Second

I must agree. Before Pacific Assault was released whole title felt like joke. But Pacific Assault quite surprisingly changed my feelings. It was rather good game then, still is decent and i enjoy it to some degree. Campaign was long and had good and engaging moments. Airborne sadly didnt' work that well for me, but cant' say that it would be bad game. I've played it thru three times by now... Elite Strum Nazi with gasmask and MG-42 is smoking hot :D Interesting to see how this new one turns out to be.

This forum is part of my internet tour :cool: Besides i've forgot what the £$#! is my password for their forums. I do like it to some degree, but i'm not very pleased with it. Meaning that i do play it from time to time and having mostly fun moments, but yet mostly feeling sad that CM probably will hang it to dry, instead of fixing it. Common feeling with various shooters: If they would fix this and add that this game might be great, instead of just being okay... The thing is that there serious issues with game which does exist (CM itself being one of most major ones), while some here does just finds their own fictional flaws. Why i replied: I saw dmakatra making mature effort and felt need to back up his point of view.

Please do give example or two. I do understand that based on Vanilla CMSF that conclusion might not be very far off (CMSF would have needed light Blue infantry right from start!). And i happen to play patch 1.21 and really don't remember much how game played in 1.10. I was able to beat Blue side often, i remember that, but it sure required almost prefect plan and execution which didnt' happen enough often. Current state in my opinion: If plan and execution is right Red side can cause very bad casualties (and even win battles) against Blue, while Blue will pay dearly for errors it made (i'm staring my own casualty reports in Marines campaign: i might have to call it quits before i'm able to finish it). This is very clear with Marines and similar light infantry forces. They lack muscle and protection Stryker and Mech units does have (Javelins, formidable vehicles, communication devices etc). Like i said CMSF would have been better and more equal if it would have had light infantry with possible trucks as transport right from start. If you ask experienced Red players what Red needs to win symmetrical battle answer usually would be time, preparations and artillery. 35 minutes lasting quick battles aren't really doing favor for Red side... Even less in previous versions where heavy tubes might respond to calls of fire in 20+ minutes. It forces player to do hasty assaults against poorly known enemy force with ill support from arty, even greatly bigger numbers in Syrian side might not make up the problems it generates.

Like Clavicula_nox4817 said game has moved forward and there's lots of changes. Deploy times for AT-weapons have gone down (finally :cool::), syrian arty is bit more responsive and not totally dependant of FOs while Blue arty's response time has been toned down. Artillery's effectivity has gone down (yeah earlier it was possible to wipe large open areas with few batteries) Mauling troops dead into one building or trench is much harder as they will evade heavy firepower easier, usuall case in MOUT is that troops storms empty building (opponents evaded suppressive fire) and receive fire from house behind it. + tons of other tweaks and fixes. I personally see CMSF much harder right now, getting thru same battles is more costly and requires much more thought. Mostly easiness is in official Stryker campaign, havent' played campaign in while, but overall impressions from whole campaign was that scenario makers weren't totally up-to task on playing as Syrians or familiar with modern tactics and scenario editor. They could have offered much harder opposition. Marines started to show right direction, but first half of it there was just rather poor militia troops... After that it got harder when better troops were faced. Dunno about Brits (should get it) but overall it's seen as much harder campaign as previous two. Overall scenario makers (noth users and official) have started to gain grasp on how to design missions with tough opposition from Syrian troops. Have tried some user-made campaigns like Forging Steel? That requires Marines module, but shows pretty well that Syrians can represent quite a headache. Yet it doesn't take away the fact that mostly US and Western troops in general have better training (=regular well trained troops vs many times poorly trained irregulars) have better equipment (bodyarmors, communication devices, NVGs, Freaking Javelins!, vehicles), more responsive indirect fire. Heck typically Western organization have much more manpower than similar Syrian units. So there's many advantages favoring western troops. Herbal Influence: You still haven't played the game. :D

You just don't understand it. First of all CMSF is NOT strategy game, it's wargame dedicated to represent pretty realistic tactical level combat. ArmA is just half made game (=Compromise of different styles) in many areas, and comparing ArmA and CMSF in CMSF's field (tactical battles) gives same results: ArmA lacks complexity, it's like playing paper-rock-scissors. What you haven't played you don't understand. And i'm not going to explain it's complexity compared to forexample ArmA to you. This sums it up pretty well why i don't want to make effort to explain it to you... But as Sanfu said commanding Styker unit (or Marine unit, or Heavy mech unit, or Syrian reserve infantry unit, or Syrian Mech inf unit, or Syrian Airborne unit, or some British unit) requires to gain skill in leading that kind of unit. When Marines were introduced to CMSF community started discussing how their were led to gain good results, how to use large Marine squad and it's rather insane firepower so that they perform well. Which are their strong points and which are their weak points. How they perform against different kind enemies. In here most discussions would go about how they look like, crap or cool...

