA. Sheer scale is staggering. Artillery fire is worst, i recommend anyone to try it just of pleasure. Don't remeber how many grenades they are expected to fire in that barrage, but it's huge. Thousands of grenades. ArmA's limits are also staggering.

Yeah. example form OFP spiced with mods like FFUR turned few missions nearly impossible to play. After Montinag (name miss-spelled, pardon me) was one of those missions which required me to play it over and over again and never last longer than few minutes, before AI sniped me acorss another side of forest (distance was often way over 100 meters let me be telling you). Then at some point of time by pure luck i managed to run away without being detected. FFUR's enchansed AI senses and AI with expert skill level didn't make good soup. In ArmA difficulty slider (and more complete settings in profile) were bit too much. True i could turn ArmA to play like i liked, but then again game lost part of it's soul in that. It didn't force me to learn to play the game, just tweaking AI so that i'm saticfied. Besides hardly any shooter is as tender to player as ArmA is with difficulty settings. There usually is few difficulty options, which affects players hitpoints and AI's performance. If some gamey consoler can handle COD4 he probably will do just fine in ArmA2, just little time demanded to get used to gameplay as with every game to be able to play it well.

I'd say so too if AI can't handle firearm properly.

I see this basically as good trick. AI's ability to respond to limits in  terrain and things is bit more flexible as it ain't tied to barrels direction (which is basically one flaw i see in ArmA/OFP AI, it limits AI's capabilities bit too much). Interesting to see will OFP:DR keep it the way it is now in that tech video or will they change things. Right now it seemed pretty odd if they have to rely on that trick in open terrain! In MOUT or at close distances it might be good to minimize problems in animations and such but in open terrain at long distances... Hmm  ....nnno. I believe plaintiff1 is actually pointing out that the loon in question's rifle is actually firing bullets in a direction that fail to correlate with the direction he's actually aiming, i.e. the bullets have a life of their own, per sé. Note where the rifle is actually pointing, against the little puff o' dust on the hilltop. Angle fail. Yes yes. That is what i said. On open ground it seems to be bit odd. However for years (probably is still used, in MOH: Airborne i saw it last) that trick has been used to make AI more challenging in close combat because animations and AI-resources are still pretty limited. Sure it has weaknesses like those unfair kills, where there is just gun visible (while something vital as head is hidden behind buildings corner) and it headshots player. I've been pretty pissed for Farcry and MOH (while series if i recall correctly) for it. So it's ain't flawless. In Arma or OFP there is not such possibility and their AI is pretty bad in close combat as they need to have rifle actually aimed at target. Lets see how ArmA2 works in this, but i don't know many games which uses same method for AI.

I agree is clustering, could be for show (like many movies makes things) or could be flaw in game. In ArmA you had many times go to crunch to see what you fire. That is pretty realistic if thinking about some meadow with even half long grass. If you go low you don't see anything. Best thing is to find some rotten stump or rock and use that as support from prone position, if that ain't possible then next best thing is to rise to crunch position to be able to aim and shoot. Hard to say more as those were just brief moments from game, in bushes there was point blank instance but that is just natural. they seemed to fire more than move in firefights (one or two guys moving while rest kept firing), but that could be just for show. If they manage to do such suppression technique in game on regular basis it seems to be promising. Not just sniper contents, but more real battlefield. Where powder burns and from hour just lasi minute is killing fire, so to speak.

I see this basically as good trick. AI's ability to respond to limits in terrain and things is bit more flexible as it ain't tied to barrels direction (which is basically one flaw i see in ArmA/OFP AI, it limits AI's capabilities bit too much). Interesting to see will OFP:DR keep it the way it is now in that tech video or will they change things. Right now it seemed pretty odd if they have to rely on that trick in open terrain! In MOUT or at close distances it might be good to minimize problems in animations and such but in open terrain at long distances... Hmm Then again that is old trick which idea is to expose just rifle and bit of hand while shooting at something behind corner from short distances(we had this is trench clearing exercises and i've used it in airsoft with good results). If AI is capable to do that but will not gain too great accuracy then i'm saticfied. I think MOH introduced it to shooters, it's AI was pretty challenging in that way. Even when it was designed to be killed easily. Mission editor seemed to be nice, if that is what user gets. Ofcourse it can be too complex so that most won't even bother to try it. Overall that saticfied me. AI showed bit of it's tricks and then again animations indeed sucked (=gliding over terrain)

And making good game is much more costly these days. I believe it was estimated that it costs several million US dollars to develop good game for PS2. What is standart costs of good quality PC shooter? I'd think it's much higher if starting from scratch.

Mmh isn´t that what it is all about with OFP and ArmA go where you want do what you want and changing the game in the way you like it? I mean the OFP campaign was great the one of ArmA not so much but those are not the factors why both games are still around today. Do i really have to try to like ArmA the way you like it?

