Second

Unfortunately that doesn't give any figures about manstrength and equipment list isn't guite logical... What else isn't quite logical in this game, Second? That is true. I was just wondering those vehicle quantities. As those vehicle lists are more representing sub-units like company in batallion or platoon in company. Then again when thinking forexample amount of vehicles SLA has in campaign... Where they stored all those vehicles or trained with them? Only open plain is that farmland in route between Gorazol and capitol... rest of the terrain is just mountains or valleys (logic went out of a window)

Unfortunately that doesn't give any figures about manstrength and equipment list isn't guite logical... If this is whole list of mech batallion's equipment, then it's severly understrenght... There's only about 2 platoons of BMPs and two platoons of MBTs, which means about Reinforced company with AT-section and SPAA-battery. I assume that SLA has three squads in platoon, three platoons in company and so on... Same applys to marine charts, when counting strenght. (-) 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines (3/1) in that list has only half batallion or third of batallion strenght, i assume? Or is that '(-)' understrenght mark? RACS has only batallion which infact is only company in size, about 100 men = Fighting units have only 60-70 men... which is less than in company usually. Ofcourse is all those figures would be X3 then amount would be about what chart says (batallion is batallion in strength and not just company) @4 IN 1: That is pretty much only way how i can understand whole picture. Too much hints is dropped to leave it ignored, just like those men in black who follow me from dawn to dusk and watch...

I doupt highly... By my understanding kingdom's army seems guite a new army (they don't seem to have military-traditions by Porters blog. As US trains basic stuff like parades to them) and society seems to be in edge national-crisis aka rebellion (those executions of civilians and by my understanding either US or RAC troops also provocates SLA to attack). And if they have professional army + possible rebellion so then they have very bad combination for getting volunteers... I think that Kingdom is also smaller in population, but then again they have bigger cities than north... So i don't know. So soldier-amout is most likely much lower (1000-1500 and 100 guards?) if comparing to SLA's 5000 men. But if also RAC uses constripts as a base of their army then amount of men is most likely higher... But with possible rebellion, how many of them ends up to fighting in SLA's ranks or to camps in north? RAC seems to mostly take care of defending nothers pass from Corazol to Paraiso. And that doesn't require lots of troop. And we are leaving supply out of these amounts, are we? Supply might raise total amount of men about 5-10 bigger. SLA would need lots more supply than RAC, because thay have mechaniced units and relatively wide array of equipment. RAC has only couple of choppers and 4X4s and M113s. offtopic: About that provocation so that i wouldn't need (and i won't) to explain this later: Lots of US equipment are left to kingdom and part of US-forces should already be back in the US when SLA attacks. Some of those same guys died in Gorazol at same day as SLA attacked south... There are two possibilities: Provocation or cheating nothern Sahrani, by pretending to ship some guys to US, to attack.

I think bit differently... In ArmA soldiers are clones with different weapons and skincolor, which doesn't apply to reality, lots of things that gives away our identity before our faces are visible. In ArmA/OFP it's impossible to tell is this guy from my squad or from my platoon... If friendly tags would apply to distances about 100 or less meters it would be fine. This viewpoint is from SP experience and i don't know does it improve situational awareness... But i don't like the situation when i don't know is guy next to me from my squad or from other? It cuts me loose from surrounding. In OFP this could be checked from target-menu. But in ArmA it doesn't exist anymore for grunts. Damn, that i miss it during missions EDIT: Oops offtopic... And like it been said you play like you like, i've nothing against it

Yellowish is the color, little is the briefcase and it's still there! If you click the man it brings you to page that has lots of names. Cleck the briefcase and ...

Rant about mission making and editor: Making missions is somewhat disappointing. Same starts to happen as with OFP before ArmA's release: I launch mission editor and stare at screen for some time... Then i exit the game. I've already tried everything in OFP what intrests me and ArmA cannot offer anything new, but bigger battles. Which is great thing, but: Equipment is limited at the moment, Sahrani is that kind of island that i don't like. Too much mountains and roundness in terrain. And most of all: editor has limits as well as some basic tactic-related stuff isn't there. It's as hard as in OFP to create even somekind defencepositions for larger force, or infact now it's harder bacause forrest-marks (those green spot) in map screen don't give anykind info about where are trees and bushes there, as there might be only one lone tree and couple of bushes or almost like jungle. I'd give my left testicle (already lost right one in a lost bet ) if i could insert units and maybe waypoints in somekind 3D-view of actual terrain. Right now there is too much of jumping from editor to preview and back. i'd give my right foot for some general principles of basic military tactics and methods, so that i wouldn't do them myself in every mission. It takes lots of time to do that in editor and defencepositions are pain in the ass to design because of this. Well this could be made with script... Have to think that, i would save my foot. It should be possible in ArmA now. It could be said that my pleasure in ArmA becomes from desiging and creating big battles with realistic setup. Unfortunately road is hard, long and frusturating.

