Second

You are right. It gets too complicated. Shooting is automated process. Buttons in keyboard can't simulate our muscles, lungs, eye coordination.

Like every army tries to make it's men good shooters one way or another. But that doesn't prevent us from writing about it and it's implantation to computergame. OFP had good system, 3D sight are generaly done alot more harder to "control" than in real life (muscels are part of us and they are able to finetune weapon so that sights line-up fastly) Mostly i've seen weapons that seem to weight 10 kilogram atleast. Well time will show, what kind of sight do we get.

ArmA/OFP are games and i'm talking about ArmA/OFP (I served in infantry based army, and i say that OFP can't reach even a half of those possibilites that grunt has when it comes to disquising, ArmA is little better with it's grass, but still grunt can't dig-in) But back to ArmA/OFP: Enemy armed with missiles and rocketlaunchers can make tankers finding themselves in deep trouble. This doesn't make infantry man superior, but tanks lose thing that made them superiour when comparing to infantry: protection from long ranges. Milan in operation frenchpoint was killer, simply the best missile system in OFP what i've seen. if i can spot moving enemy armor from 1-2 km (isn't very tricky in OFP) tank, even with player crew, probably won't spot me as i'm smaller target and i can use small bushes as disguise. After two hit M1A1 is in bad shape, someone possibly dead. Can M1A1 hit with it's HEAT me even if it found me? there might be only head and missile tube which tankers can spot at ~1 km? What tank gets in equipments infantry gets in small size and specialization. That scenario of mine is just one thing that can happen, It can be that when i'm preparing missilepositions Some BAS**RD in chopper or IFV spots me and my bals and BOOM btw. That your thermalthing was one example. Bushes can give good cover from thermals. I've used TOW in dense forrests and we also disguised our TOW and crew from thermals. They aren't supersights, you just have to know how they work (and use them little), and you know how to cover from them. If you are in battlefield you might not have even a minute to search for enemy or your dead. You have to get forward, no time to scan every rock or bush just move-move-move.

Or i can use AT-missiles which shoot to even 4 kilometers possibility of hit being ~90%. Ever heard of Spike or Javelin or Milan... there are even more of these things in the world. In OFP if using high terraindetail there are always some holes where man can hide and wait for his moment. And what about ArmA's grass? Go and live in that tank-paradise (plains/desert) if you like, but fortunately ArmA won't be like it compelitely There will always be a hole for AT-guy and his launcher.

Oh yeah DAC! Now i remeber... That isn't something that i have in my mind. I'm thinking more tactical aspects. I want assault or defending missions which represent more military style... DAC is more like... how to phrase this... too random. It is too loose from surrounding elements. But i won't start to explain it as it would be just waste of space, but looking at AI in civilization, combat mission and many other games can give a hint of what i mean. They don't use missiondesigner's pre-plan, but they have objective what they try to get with resources they are given and they generaly get along pretty nicely. Co-ordination is strongly present and AI makes desicions how to confront enemy forces. How to respont to tanks, AT-weaponry. Yep this is more like Game2 feature, but i just wanted to point out my opinion. As player can have much more bigger arsenal of weapons, vehicles, men under his command. AI has to be able to respond any of these threats even with some efficency and unpredictably. Company level engagements are too complex for missiondesigner to think for AI (or more like to think how units should work together in changing situations (sometimes mech inf can just ride over enemy and other times it gets stuck after loosing it's last vehicle and half of it's men dead)).

Fixed it for you ALthough i do hope that the AI knows how to properly use it instead of making 1 huge squad I just curious about this DAC and it's kind. Can they make AI units to be leaded by one single "mastermind"... i haven't met that. Guard waypoints are simply guard waypoints. They don't make units perform dynamic counterattacks, flankings. They move somewhere when certain conditions are met, and they do it without co-ordination with others. If one part of defence collapses can AI take parts of other locations of defenceformation (squad forexample) and use them to counterattacks? Dynamicaly? Without preplanning? I mean that "mastermind" could deside that this and this unit is needed elsewhere so it orders them to move there and do this and that. Now player with 60+ men might be impossible to stop, weaken yes, but then player changes his tactic. AI (In OFP) can't do that.

