Second

My daddy bought it and seller told that it's good. Is it good then and will my ArmA2 roll? Just kidding. I bought it myself and it's nicely fast

My daddy bought it and seller told that it's good. Is it good then and will my ArmA2 roll? Just kidding. I bought it myself and it's nicely fast

Pot meet kettle. You behave as if BIS owe you something in ArmA2, you haven't bought the product yet or had a chance to play it, so you're jumping to conclusions. While I agree with most what you have to say I don't agree with how you are saying it. Everything in ArmA and OFP is there for a reason, instead of bashing everything over and over again and behaving like they owe you something you can just relax, breathe in and out and then rethink your approach. True. He's one of those persons who gets far too exited when ever something has word "realism"-glued on side of it. about Mr.g-c i'd like to say, that how he's reasonably can expect everything added to game he wishes, given with manpower/resources BIS has? And game should be released just in few months. While he don't think about things which his super technology-porn would off-set. All i can sense is tech-porn speaking, without much of practical thinking i.e common sense. This-little-bell-has-to-be-correct-and-it-fixes-things-up kind wishful thinking. Granted i'm quite a whiner/criticizer myself. But i think i somehow can keep the Big Picture in my mind and don't wander too deep into tiny technical details (and also recall what are their possible problems). Maybe i'm wrong, truth is that i'm right now pro AI and pro tactic+SOPs. Probably in unhealthy amounts to some degree.

Hmm... I'm interested about how they will make it for player to use. Simple automated or hard manual. In FDF there was manually operated mortar, and ehh... Hitting to clearly visible target in my line of sight was very hard (more so if elevation of target wasn't same as mine), not to talk about non-visible target which i'm supposed to hit... While there are own guys sneaking into close proximity of target. How will FO's job be modelled? Player controlled mortar needs info, will AI be able to deliver this info? And how player will do as FO... I'd bet that system will be easy to use for FO. With artillery in-game i even more wish that there would be ability to dug-in or atleast AI would understand what kind cover is best for it. Example from FDF, you have trench and you put  squad in there and leave another squad into open. Have a barrage and look at casualities and you'll see that guys in trenches did suffer little to no damage (if shell didnt' fall into trench), while guys in open are much more badly hurt.

Yup. This is reason why i voted no. I can't support OP's idea of direction where ArmA2 should be taken. BIS has very finite resources, and it's better to get AI up-to-date and improve infantry aspects in general. One thing is that BIS will probably not listen to us. I doupt they have time or resources to make major overhaul any more (those which they have decided to improve earlier, they do). What has been set is set. So this wish-listing comes maybe bit too late, like a 6-12 months. Right now i'm hoping that BIS chosed the right things for me.

Yup. You can't have a additional rifle/SMG as it's bulky... But you know what: have this even more bulky AT/AA-launcher. (common sense hello! For sure i normally wouldn't be blitzing around countryside hauling another rifle, but i can think situations where this is sensible option. More importantly if in ArmA2 some troops gets grenade revolvers as standart issued weapon. I would be happy to have M4 as another weapon with few mags. And yes, it's probably is going to be also realistic to have M4 as "sidearm". Then again: Will it happen? Probably not. Will AI work flawless with it? Probably not (i can remember happy pistol/rifle/pistol/rifle-rumbas some snipers are having). Are there more important things to be improved? For sure! Inventory and load issue is one which would be nice to have improved and weight/speed ratio included, less gear is more mobility, while troops could have atleast twice the amount they currently can have (while being heavily burdened). Ofcourse slower ones being left behind and such can ruin it's good fruits pretty well. Speeder wrote: Typical corporative american multiplayer bul*sh*t (dunno are you american thou ). I can be certain that my AI-fellows don't give rat's ars* about me. I can also be pretty sure that my multiplayer "mate" in some dirty shady public server cares even less, as he hunts for kills. Me he sees as a good decoy.

It doesn't take horrible amounts of coding experience to make simple and entertaining missions, which uses very simple things like triggers. Sure support for understanding basics could be much better, i remember how lost i was for a long time using just very basic methods. I personally think that there are only few more easy-to-learn/use missioneditors as this is. And none of those are for first-person-shooters but for wargames... Ability to do missions that are worthy to be released (and not put down by angry crowd) is whole another issue.