He didn't mention 9999mm of RHA penetration That is you who mention it. Only thing that [CS]SOBR[1st-I-R] mentioned was amount of explosives and that if it hits (even near?) tank, it isn't in fighting state anymore... Most likely being destroyed. Or is this it like i said, [CS]SOBR[1st-I-R]? Also cool down a bit, please EDIT: There was no word RHA used and no word penetration used in [CS]SOBR[1st-I-R]'s posts conserning that AGM-65.

And one or most balance thing is AI. It doesn't know anything about AT-stuff. And planning AT-defences is hard work in ArmA because of limited equipment and AT-methods that AI has. Tank with degreased RPG-7's damage in OFP/ArmA would be individual stronghold which doesn't need to fear anything in SP or COOP and it doesn't need anyones help... Well repair and ammos sometimes. But it would be great that AI could operate better as AT-guy and AI leaders could lead AT-guys better (not just "4, attack that tank"... "oh no... 4 is down")... Then it would be super to have better armor for armors. Even me as a leader should start to think how to plan my AT before MBTs are spotted... And what boost would realistic "MBT vs AT"-setup give to mission making But what i've noticed is that AI-vehicles uses shoot&scoot method in ArmA... It was nice to see own BRDM with ATGMs to frive to hill, launch missile and short after reverse behind hill. Or was it just plain luck: BRMD destoys target and falls back to formation.

But only after depleted uranium was beign used as extra armor. By my info, before depleted uranium it didn't have very much armor to resist SABOTs and such... But against HEAT it's armor was quite strong. ofcourse, it's not 100% sure that non-uraniumed M1 gets knocked out from first SABOT. As it never is with any MBT/APC/human 100% sure. That is what is wrong in ArmA... There isn't randomness.

But there's lots of things that mission makers don't understand. Basic stuff is general knowledge, but advanced stuff is something that is almost totaly un-documented from official level... Left to be discovered or "discovered" by amateurs them selves. It's long and demanding road for newbies and results is: masses of missions with straight forward AI behaviour/tactics. sometimes it is good, sometimes not. More i mess with AI more i think that i don't know a sh*t about it. Offtopic all the way... Okay i'll shut my trap.

Like all MBTs... Abramses arn't tougher than most MBTs (T-90, T-80, T-72 (some late version), leopard 2, Challenger, Merkava... what else is left out?). Their frontal armor is hard (like most MBTs). If RPG hits that, it most likely can't pierce. Hitting side armor and there is possibility. Then again why bother as Abramses (like any tank with turbine engines, i quess) have been destroyed by rifle bullets when it hits good spot and luck is the air... Or was it backbacks and other "debris" on tank that could cause that? First M1 isn't same as M1A1 . Secondly you could replace M1 with any modern MBT. Like this: It is less provoking that way

This was first thing i noticed in OFP... M1A1 in -85!!! Ofcourse i'm crown bit older and wiser now so i don't whine anymore so much, but still it would be nice to see T-80 vs M1 fights... Old Steel Panters rule is that M1 is killed by T-80 in gentlemen's one-on-one match

Good points in there... But this guy doesn't (as usual) know a thing about AI's skills. Shame that they aren't used in ArmA's campaign or official missions and players and editors don't have solid facts from dev-team to the ways of AI and how it does things, which is bad side in BIS [Offtopic] That 'take cover'-routine would be great thing to read. Still I haven't figured out way how it determes what do and how to do it in OFP. Seems that it always supprises me, when i think that i know how it works: "Okay, now it is going to hid behind that bush" ...waiting... "Oh dear god! It pulled back into cover of forrest! I didn't know that it can do that!" [/offtopic]

You shall never look at the score

Yeah, mine (TM Cougar) does too. It's a pity though that we no longer have the ability to map the the throttle for planes separately, like it was done in OF:P - it feels pretty weird to pull the throttle lever to increase thrust and vice versa My cheap thrustmaster... well... Only game that i play with it, is T-72 Balkan on fire... Yeah it a tank sim, which doesn't allow me to turn turret and elevate cannon by mouse. in that game it's cool thing: Gives some challenge. But: That joystick is lousy piece of sh*t in flightsims... As it is never in exact center-point so jet/chopper always wanders to some undesired direction. Mouse and keyboard-combination is much better.