Isn't that just what i said? Or can it be read differently?

I think no one denies that OFP and ArmA got there flaws but the thing is when you measure fun while gaming. Oh and by the way i think how OFP and ArmA plays is exactly the point in making it unique. No. ArmA isn't fun. OFP ain't either, not anymore. I'm waiting for something new and better. With fresh point of view and execution. ArmA2 has potential to be bit improved ArmA by info i have this far. That ain't enough to make me exited. ArmA might be unique, but it ain't good. Period. This is personal point of view. However i'm not bashing ArmA2 as it can become much better, however that is something which i can't tell at the moment. I know that there are few factions. And because that i'm as interested of OFP2 as a game as i'm interested of Arma2. I'm not too exited about either, as there is too small amount of actual facts of which i'm intrested released from both. Mmh may i ask you than what you are doing here on this forum? You can´t tell me the BIS Forum is your social network You registered here in 2006 and you have a post count by over 1000, so are they all complains about how bad ArmA  (OFP) is? Or is it because ArmA and OFP are such great games with a nice community and thousands of Addons which not many games offer you. It´s up to you in saying vanilla OFP, ArmA or now ArmA 2 aren´t the best from start but you have to see the whole package you buy with ArmA. Just my thoughts Is it really so black and white to you that you can't understand idea of one person waiting two games (which should be rivals) but keeping critical eye for them and not having high expetations for them? Reason why i'm hanging here is yet to find new info about ArmA2. Hello, ain't that what is part of what forums are existing No. I'm buying games from now on, not mods. That i learned from ArmA. If base game sucks, mods can't make it much better. That also i learned from ArmA.

Re-read my post as i was editing it at the moment you posted yours.

I think no one denies that OFP and ArmA got there flaws but the thing is when you measure fun while gaming. Oh and by the way i think how OFP and ArmA plays is exactly the point in making it unique. No. ArmA isn't fun. OFP ain't either, not anymore. I'm waiting for something new and better. With fresh point of view and execution. ArmA2 has potential to be bit improved ArmA by info i have this far. That ain't enough to make me exited. ArmA might be unique, but it ain't good. Period. This is personal point of view. However i'm not bashing ArmA2 as it can become much better, however that is something which i can't tell at the moment. I know that there are few factions. And because that i'm as interested of OFP2 as a game as i'm interested of Arma2. I'm not too exited about either, as there is too small amount of actual facts of which i'm intrested released from both.

Problem here is that not everyone is happy the way OFP and Arma plays. I'm one of those who actually wait some quite drastic measures taken by BIS in correcting some weaknesses (=combat) in ArmA/OFP , but which i don't see in ArmA2. Because of that OFP2, even when it seems to slip more and more into deep dark waters is still just as interesting option as Arma2 is, maybe even more.

But it can basically made from object, those allows vertical things. There has been foxhole and trench objects for OFP. Ofcourse they are not very immersive as they usually rise high from terrain, because they can't go inside terrain. Advanced way (and probably too time consuming) would be to make hole in to terrain by "Forcez of Visitor" and juuuust put trench-object into that hole. That way we could have trenches which does not rise from overall terrain already made for us by developers. But i'm sceptical for pre-made trenches, foxholes and such. They probably just limit usefulness of map.

Wittman: Blah... As many times before i've crushed you when you come out with your odd ideas and logic, i could do it in this thread as well. Like this. So instead of PVP you use it in idiotic COOP where 10-20 guys slaughters hundereds of AI opponents who acts idiotically. Just as accurate stereotype as yours.

I just hope that BIS finally implements other fortification-things than bare sand colored sandbag fortifications with puny camo net which doesn't have much effect in blending that fortification into background. "Uuuu-uu where is enemy in that pine forest? Is it in that sand colored spot?" Weaponsupport would also be nice thing, without it trenches, foxholes fortifications has potential to be just immersion factor without real function. FDF-mod in OFP proved this, they had better cover (only part of head and weapon visible) but than again their firepower decreased as firing was much more less accurate and slow because biggish weaponsway on standing.

It doesn't matter what is the form of PvP. be it DM, C&H, TvsT or anything as long as players are playing against players. And if you think that i'm against PvP your wrong: i want it back in. So i agree with you and Celery that Michael_Wittman is one of those which i refer to be assholes.

Oh really This thread is basically like bucket where i would do my shit if i wouldn't have toilet. Toilet is too applauding word form this thread as toilet is pretty advanced stuff, bucket is not. Bucket is something which is rather primitive compared to toilet. There are good writings and good attitude by some writers (basically those who wish that ArmA2 would give nice experiences for both PvP and COOP-player and those who likes to play both), but then again there those who are one of dirties and most disgusting assholes ever lived in internet. Terrible attitude.