Can AI have this "chain of command" and can AI use it correctly? If it can't, i don't give a SH*T. I can command&control 60+ men and i face only individual squads with 12 men who work acording pre-planned waypoints... Where is the fun part? I more likely play some tactical-level wargames, in which AI units work as a one: Forming companies or even battalions! If i change my tactics they can change their tactics too!!! But we will see... AI seems to be undergoing severe improvements and it seems as BIS thinks that if player can do something, AI haveto be able to do it too (To BIS)

Nope! i've played it before these M2A2, Vulcan and other addons were released (look at F.Point manual and you get the picture) ... Oh those good old days when Soviet mech inf. was feared for it's BMP 1s. And A-10 and Shilka were one of it's kind. M60 was/is a counterpart for T-72 BTW

Blah! They (communists) might have Spike MR missiles to blast that poor M1A1 to other realm, or panzerfaust3 or Apilas launchers. M1 is deadmeat againts all of these if they are used correctly... In original OFP there was BMP1 vs. M113, or Soviets had Shilkas as US hadn't single Selfpropelled antiairgraftguns. I liked the balance, one was superiour in something and other was superiour in something else. That was good balance of things. In certain terrain M1A1 becomes plastic and inf-AT is gold... And has there been statement that ArmA's M1A1 would be HA version? If not then it's very much destroyable peace of plastic

If player can't adjust his focus to rearsights, frontsights or target, Then NO to blur. This should be a game with simulation touch of things (atleat BIS says so, and i agree), not full-blood simulator. One outcome would be that allmost everybody would use opticsights, cause they won't blur. And if ArmA uses blur effect in opensights then opticsights should have some flaws modelled. What about sunlight hitting frontsights? It changes the picture of frontsights transmitted to our brain. Or tendensy to shoot over target in dark? Or that darkening of sightpicture i mentioned earlier? So much possibilities so less time and money... Line has to be drawn somewhere (and where BIS puts line is enough for me). Plus if i want blur effect i get airsoft-gun or start hunting or enlist as a mercenary to some location of earth. ArmA is merely a game after all.

But ArmA is computergame. most of the times i don't even know, or care where my leader is: "It is just a dumb AI, it might as well get us killed than detect enemy." I find it boring to follow lead of AI in slavelike columns and such. I rush away from formation, move as a pointman... things like that. If they hit the ground, they are following leader's example. That doesn't need handsignals, just leader to hit the ground and rest will follow. Using handsignals might expose leader to enemy eyes and fire for 1-3 seconds (Halt needs many seconds of holding hand up, else others might think that leader ment doupletime or assemble). Reallife experience is that leader has to takecare that men behind him are repeating his signal and that signal is right, as many of them are very similar. Or then leader has to show signals with harsh overacting, leader might use doupletime so that it raises it's hand 4-7 times fastly to make sure that message is clear. How AI does those as AI isn't creative?. And how does player determe signal right with with minimum resolution. Computerscreen isn't accurate as human eye. Spoken orders can't be left out in any circumstances and they make handsignals obsolent. Human players in MP is different case, but using chat is faster than handsignal and it's more accurate (well mostly sometimes there might be messages like: "emnmenyt pstrroll N 5400" )

Yes handsignals are used in reallife... now let's remeber that ArmA is computergame. I can't think that these handsignals would be readible most off the time. In real life they are, but my experience of OFP is that i lack many levels of awareness. there are many "hints" that focus our attention to certain thing in reallife that computer can't send me. effect of handsignals bases on these "hints". How do i know handsignals are used at this precise moment? i might be looking to other direction? at this point, in reallife, man near me would give me a hint by calling my name or doing something else.... Does all squadmembers repeat this handsignal... in middle of combat? Or so that nobody but leader shows this signal... in middle of forrest and i'm in tail of formation? How to show this handsignal so that enemysoldier doesn't see leader's hand as he raises it above his head and then starts to wave it? I see just too many flaws in this. AI can't be made so aware of present that it could use these signals smartly in terms of situation. It might give some sort immersion to ArmA, like ECP to OFP. But it isn't useful in terms of communication. In middle of firefight handsignals would pretty useless, there might be too many things blocking my line-of-sight to my leader. I won't have change to watch my leader. Then again scouting missions with handsignals would be NICE!

I didn't focus on frontsights too, well in riflerange sometimes, i was guite windy shooter, sometimes good and sometimes not so good. But we were instructed to do so, focusing on frontsight. But not to saw our focus back and forth between target and frontsigh. Eyes can't focus in anything soon as they get tired, or atleast i noticed that. And from this on i write my own thoughts of subject, correct me if you think there is need to. focusing on target has it's own bonuses. You can spot the target better. Main idea in shooting of moving camocolor target is to keep track of target. Targets in riflerange are white, and they are in one place... Rear Sights has also effect. And more importantly type of front sight (pointy or pole). Pointy don't blur so much as pole, i did spot hardly any differences between focusing on frontsights or target, as i was testing this thing. I shoot much better with pointy, as i tend to focus automaticaly on target. I prefer open sights AK way so that opensight are quite forward. They blur much less than close to eye. ps. there is one strenght in opensights too. They are much better in dark conditions, hole sights darken whole sight picture. If you spot target, it might as well be that you can't find it through sights.