So your OFP tactic is to just aim for the head? Â You're suppose to aim for the centre of mass (AKA the torso) with real life weapons. 'Headshots' is just video game BS. My point was saying he is a 'bad shot' in a nice way. Any OFP vet should know they are doing something 'wrong' when you waste 30 bullets on 1 kill. You can adept to the game(rules) or you can bin it and go back to our beloved one and only OFP where you 'aim at the torso' (tip: don't apply ofp rules to Dead Space) Btw, Red Kite, i was wondering about the watch to. It is not in the 360 version (weird because i saw screens of the watch on the net) Given enough distance and and hard target and i'll waste 90-120 rounds for one kill in OFP. With machinegun i can double that easily Here's typical scenario (brrrt means that my machinegun has something to say) -'Okay we have runner here, time to bring this sucker down'. -Brrrt ... 'Running still' Brrrrrrt. 'Naah! Still running' Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt Brrt-Brrt Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt ... 'It went down, but is dead ?? ' ... 'Wait' I see it's hand moving, it's calling for medic' !Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt! 'Still moving and whining' ... Brrrt ... Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt 'Why - Wont - You - Just - Diiiiieeeeeeeeeee!' Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt! ... 'I've got him!' ... 'Ammo Low.'

Yup. About your earlier post: Have you played Combat Mission: Shock Force? That models Stryker brigade attack into Syria. They have huge amount of Javelins. Each Stryker starts with 3 missiles and CLU (command launcher unit), and it seems that supply is able to keep supply Strykers with new ones after each battle. If you give those to you riflesquads and use them when facing resistance (be it building, tank, bunker, trench) i bet you get even more distrubtance

From wikipedia conserning infrared homing: So techinically it seems to be same. If wiki is to be trusted  I don't find anything similar about those descriptions other than they are both sensors and they are both tuned to the infrared spectrum.  It's like the difference between a night-light that comes on when it's dark and a tv camera that knows to some extent what it's looking at. And by wikipedia they are put under term 'infrared homing'. That is only similarity i'm after and reason why some sites states is as infrared homing and others as imaging infrared.

From wikipedia conserning infrared homing: So techinically it seems to be same. If wiki is to be trusted

Now i'm really scared what they say about campaign. Are we having story-focused and "adventureous" campaign where we do jobs for, errr, factions? Sound role playing game without role to play, so it would just mean finishing "quests". Here's basic "quest" structure (hope i don't spoil the game): 1. Village X doesn't like village Y, so if you like village X to like you, you go and murder village Y, or at least it's head man. 2. And while your at village Y and about to start your mayhem, you learn that they dont' like village X as they stole village Y's firewoods. And so they wishes that you would instead murder village X, and bring their firewoods back (they are in pink truck as village Y's elder tells you). As a return they would like you. You can also steal just their truck and not do mass-murdering stuff, but then Village Y doesn't like you as much. 3. Oh they hardness of decision making! Scared yet?

Others sites states that it's imaging infrared . Anyways what ever is the name (and they probably mean the same), it does have ability to lock on for example bunkers and buildings. So it doesn't need strong tank-like strong heat signature, as long as it can process the heat signature target leaves. Seems like Javelin in bit more simplier with less options in terms of guiding and sensoring than Spike MR is.

It's locks into image. You can lock it into anything as long as target's image can be processed and locked. I don't know how it works, but it basically can hit anything, individual men even, maybe even bare ground (or in your case fence). Spike has same system, i dont' recall technology's name, but it bases on processing image and basically locking into shape(s). Spike can be steered by gunner who sees world from missiles own camera if gunner doesn't wish to use fire-and-forget mode (so he could lock into actual insurgent after missile is high enough to establish line-of-sight to insurgent). Maybe Javelin has same system, i dont' recall.

No. as far as i can tell SLX introduces mostly just new smallunit tactics (fire and manuver on teams) and suppression/morale model. It doesn't temper with movement routes or such things. They are hard coded features. Which are there in vanilla OFP aswell. Sure they try to reach their objective, but i'm talking about finding good path to that objective. ArmA is far more straight forward: AI tries to reach waypoint much more direct route. If it's path to waypoint travels right under enemy nose it will move under enemy's nose. It doesn't much seek alternative routes. In OFP AI steers much more drastically. I spot BMP and tell my men go to some terrain spot past it, they will seek low terrain such as valleys for paths which exposes them less. ArmA too has this ability, however their ability to circle around is much more limited. They have ugly tendensy to try to get past it's nose even if there is valleys they could use as optimal routes. Sometimes they do use terrain skillfully, but with OFP i get much more satisfying  results. I just spent over hour testing it on both games. Sadly there wasn't identical terrain i could have used. But i think main principle was visible. ArmA was able to sometimes do evasive movements, but mostly i think i saw just idiots in action. Sure AI tries to get to waypoint in OFP aswell, that is weakness of whole waypoint system in many cases. But path to there is open question, much more open in OFP. While AI's logic seems to be more sound in terms of staying away from harms way. It ain't perfect for sure. AI seems to seek it's route in some sort of cone. They seem to seek paths in about 45 degree angle to both sides form their location. I'm not sure how it works, but that seems to be the framework of it.