There's no StrategicAI, as there were in original Combat Mission (=CMx1) In Original CMs that what you describe is somewhat a feature. Timeline of battles usually was so short that AI at was able to move it's men into concentration point and maybe even make one charge towards objective. Sometimes it wasnt' even able to do that. It was limited, but it had one strong side... It was totally autonomous thanks to it's stategicAI (AI which plans overall execution of battle and movement of troops). In CMx2 heaviest responsibility is on mission maker. He is stategicAI so he makes plan or several different plans for battle which TacAI (tactical AI which leads individual squads and teams, their target selection etc) then follows. Game picks one random plan from list which scenario planner provides for it and executes that. That has some pros and cons. +Plans made by skillfull people are very vicious. AI placement is sometimes very smart, their fire (artillery) and movement (infantry) can be pretty skillful. In my mind CMx2 works well if AI is attacker. -AI is unable to react to anything as it follows premade plan. It's reactions are just squad/team based (to open fire or to flee from terrain under fire). In defense system in CMx2 (in my mind) isn't as good as system in CMx1, where StrategicAI could atleast launch counter attacks at lost objectives, while in CMx2 it needs plan for that... And these kind of thing as hard to plan by scenario makers because player can do anything at anytime in anyway. Hopefully triggers, from which there has been discussions, are implemented at some time... So that scenario makers can give some sort semi-autonomous reaction-behavior for AI.

Ooookaaay so my estimation was bit too less :D I admit i'm company scale guy. Commanding battalion sized unit is way too much for my nerves and patience. I tend to send platoons into their deaths with out much thinking about it... And then i naturally forget them totally for few turns. :D I've been using WEGO system after blue bar was "restored", didn't knew how much i missed it before it made it's way to CMSF. It's true that it gives alot more info which gets lost in flow of real time, but to me that has just functional value, who shot who, who died when and why. Which is shame really, as there's tons of great/fun/"emotional" moments which other people seem to be able to capture into videos and screenshots, but which i miss in my games as i'm mostly playing as bird in the sky.

Holy grap that bunker scene at start was great. I never have understood this idea of WEGO, i'm always high watching overall progress of battle and almost never take it to individual level which offers quite a astonishing moments. Great looking battle, artillery and tanks pouring in some serious firepower!!! How large battle is it? I haven't played with Uncons much and usually over estimate their size way over. I'd guess there's couple companies, 200 guys. Any good? Heck i'm playing just against computer and even at best it doesn't reach greatness of PvP.

It's mostly mobility issue. And it's not just about COIN. These are very basic "rules" of battlefield which forexample US Army staff have studied in tests as well as based combat-experiences (atleast Vietnam and ww2), even when current line is such as it is, there has been some deal of debating and studies which has shows that current line is not good based on history. Problem area is mostly seen as 8 man squads, 11 would be much better. As a work-around idea of scaling down amounts of SAWs (aswell as UGLs) has been suggested. In short: Firepower-heavy squad isn't as effective as is squad with more mobility and somewhat less firepower, this piles down into close-combat ability (which is reflected at mobility). This doesn't mean MOUT only, but every fight is seen to be won by close-combat aka fighting in enemy's positions. SAW-gunner is heavily equipped guy, SAW-gunner is part of team. SAW-gunner limits mobility of team. Smallest unit in US military is team. Outcome is that teams aren't that mobile. This stands out after squad suffers casualties, which means that SAW-man ratio will go more against mobility because squad will keep all their SAWs (less riflemen remaining). USMC has same SAW-man ratio in it's squads, so i guess they have drawn these kind conclusions. One article about it stated that SAWs will still be in use of protecting bases. Which means that they need mostly firepower to keep enemy at bay while mobility isn't that big criteria. Mostly i'm interested to see does USMC still keep SAWs as part of squad organisation, by giving some teams IARs and giving SAW to other ones (so there woul dbe more mobile teams and more firepower consistinf teams in squad). That however would be against principles how US squads have been formed: each team in as equal in terms of firepower and mobility.