I was, and still am, just wondering one thing. Did formation have effect to behaviour of AI in OFP... Like line and column, did AI behave same kind in both? Were their "tactics" always the same in combat without formation affecting to actions taken... I was just thinking that usefulness of custom formations in ArmA... If i could create "withdraw" formation (to be used by non-player squads), which says how they have to or should behave: Like rushes backwards as nearest buddy is covering, as in OFP withdrawing meant pretty surely lots of dead-dead-dead... I don't see point in this custom formation thing if AI uses still same "tactics" as always. Yes this is just one of those wishful thinking replys... Santa is dead, and this one is dead too

3, target that house at 12 'o clock. 3, fire ... yeah...then your troops look at you like "what" Yep. Once i told my AT-man to shoot at house where sniper was hiding... Didn't work and i haven't been trying again. You should have command like this: Mydude fire "lawlauncher". But i don't know does he shoot where he aims, or towards sky (like with rifle)

No if that would be build in-game. And i don't know how addon version of it would work in MP. Can it be too hard thing to hard-code it in ArmA at this stage. How could it be available to players, would it be in option menu? would there be something like 60x60 grid, where you mark soldier's number and position?

Yes your right... BAD Second! BAD BOY! Some times it just pisses me off, that U.S stuff. My apoligies to USM-75R.Spyder (deeply). Although i still recommend to get the actual training, teaching from soldier isn't enough: you see teaching can't give you the very basics of militarylife. you can't get them from computer screen, or listening. they have to be experienced with pain, suffering, crying from ache, as that's what military is about, most fieldexercises aren't about teaching as that is already done. Fieldexercises are to put you in to test, and military way of testing things aren't pleasant, you can't sleep, rest, sometimes even eat for days, but still you have to function. I can give you one key word: Devastation (that's what we mostly felt in our mind, during and before more than three days fieldexercises). I'd like also to apoligies from every one, who feels that i hurt their feelings with this "being good" thing. World is full of fine armies (Russia/USSR beign one of them), and soldiers, that is why they exists. I was carried away with my nationalistic mood. About Iraq, okay i didn't say that U.S army is lousy. It's training is good, but don't think that it's training is best (yes you didn't say that it would be the best) as there is no way these facts could be calculated to one universal form. I was refering to sheer size of USSR and Finland, That is what our citizens felt when Winterwar broke loose. "Oh my god! Why we, what are we gonna do. There is 100 times more people over there." You took Iraq fast, but nobody doupted it as it was clear fact that Coalition can't be stopped as it had sheer overpower. But we stopped military force which was thought, by everybody, to be impossible to stop by us (small, poor country), like thinking that second Iraq innovasion would ended in defeat of Coalition (utopia morelike). U.S is is one of the biggest, it's i covered by ocean from two sides. it's position in order-of-world is nothing like Finland and many other countries, who are living next to giant (and in recent history these giants have been in aggressive mood). But i think that this should be ended as else this topic will be locked.

WHAT ARE YOU SAYING!!! First remeber community, remeber northern sahrani... : THIS ISN'T PLAINLY ABOUT U.S. russians do addons mods, europeans do them, and they may have diffrent oppinion about should things do US way. HEH! being good? i might have diffrent oppinion about this too. Truly good are those who can fight against superior enemy, enemy which has more weapons, men, equipment. They fight with their hearts for something (like own home, country, and religion/goverment) but citizen of country that haven't had need for that, can't understand it. And i didn't say that colum/line are only that we use. They were mere examples. Yes we always don't put maximum fire to front, part of us might be circling around silently as rest are tiying enemy down, and soon enemy notices that it's been caught in crossfire. But this depate is waste of space as situations and terrain are the prime functions which affect to used formations and tactics. Every military thinks (their heads red) best ways to apply tactics and use of formations for their usage. AND I DID SAY: as Finnish reservist-NCO (who has used to use Finnish tactic, which has been formed up to Finnish terrain, Finnish culture, Finnish experiences in war (We fought against USSR (we had 4 million people and USSR had 200-300 million people), and we were only European country with UK which wasn't conquered by hostile forces, now that's about being GOOD) NOT AS: global military observator, who thinks that everything has to be made his way. OOOH! you been taught by someone else who was in military... Are you asking from him what you should be wrinting here too.... and you haven't been through military (this is mild suggestion of geting the TRUE training before trying to be pro, as you are simply amateur)... I've studied up to company tactics closely and little of battalion leading (and still i'm admiting that i'm not even close of actually leading them as i lack the OFFICIAL TRAINING)... Hell... i've been part of them in reallife-exercises, which is very far from computers, but also far from real war (let's not forget realities, altough they have been formed by experiences of war). You sound like me before militarytraining: "I know it all... I don't need anymore teaching, heck put me to front of officerclass and i give them couple tips about tactics"... WRONG, they laugh to death!!! FRIENLY FIRE. well i admit... you know how to cause them to your allies and to youself.

