Second

No offence intended with this reply i'm just curious. Why are people so exited about WW2 in OFP and ArmA (atleast it seems like so). OFPs engine has big faults for realistic WW2 combat... Trenches have zero or even negative effect to accuracy and survival, bolt-lock rifles and AI's lack of skill to use them: AI is designed for autoloading weapons, slow rate-of-fire bolt-lock rifles leads to quite absurd behaviour of AI, atleast to my eye. No good melee-ability for rifles. SMGs are wide-used but "bullet penetration" is the same as rifles. Bushes become unpenetrable to 9mm bullets relatively short distances in real life. Ofcourse OFP isn't too realistic for modern combat too, but i think that there is much better done WW2 games than OFP's engine. Liberation, FDF 1.4, invasion -44 all has nice impact to gameplay at first, but atleast i find myself playing with modern mods quite soon gain. I see action in WW2 as massive artillery barranges, long trenchlines, where are multiple MGs, AT-guns, mines, conterbattery fire. Big tank formations (and realistic armor models), big amount of attacking infantry, airbombings... Things like that, well some of them should be in modern battles too, but OFPs strength has been fiction and so i can deal of missing artillery, airforces, proper defencelines and organization, but WW2 ties missionplanning and modding to realism cause these things have happened. Only thing i can see OFP can show from WW2 are firefights between smallunits. What keep others playing and designing them? As i have found out that i can't design WW2 missions with out finding historical facts and i even can't design a mission, which isn't existed in reallife. Maybe i feel that i corrupt my grandfathers and their generation's memories which have been left to us. Keep on working. i'm not judging, only being curious...

We had 2 shots in 5 seconds to 150 meters with our 7.62x39 bullets, not hard case and we generaly shot both shots in 4 seconds. Recoil was quite big (our rifle was like AK) but if firingposition, i mean our body, was proper, weapon just jumped upwards and landed excatly where it was before shot, so sights were in target again. What i've seen from M16 (from America's Army) it has tendensy to hop little bit to right-upwards direction, so weapon has to be adjusted littlebit in sideways direction after shot... Am i right or wrong? Should this be in ArmA. Edit: AK has been designed so that recoil "pulls" weapon upwards, unlike G3 which has quite direct barrel-shoulder line (Like in M16), and so G3 shouldn't rise so much... this is theory what i've read... I've haven't every shot with one thou, but i would imagine that G3 hops sideways more that AK and so ArmA's recoil models should be changed so that weapon can travel to left and right aswell as up and down.

I think that Harriers and Cobras represents reinforcement troops for those small US forces in Sahrani at start of the campaign. Something like: Marines and army sends "dredge up" units in hastly darkening situation in Sahrani. No time to build or arrange task force, but everything available is send there as fast as possible. Those guys in Sahrani are nothing but trainers... Am i right? So no heavy weaponry (Atleast much) and in front of NS's classic tankassault there is hurry to reinforce existing SouthernSaharni and US troops. Edit: one Word corrected

Then she (the daugther) has to be worlds youngest captain, not even 20 years old and she already captain... WOW! She has to be hot ... i've been doing some thinking: Ditch the David, he was kinda siss. His daughter sounds much better (and hot)!

Well soon it get's snowy and freezing... Enjoy outside now when you can... I just started to dig treches and mines for polarbears, i can see their eyes in the dark already!

Here is some of my own, because i LOVE forrest warfare, as that is the REAL skill. When enemy is spotted: -Be careful, keep prone or just move less than 10 meter rushes. -After rush change place in prone. So don't stay in spot where you land, but move a bit! -2-3 shots or short bursts and change place -Always try to make a hit, so NO RANDOM FIRE. -Handgrenades are you best friend. -AI is your best friend too. Keep them close to you. Don't give Engage orders - It will just get them killed! -Train-train-train! Quickmake mission in woods. I myself do forrest training mission sometimes because the skill easily rusts. -If you see an officer KILL IT! Forget everything what i said earlier , now it's all about killing IT! -When enemy breaks, HIT it like a swine. Forget everything what i said earlier , now it's all about killing them! But as said enemy is generaly hard in forrests, much harder than in anywhere else. One false step or action and you are dead there is no doupt about it. It takes insight and lots of practice (for me it took something about a year of constantly training and reminding of RL teaching of our army).

Could it be possible to model "emergency sights" like in SA-80's SUSAT have. On top of the opticsight is ironsight which is used in close range firefights. Many sights have this option in real world.

The problem is that someone plays ArmA with <= 1024x768 resolution. It isn't as good as human vision at it's normal. Best possible solution to simulate human eye's focus and adjustability is to be able to zoom. Ofcourse if everyone could play with high resolution, then zoom might not be needed, but still computer screen can't focus like human eye, and focus is something that can be bestly simulated by little zoom. But when looking at system requirements it seems that average computer can't use high resolutions.

Well ofcourse! As we finns nowdays appreciate luxury. Nothing can't win idea that coach could be fitted inside tanks... Playstation ofcourse and own canteen with Kossua and Olutta.