Umm sorry can't produce the results with demo... USMC squad (minus AT-guys) is happily moving towards it's waypoint behind hill. Forest on both sides, so there should be alternative approaches. (*gasp*) Me The evil BMP comes charging across hill towards them and halt on top of hill. What do they do??? Well they keep on coming straight towards me. Only thing they do differently is to start move in bounds. I shoot one of them. At somewhere 200 meters distance. Still nothing. I'm trying to see anykind evasive behavior... They are 40 meters away from still coming straight towards me. This scenarion in OFP, with engage at will, they would halt and seek nearest hiding places (AI leader even could move his squad to covering spot in longer distance if close terrain was too open. Like from open to forest) and will not budge as long as they are aware of BMP. Yes i've waited several times 30 minutes or so for them to come at me, while they have decided to lurk in bushes in less than 100 meters away. Many times i've just though that all of them were dead while in reality they were just laying low with only few casualties suffered. I stand up and they shoot me. Some thrilling moments. True, not interesting scenarios for casual gamer. On evasive behavior when they are aware of hostile before starting to move to next waypoint (meaning that they have to finish they current waypoint first). They fixed in from ArmA back to what it was like in OFP, automatic-like. That is good thing. About engage: Yeah AI sends his men now to their death in pairs. :D I'm not saying brainless (yes i like to dramatice it, i'm quilty). They have good things, like some sort MOUT behaviour and better use of cover (lean etc). True could be better as AI always could be. But yet i'm astonished that this pretty ground breaking AI behavior from OFP is ignored. Ability to keep a$$ down and tightly behind cover. To me discovering that was ground breaker. AI wasn't just headless chicken running around and asking to be shot. I actually could make it opponent which total destruction wasn't simple and/or fast process: useful for probing, harrashment, firesupport, decoy operations, scouting, "i'm too young to die"-attitude of troops. True most gamers probably don't give a flying f*ck about such feature.

Is running at tank (without AT-weapons) not a big issue? Quite simply in OFP we had nice and simple AI-behavior where it halted when it faced something which was hostile. When that threat was gone (either got killed or simply moved away) they started to move again. In ArmA we don't have such behavior by default. Another thing is pathfinding and trying to evade known threats. Does anyone know how to dig such behavior from ArmA AI and was there such in OFP and how it could be enabled? Yeah i bet no-one knows... Probably wasn't even aware of such behavior.

The name is Second. I suggest you do a test. Can't post photos here directly form my harddrive and people wouldn't believe it even then. So try it. Put squad in edit and also hostile tank. Take away their AT-guy so that it won't open up against tank and you can watch how they perform. Put them in some bushy terrain or forest for optimal performace. Original maps are best because they were designed for the system and also for AI, but resistance is okay even when it's bushes aren't so AI compatible anymore. In fact with original bushes they move inside that bush. Now give that squad waypoint so that they see that tank at some point of time they are traveling there. Now you can do two things: 1. Give than hold fire engage at will. 2. Give them open fire engage at will and give to someone in squad line like this {_X disableai "target"} foreach units this Watch events unfold. As a hint: They halt dead on, AI leader gives order take cover (you can get it by pressing 0-7) and AI tries to seek best cover in local terrain. Not super fast or 100% reliable but for game that old pretty good. And they will remain there. Now go to superior ArmA2 and try that. Yeah really try that. :D As a hint: They don't do a f*ck. Just keep on going. Idiots. Back in ArmA AI leader did give hide order, but overrided it with move order under same moment. Probably .FSM related issue. Dear dog. Such a name. LOL funniest or saddest thing is that i genuinely do think that i'm one of those few who knew this. :D

This logic is bit screwed in sense that i could bring ArmA4 on ring and tell how it wipes a floor with everything everyone knows this far... Atleast when ACE is introduced for it. Yeah now we just need to wait for x-xx amount of years. [i'm staring at my watch and waiting]