Funny thing that i see more this so called fieldcraft in OFP than ArmA. In ArmA AI moves much more straight forward to it's waypoint, while in OFP you could see large circling/evasive movements in sneak if facing enemy (in ArmA i haven't witnessed this, they keep on moving directly at waypoint even if it means that they have to go right under enemy's nose) and AI also tried to not to expose itself against horizon, it seemed to prefer valleys instead of high ground if possible. I'd say that in OFP AI was given more freedoms. This came with cost. I think few times it took AI 30 minutes to travel 1 kilometer, because it moved next to forests border, while constantly hitting ground... So it kinda like sawed into forest and out from forest all the time. Sometimes in it might even become stucked. But damn! I'm still amused the cleverity and independness of OFP AI. I agree that current AI commandment system is pretty bad... I've taken few months brake from OFP/ArmA and i've already lost touch to it almost completely. Ps. Didn't BIS say that they will change it to easier to use (OMG! Blame the consoles! Consoles are form devil!!!11one1one!!! ). I'm happy if they do that. This current could be kept as back up system, but not as primary command tool. And i've heard that waypoints are going to ditched or they atleast don't serve as only way to make troops to move and perform. That is major improvement. Some sort battle drills, SOPs (whatever) i something for which i've been raving too. Defend, ambush, recon, assault, and flanking as complete multi-men teams should really be implented (plus "pop-up" attacks for light vehicles, like TOW hummers). Another good point is ammo-conserving option. Anyways. Been playing OFP CWC-campaign with FFUR -85 which has modified SLX... Man that it still rocks hard, and with FFUR it rocks even harder. OFP any day man. Any day.

True. But ArmA AT-4 (also RPG-7) seems to use bare HEAT. Their lethality rate is so small that it basically has to directly hit in target. But your right. Target probably won't care is it HEAT or HE if it produces enough big bang. So use of HEAT in that light is reasonable, while trying to suppress enemy (which in ArmA however doesn't happen). But like said, problem in ArmA is that AT-guys don't care are they risk at running against armored vehicles after AT-weapons are being used.

No. Forexample Brits seems to use AT-4s and Javelins in Afganistan quite often. And it doesn't seem to be different with US. Forecample in Falluhja one weapon used alot was AT-4... Does insurgents have tanks? No sir! ... Well not outside OFP Resistace atleast! And... Hmm... I've never heard that AT weapon's use against infantry would be against anything. My country's army mentions in it's MOUT guide that AT-launchers will be used in combat against buildings. I've seen what individual soldier should know about laws of war. AT-weapons weren't on list. Yes that Geneva thing has been signed. But AT-weapons in ArmA terms are pretty worthless against infantry, so i dont' see reason why they should keep firing them at enemy infantry. RPG instead could have frag ammo, which can be used against infantry. Â But it's HEAT is just as worthless an AT-4.

And it will get broader and broader. It's inevitable in democracy. No it wont, necessarily. Again i ask to look at Scandinavia. Sure there is talk that it getting too costly, but system has functioned well already for at least 50 years with heavy taxing and wide social security system. Suffered from economical disasters also, Finland had severe hit early 90s. Becomming "cooling down" in world markets will show us does it survive this as well, but i doupt it will be as harsh as 90s was. Maybe we Scandinavians are just not so self-centric. It has been said that Scandivian countries pretty much thru all their history have had higher "human-values" (canyon between rich and poor has stayed small compared to western world). Also Welfare system has been state "sponsored" for a long time (id say 100 years), so there's in no need for drastic measures as foundation has been constructed during long time, while it has had support of most political parties and people.

Possibly because factory is open and detailed.