This deserves to be quoted! I'm going to put that to my sig.

I was about to tell about that, but deleted it. Well here i go again: If you mean that they don't report ("9 o'clock, unknown man, 500") unknown objects, there's good reason for it. They would block radiochanel with brainless reports. But i'm not sure about my theory: As there isn't unknown objects visible in target menu 2-0, or in cadet mode with full map-data. Otherwise map would be full of unknown men, vehicles, things and same would apply to target menu. But then again, they do report ("9 o'clock, unknown man, 500") lots of unknown objects when game-time is night. But that doesn't prove much. Overall: I think that your right, but i'm not fully conviced... If there is somekind smart filter that doesn't let most of unknown objects to be displayed in target menu and map.

In fact i'm not so sure that AI is blind, well basically they are but there is more to than that. They don't seem to notice still standing enemy from about 200 meters. My theory is (and i tested that theory in OFP years ago) that they spot man from longer distances, but they aren't sure that it is enemy which they see. If someone doesn't look at it with binoculars or object doesn't do someting, like shoot, it is kept under unknown status. Binocular by my experience are bad for AI than human. Human can determe target's side (enemy or friendly) from much longer distances than AI. I'm not sure does binoculars even work in same way with AI than human. Raising sensitivity (eye sight) values has it's badsides, as they start to see better at night and in terrain where player can't see a thing... But my experience from OFP is that if sensitivity was set to about 1.6-1.8, then eyesight of AI was proper. Running or jogging soldier was determed to be enemy or friendly at range of about 250 meter (plain eyes), when with OFP's default values that range was 180 meter what is utterly low!

If your talking about queue up orders then we are mixing games... You know this forum isn't Sims or Gothic III (Great game! ) forum Anyways: Yes i'm in control of my character, with different set of rules than usually, but it doesn't matter. OFP's and ArmA's way is still most natrual that i've run across. Are these things (reload and dashing) changed or not, it doesn't matter as it's just minor issue.

It would ease the problems with AI... As there will be problems if thremals are brought to ArmA. AI is too stupid to hide from thermals. I've watched thru thermals lots, human who uses little amout of his energy and brains to get cover from thermals can hide from it very easily. But ofcourse that is up to terrain and possibilities.

AI would prove to be easy prey to human with tank, as AI's taking cover skills have their limits already. Let's just say that if mission editor doesn't lock and nail AI to some spot, result is (like Plaintiff1 said): ArmA doesn't present many ways to get hid from thermals. There should be long list of items and possibilities to get hid from thermals and most of all AI should be able to use them. EDIT: Well if infantry would be made visible only at short ranges (less than 100-200 meters?) to thermals. Then there are still vehicle issues... Chopping down trees and covering vehicles with them, forexample.

I haven't run to that kind situation in OFP or ArmA. If i get killed while reloading, which takes only couple of seconds, i would have died anyway as i'm not able to defend myself, even if there would have been possibility to cancel reload-animation. I don't see point... Well maybe teeny-weeny little one. If canceling reload-animation is done by specific button or by action menu, most likely i would waste more time in canceling reload-animation. Example: "now where is that button... i did use it about half year ago, so was it H?" Slower than waiting reload-animation to finish (and shoot the bad guy). If it's done by "press movement key"- or "press any key"-principle i and many more would start to whine that i ruin my reloading-atempts (and get myself killed) because i ,by accident forexample, press my "W"-key too early. Result: almost finished reloading is ruined!!!

Reloading animations have't caused any problems for me (i would have been killed anyway)... Even in open, middle of fire fight, only rarely i take cover as it takes more time than reloading... And if some is killed because of reload-animation... Well i think that person did bad choice to reload at that stage or spot and ofcourse brains are ment to be used even before reloading ( )

I doupt that thermals make their way to ArmA. And if they do: Because most likely nothing can't hide from tanks after that. It would be necessary that infantry can have more and better ways to "actively" camoflage themselves. Right now things go somewhat in balance, but after that

Not if they have wasted their hardware-budget to couple of Kamovs and SU-34s