OFP wins: -Microterrain -AI... Yes i'm still upset that BIS doesn't understand how beautiful AI-routine they had when it comes to hiding and how easily it was to be toggled! Yes i have spent over multiple times 30 minutes wanting AI's assault while they infact were hiding because they thought they had something hostile infront of them (was just empty tent). And this isn't whine. -Outlooks. Ugly but functional. Target at 200 meters was hard to see and aim at. -Mods with large variety. LibMod is one of them. Beautiful stuff they made. -Background story, campaign, missions. The stuff. -Character handling, shooting that sort of thing. -MP had some feeling. We were OFP-brothers, man. OFP-brothers. ArmA/ArmA2 win: -AI has nice tricks by ArmA2, like leaning and some sort MOUT behavior. I just spent several minutes (yeah that long) in ArmA2 demo watching how guys from opposing sides ran circles in open area next to village, didn't even shoot each of other. Like mental patients or retards on amok, well not amok, peace walk more like. They should have somesort "yadda-dada-daaaddddaaaa-daaaaaaaaaaa"-warscream while they shake their arms from elbows. The thing i've never liked in OFP/ArmA AI to be frank. F*cking individualists. Stick with your pals at least. Oh and they don't take cover anymore like in OFP. F*cking rookies... Oh. Almost started to whine. Ignore all the rest but first sentence. :D -Outlooks. It sure is pretty. -Warfar-... Oh almost made mistake. This isn't supposed to be whine list. So no warfare on list. -Vehicles have hitboxes now, multiple gunners. -MP was-... Sorry thought that this was whine list. Erase that. -More scripting commands. Nothing drastically new and great for me however. So personally OFP wins. It's not that ArmA is more advanced. It is, it just lost it's soul along with few key-features in process. Like fake titties without nibbles.

I see that this has already been discussed, but a i've already typed this i shall post it. So sue me. Naah. Grouping was steadily rising to several hunderds of meters away. It's just like rifle with long burst and poor sights for long range shooting. I failed to see dispression there when watched with death cam at guys who were shot at with it. besides right definition wouldn't be shotgun, because it was rifle-shotgun combination. dunno how it is in english, but on my language it would be something like, ummm, riflegun. One barrel for rifle-cartridge and one barrel for shotgun-cartridge. CoC had claymores which sent tens of pellets. It killed frames. Same with LibMods handgrenades and shrapnel. Too much stuff flying which eats resources in engine which isn't very good at modelling it. Does ArmA have such things made as addon?

I got my own arisoft gun in age of 9 (the one which shoots those small lead pellets), yeah i was pretty good shooter when i got into army because i had all the basics alright, after army i kept firing with airsoft gun because i didn't have license for any real firearms for a long time. So i agree with you. And even if i would have had rifle then airsoft gun would have been very good option as like you say it's cheap way to get thousands or more shots per year. Airsoft guns (shooting 6mm plastic pellets) is good in training house clearning and such. We have used Cyma's AK74 for that and it worked pretty well, you have safety switch in correct place and is operated in correct fashion. Gun's shape is pretty close to real one etc. And it's fun to shoot at targets with something. Good motivation and spice-up for other wise rather boring stuff. Because i'm poor bastard and can't afford to have real AK47 or similar gun to it, only owning cheap Russian over-under shotgun, i still drill with airsoft AK47 to keep up the feeling how it is handled. Not 100% right way to do it, but better than nothing. Cladly i get some real trigger time with shotgun, so that works as counterbalance, giving some recoil, noise, hearing disorder and boom-phobia, maybe even something to eat sometimes. :p How ever in your quote my main point was to say that airsofters shouldn't act as cocky towards paintballers because they happens to have more realistic looking toys. Limitations in both are pretty much the same.

Hmm... I saw personally pretty many topics locked in A***2 general discussion section when OF:DR was released, which like wanted to compare OF:DR and A***2. :rolleyes: This is not about censorship, it's about idiots posting idiotic posts, other idiot making idiotic threads. When you have released game, idiots do pop out in swarms. Those idiot ignore forum rules, they behave like idiots do. You get those idiots banned, threads created by idiots locked, some deleted, the usual stuff where moderators try to hold swarm of idiots in some sort of order. That happen pretty much in every forum. In B*-forums too when A***2 was released. With A**A there must have been nearly hundred whine thread which were locked because moderators wanted all the whine go into disappointment thread. People banned because they quite frankly deserve it. The usual which is not related to censorship, but to fighting against disease called internet idiots which will cause quite a wreck on it's amok. As a sidenote i'm not talking about any forum in specific. :rolleyes:

Ummm... Care to check ArmA2 general discussion and look which kind topics are locked? Tsk-tsk-tsk-tsk.