Specially for MGs. Cya. Why? As long as AI doesn't understand that he has to haul his carcass for 5 meters more to be able to engage enemy (or even have change for it) it's pretty lame feature. Basically in hilly or forested area MG would be out of contact to enemy most of the time. Getting just lucky shots here and there. I've seen enough broken squad structure in hilly terrain, while few takes frontal slope of hill and some takes backward slope of hill, and few takes top of hill. Result is broken squad with broken firepower.

EDIT: True, but then we are not talking about Scandinavian model anymore. Sure i can't argue about that Porsche vs Volvo thing (i drive year -91 Nissan Bluebird, but i'm Finnish and Bluebird is nice car). But like you said it's about point of view and values.

the thing is that system's which tries to contribute something to poors seems to work pretty filthy well. Sweden would be best example of being very productive nation, while taking care of all it citizens. And there individual humans likes to try to get forward, not to just sit down and start to suck their thumb. Those who has the drive will get forward, gets forward anyways. You probably see just as smart people up in ruling places ad so on. Poors just are not as desperate. Sure poors works harder when they are cold and hungry and trying to get out of there. Then again if there is possibilities then less poor will too. More poor will just take more shitty jobs. After that point i'd say both have basically same will to move forward, if surrounding condition are similar. I just don't see your point of view, or atleast it seem wrong from my point of view. Â maybe i misunderstand you whole idea.. could be, morning is getting young soon adn i really should go to bed. I do agree with you that there are weaknesses in each system. Higher unemployment rate is curse of welfare states.

Yeah. This is pretty much my advice as well. However i'd like to explain bit of AI. Few notes: -AI spots you by audio and visual "fingerprint". if you hit someone, you make big fingerprint and if you shoot just misses you make smaller (they might not even notice you! ). Also more you fire bigger and longer lasting fingerprint you leave. Single shots are usually best way to go. Lying down in firefight even in open field is relatively safe if enemy doesn't get too close, as you mostly make noise and visual fingerprints by firing weapons or by moving fast and big. So if you don't feel like to be hero and your mates can clear the situation without you, best way to survive is just to lie down and not to do anything and by so you'd be most invisible to AI. Movement isnt' as simple thing to discuss, but one general advice i would be willing to give you is that: Run only short distances, few seconds at max, idea is that you are down at the moment enemy is ready to fire at you. It's good idea to stealthy move away from spot where you landed, as that is the spot where they "lost" you and that can be the area they decide to shoot. Crawl fast or roll for atleast few meters. Remain still and silent for some time so that fingerprint vanishes and there you go. Ready for new try. Fast is better than smaller (moving target is harder for AI too) but stealth is more important than fastness (not being target in first place). Fastly changing movement directions from side to side is one good way too for some situations if trying to move longer distances faster, if you can't hide from enemy. My list about shooting at enemy: -Try to neutralize your target(s) as few bulelts as possible and get into cover fast after firing first shot. I mostly used idea of exposing myself upto 5 seconds (or something), and within second or two after firing shot i went back behind cover. So i basically fired 1-3 shots at time. -If no cover to be used but open ground, try to move as sneaky but fast (fast crawl and rolling are usually best options) to another spot. -To make sure AI forgets your fingerprint wait something like 5-10 seconds. If you fired alot like full mag in full auto, or shot from rocket launcer remain longer in cover. 10-20 seconds atleast. General: -Try to make your fingerprint as small and short lasting as possible. If you draw fire, you'll die if not having solid complete cover. If not cover move away from your position. -Plan your movement. Don't move with out planning where to go, how to go and is it safe to go. -Closer enemy is faster they are able to "lock" into you. If it takes them seconds at several hundereds of meters, it might not take even one whole second at less than 50 meters. Closer enemy is, smaller and shorter your finger print needs to be. I dont' remember was there same notes in ArmA as OFP's first campaign mission had about being hard target for enemy. Those rules are golden. ArmA combat against AI is mostly disciplined performance of same pattern of actions. I swear there is not easier game to play (well it's relative term naturally) whey you learn those basics completely.

I can't remember missions where enemy would have tried that... They always acted defensively. They never seemed to turn into offense (get into exposed flanks). AI on offense seemed to be more controlled by waypoints given to them -> it tried to use always same routes even if player was there to cut them down with MG and there would have been alternative routes of approach. Atleast quickbattles seemed to be like that, i played them more than actual campaign missions. With better difficulty they seemed to be better aware of players attempts to flank them and they reacted sooner and were more resistant to suppression attempts. lecholas: I too wait something like what you described to come. Â