In fact that "Top 10 Greatest Tanks Ever"-program was misleading in some facts. That you height isn't problem (atleast big if i calculated right that you are 190 cm), only load of BS in that program. Over 180 cm men have said that there wasn't any problem for them to fit in T-72.

Dangerous! Well i haven't heard any complaints about autoloader in our military and i can say that T-72 wouldn't be used if autoloader would be dangerous to gunner. That dangerous thing is for manual loading, if something happens to autoloader: If it gets jammed or something like that.. Manual loading is for emergency situations, when tank can't be driven to back for repair. Is autoloader more unrealible than human loader? Human can panic, get wounded, get deadly tired without sleep or if loader gets sick? Ofcourse autoloader has it's weakpoint with that blowing-up thing, But when ~500 mm of steel shatter from sabot round, or hot pieces of armor from HEAT blast, scatter allaround turretspace. It's almost the same to crew in turret as autoloader would blow-up, That is what i think, but has someone better knowledge? I would be happy if someone could educate me I just can't wait that T-72 would have Tshu1, Sthora, Arena, Kaktus ERA... Russian innovations at their best! TUSK offers nearly nothing protection comparing to these. I would start hunting M1A1 than T-72. T-72 would be almost immortal against AT-infantry.

I don't know. It would bring more atmosphere... Your under heavy fire but still you carry your buddy out of lethalzone then you would be merited with medal of honor (douplemeaning )... Didn't work in medal of humor (did anyone notice: a joke). but that was because of immortal AI buddies... This is tough one: This hero is maybe unable to fire when carrying, have to drop secondary weapon, moving speed is serioursly degreased (Try to carry man and his combatgear aprox. 10-20 kilograms). Always fatigued when carrying. Wounded's weapon ofcourse would be dropped off. I seriously don't know...

Umm.. Let me guess? You've done mostly this "battleshooting", have you? What is you nationality? Well no need to answer that really. I agree with you in shootingtraining. If i've figured out right you nationality and what i've read for magazines is true: You had mostly "battleshooting". Am i right? I'm clad that we used only basic training in shooting ranges, rest of the shootings was done in "battleshooting" and only sometimes we hit the range, to "learn" again what it was to shoot "easy" targets. Those were always memorable times when we had "real" action. (This somehow sounds so lame... what is wrong with it? i try but, i can't type this like i think it should been typed? Blasted! I just read it over and over and it sounds so lame, but i don't figure out what wrong with it?) EDIT: WTF is that lamp next to my nickname? i have yellow light in it... Is it dangerous? Should i run?

If M1A1's second "gunnerslot" (M2 machinegun on turret) have to be shot in turn out position (that's what someone said, i'm just repeating that). Then i do think that it's included, that turn in/out thing. And it would be weird if not. I like to drive like that in combat with I'm-not-afraid-of-anything attitude

This is one reason that i love OFP. In Farcry i look at enemy's gun and think: "Ha-hah! he's pointing it totaly different direction. Now i run and chop him down with my machette!" WRONG! when i'm two meter away from him, the gun point totaly wrong direction, and then... Enemy shoots and bullets leave the barrel in 100 degrees angle... towards me, dead-me! When saying that some games have better AI when it comes to matter of hiding behind objects, well there is a reason how they do it. They don't have to aim at you, like in OFP. Try JAM's HD-mags or Unsung mod forexample, they have HUGE dispersion. Shoot to 100 meters and bullet hits sometimes even 2 meters away of the aimpoint (those really are lucky shots).

Yes! If you have to for it... Then go for it. As long as breath holding isn't required to hit at all (just for some bonus steadyness to aim). We were teached to hold breath when shooting... I did it in rifle range to achieve good as possible pointamount and earn free ticket for coffeecup (when having ~3 euro from day's service, you might understand that it's great way of motivation). But i don't remeber doing it in "battle-shooting" (Your shooting targets with live bullets and participating in some battletactic like attack or defence... did anybody get this?), for reason that breathing system is automated process at this stage of training, shooting works like swiss clock. You don't have to think about it, but it's there: deep in your spine.

I'm qouting this from Shadow NX, but i don't aim this only to him! He just had good question which i now steal and use for my own causes. Sorry man! Idea of unbalanced forces is great to me for these reasons: 1. You have to adjust you'r gameplay acording the side you'r playing. That requires skill and ability to adapt surrounding elements. 2. Sides are unbalanced... well i have to deal with it. I don't enjoy of the fact that i'm balanced with enemy. Just give me RPG againts enemy's M1A1/T-80 and i'm happy. I'll do what i can, if it requires that tank have to first drive to my ambushpoint. And i have to deal with the fact that it kills me from 1 km as i can hit it from 100-200 meters. Still result can be uncertain for me. It makes me to try harder, be better, be more cunning. 3. I've fought againt modern armored enemy in it's base with RPGs, Pile-up charges, Bolt action rifles, why? For the fact that it can be very fun and exiting. Most certainly i'm dead, but even that one time if i manage to destroy that tank and slaugther it's crew, i'm damn proud of myself. 4. I'm playing OFP for fun and exitment, but mostly for displined action with good team. One RPG can't kill tank easily or atall. but when 3-4 RPG points the same tank, it's good as dead! 5. I don't give a damn about T-80 being (or not) in the game, but PLEASE! it can't be that great barrier (or burden) to enjoy the game if T-80 isn't in ArmA. This is 8th page already!!! There have been many solutions for T-80s replacement! Are they that weird that some people in here can't coupe with them? 6. Missiondesigner aren't that kind of idiots (well most )that they wouldn't notice that M1A1 can be pretty much better than T-72 (original or early version)! CTI is going have improvements by BIS itself!