Arg. Dragging gtopic further down to offtopic, but well i think i may have some objective and constructive points. Here it goes: If OF:DR is generic FPS, which i happen to disagree, then it indeed has taken lots of things from other FPSs, heck it's even has tactical wargames such as Close Combat baked into it. Basically it is pretty close to what i wanted OFP to evolve into. Not totally there, but close enough to make me happy. Have you tried what kind game it is when your defending some objective against enemy which uses heavy firepower? So heavy that even when player cannot die (sure his character will), he has to think does he's head fit in there if he raises his head. Tracers seems to fill whole space, dust kicked in clouds from vicinity etc. I've watched scenarios (i'm testing AI's capabilities and lacks currently) where buildings are literally covered with dust form impacts because USMC or PLA squad decided that bad guys in that building WILL keep their heads down. 1 minute from hour of combat is for killing rest is for gaining upper hand for that last minute, which means burning some powder. That kind of things i've seen just in wargames done correctly. But level of immersion lacks from it as i'm bird into the sky leading my own men. In OF:DR i'm in middle of that pile of crap, hearing how guys are breaking under pressure, some just lie there, some yet try to pop up to keep enemy down with their own fire, but it's clear that it's not going to be enough because to each shot enemy responds with heavy use of fire. I've always wondered that aspect in wargames and tried to guess what it would be in shooter, when modern rifle squad opens up it's whole firepower with idea to keep enemy down. I guess i know the answer by now. And i'm colored impressed for such game which seems to show that pretty much spot on.

Both fail. But i'm playing OF:DR. Something fresh.

Flawed agruments here. I myself use difficult AI mod. It's not very wise to move without suppressing enemy. Yeah, there has been time when i just rise up from grass trying to do short rush only to get hit, reason being that enemy just is too powerful and my buys are lying in grass doing nothing but trying to be as small targets as possible (it's called morale). And there has been times when i can move around relatively safely IF i have can pour more fire on enemy than enemy can pour on my men or my friendlies (it's called morale). There's values for accuracy and they are pretty complete: there's atleast morale, range, injuries. Those can be tweaked to anything from total inaccuracy to total snipership. Not enough scripting support!? Did you even looked at manual they provided? I don't know many games which would have that long list of scripting commands along with game, tutorial missions to cover the basics, even campaign creation tutorial and examples. You really can't wait for people to get the system in mere weeks even with good tutorials.

You have good points i admit. I don't agree with range advantage, but that is mostly because we use 0.2g pellets and sites where i've been playing almost always have some degree of wind. So pellets usually will spread all around the countryside. Already 0.25g pellets seems to be much better, but nowdays almost everywhere around here one faces the fact that only 0.2g pellet can be used because maximum joule cap. Which sucks.

Airsoftgun LOOKS real and that is about it. That sadly is pretty much whole idea of airsoft-genre, you get realistic looking gun and outfit and then you go to spray-and-pray BBs to 20-30 meters. :D (and some still argue that it's more real than paintball, while it basically is just as arcade as paintball is) Paintballers usually atleast do understand that there's realism and "realism" and don't boast with it like some airsofters do. Both are toys and used as toys, once that lack has been acknowledged they can offer some value in some scenarios. Team Deathmatch in both camps i'm afraid. Sure airsofters tries to be mil-sim blokes, but usually that leads only to wearing some realistic gear (as you say they hate to get their expensive gear dirty with paint).

Laser simulators are available for commercial uses. I know couple small businesses which do offer them (one customer for at least other is military), nice change from paintball and airsoft. Haven't tried it as they are physically far away but shouldn't be much different from MILES-kits from 90s, which i have used. Most problematic/different is weapon itself as they can be something like OICW etc, unlike military MILES which is put into personal firearm. Nowdays MILES with GPS and maybe even camera would make good "contact"-sports. Ofcourse lasers are lasers with inability to penetrate anything, but in range, easiness to use (if i hate something in paintball and airsoft it's the goggles and their "ability" to get hazy when they shouldn't) they clear the table. Then again sometimes use of paintball markers or airsoft-guns over laser-simulators is desirable if terrain is very-low-visibility. I've been in exercises where markers are used as usually visibility ceases to 10-20 meters, laser signal might not get farther than 5 meters away before hitting something like branch and due to terrain most engagements are just blind firing thru bushes and young trees. Am i interested? Well it's fun that people can have (more) fun. I personally am satisfied with current options (and i'm not too much into it right now) and don't see reason why i would need more.