Nay. More general it has to be. If you are speaking of US used tactics and formations. Not all countries see reason to do things US way (Like Northern Sahrani). This can be for squad/platoon sizes. Things are done other way, to gain same results. Me as Finnish reservist-NCO see that US way seems to do things complicated way. Meaning why not move in platoon line/column and as enemy is met, two squads (we use Three squad + platoonleader's team), starts to flank from both sides, this let's enemy still to retreat. BIS has probably few reservist officers/NCOs and gruts in their offices/nearbars or cafees (being in conscript state/satellite does that ), who have gained good "People's (red?)-Army" training. I just hope that not every thing is done US way, as they are other ways to do things. So more generic system please (although after reading US tactical manuals i've noticed that basicaly things are done same way as ours, but detail there and here differs: like that platoon organization thing, which affects to many details, but as said results are/should be the same)

I don't play regular OFP anymore. Past 3 years i've launched it about 5-10 times (well didn't count times when "oops! i pressed wrong icon!"). WHY: For everything. But here's list of MOST important i can figure out: -weapon recoils just sucks (thanks to FDF (i think) that every mod have increased their recoils), weapon handling is "heavier" original OFP's shooting feels too easy. Weapons sway increased to make hitting harder -sound are lame, all mods have better sounds. -FFUR and WGL have increased soldiers and vehicles spotting ranges, which means that you have to be more cautious, old tactics may not apply anymore. AI shoots with rifles to even 500 meters. And you can't say that new units wouldn't be pretty. -FDF imported new weapontypes to OFP, like crewserved missilelaunchers, recoiless guns (SPG-7, Finnish Musti), Smokelaunchers for armored vehicles which blocks AI "sensor" as well as players. stachelcharges may be attached to vehicles... they improve missioneditoin quite a lot (as you have more options to choose from how something is done.) -ECP makes whole game play feeling more immersive, although it doesn't do much else. forexample OFPs own mission like "warcry" are simply ten times better, as men are shouting "armor take cover" etc... Yep! File size vs. improvements/changes isn't effective, and changes differ from MOD to MOD, but certain cohesion is present and seems that main features are more common to different MODs + plus i don't know how many people "melt" MODs together to get good sides from them. Addons are more effective in terms of size vs improvements, but they aren't so balanced for The Great Picture. And it can be pain in the ass to hunt them down (or even figure-out what you are missing) to get even one (1) downloaded mission to work. Heck i would even delete my OFP before FDF

In FDF's map Al Maldajah (desert map) the roads are lifted from landscape like this: (ground level _ _ /--roadlevel--\ _ _ ground level) I'm not certain but i think that it comes with roadobject. I have run to some issues with AIs driving skills on these roads, but they are generaly slowing issues, not halting issues. This feature makes new kind tactical approaches in ambushing convoys and such as ambushed men can get fast behind ditch and receive good cover from enemy fire and ambushers can close in the road by crawling as they are hidden by ditch too (does anyone any more understand what i try to explain). Pity that AI can't take full advantage of it, but still some of them decides to lay down in cover as others hop upon road and get killed. Handgrenade matches across the road are nice too

But still AI does that! And player may need to find better cover from tank and find it fast. Tanks isn't angry when it haven't spotted enemy. I would find cover fast, before launcher is fired, because after that the tank is pissed off! some kind shout "Firing!" or "Fire!" so that i could attleast kiss the ground to get little protection from backblast. I'd run for cover (depending of situation of course, but generaly) as tank in OFP is blind before it gets shot at. After it receives a rocket to it's armorplates it turns out to be "superspotter" and launcherguy turns in to small lumps of meat.

Backblast would require that you can take a quick look behind you, and report that you are going to shoot. ECP with backblast was stupid as nobody of AI cared if you held launcher on your shoulder, they might ran behind you, or you ran behind man with launcher as he didn't shout warning.

Might lead to lower magazine biting the ground, result: Ammos are jammed by ground and grass to mouth of magazine or resulting as magazine's mouth is twisted (if metal) or broken (if plastic)