If you ment me (In other case ignore this, because to be honest i don't fully understand what you mean (i'm dumb) so i'm just playing this safe now ). I said earlier: "Yep this is more like Game2 feature." I felt to daydreaming again... I have this bad tendensy to over-react, and then daydream, when word dynamic is mentioned by myself or others.

I'm confused! This is already 8th or 9th page of this topic, and subject hasn't advanced at all. I must admit that DVD is very-very stubborn. Could someone give him a medal for this? Please! Just to make it stop. I'm starting to lose it soon!

KA-52s (Read those posts ) WEAKER (1 chopper == Many MBTs. and again read those posts ) EDIT: Little overreaction again... i just cleaned this reply a bit.

Turn it into BF-clone... .... NO! WAIT... I CAN EXPLAIN

If i remeber correctly, there was chopper "trend" going on, and might be still going. It is possible to have T-72 as best MBT, and using KA-52s as antitank role. As i've heard calculations about effectiveness of chopper versus tank, and i remeber it would be like 1 chopper can replace 3 tanks in battlefield. I don't wan't to speculate that it would be so! But NS generals might have this rating in their heads when thinking of some new weapon investments. NS is atleast hilly if not mountainous, choppers might fit better there... I'm intrested to meet enemy force (And later to fight in their side as campaign is over) with believable equipment, if it can give a challenge with it. Well choppers needs a finetune to AI, they should do fast attacks with missiles, get to cover and attack again, as in OFP they generaly just flew over enemy and fired when they felt like it. Someone will do T-80 or T-90 back to ArmA if not presented and even if they were in-game! Well that means Addon chaos, but when having 3000 assaultrifle addons couple T-80 addon doesn't count.

Hey! That is good, never slipped in my mind

I won't speak about that "dense forrest"-thing either. Still i have to say (if you have doupts about it) that it is designed to fit my country's terrain, to maximize ATGMs killing/survival-ratio. Tank's possibilities in our terrain have been taken in count. And i can assure that best brains have been thinking this and making sure that it works. this topic has been talk of 1-on-1 match in OFP, from that viewpoint i replied. I'm aware of combined arms, but it can't be properly dicussed in forums, and that is why i left it out. AS i said that is just example, idea of it was to show that tanks can be killed from long distances in OFP. Rushing/moving is what military uses when in attack. To avoid enemy artillery and attack boggin down, as defender (AT-infantry in this case) has possibility to wait in cover that tank comes to it's area and then it shoots. Tanks are in groups, but so is AT. Both try to kill each of other. AT-units has weapons that are designed to kill tanks as tanks have weapons which are designed to kill almost anything in battlefield (including AT). I merely tried to explain that tank isn't superweapon (as someones seems to think), even in OFP (NATO missiles, like Milan, are heavy. But seems that in OFP is non-speaken rule: M1A1 has to take atleast three hits before destroying, no matter what it hits it). Yes i wouldn't go for tank hunt without proper recon, and backup forces. Tank hunting for individual tank is other case, but against platoon... no way (in OFP). Trail of smoke isn't very clear and long lasting as missile burns it's travelfuel before it travels 300 meters (this is TOW spec). You might spot missile thou, but that means that you have to look exactly to it same goes with smoketrail. WGL is too praised for it's realism, that is what i think. It is just OFP with different spices and with little realism boost (but just a little). Milan isn't fire-and-forget missile. You have good points thou (some which i don't agree, but they are worth of giving thought later) , but we both mix two things: What is reallife thing and what is OFP thing. And we both don't seem to know which of those two other ment. So my sorry too

There can be everykind stuff flying in the air because of that blast. That is why peacetime backblast area can be even 90 meters. In battlefield that could be "suggested" area but not required. 90 meters can sound bit far, but forexample Apilas has 122mm rocket and that needs alot powder to takeoff, sadly i don't remeber it's backblast area correctly. Stand next to it as it's fired and you get the picture small rocks are light in hands of that power. Here is info from INTRODUCTION TO ANTIMECHANIZED WEAPONS (USMC) about AT-4 "Backblast. The backblast danger area extends at a 90 degree angle arc from the rear of the launcher 5 meters. No large vertical objects may be 5 meters to the rear of the launcher. Extending another 55 meters behind the danger area, is the caution area. Personnel or equipment in this area could be injured or damaged by backblast or flying debris. A total area of 60 meters must be kept clear behind the launcher when firing. The AT-4 may be fired inside a building provided the structure has a volume of 50 cubic meters. All personnel must have ear protection and be forward of the rear of the launcher. The structure must have good ventilation with glass removed from windows. No objects can be within five meters of the rear of the launcher. (See Figure 1.)"