Second

SO they don't have... I had this info from VBS's homepage: "VBS1 allows armored vehicle gunners to turn the turret by joystick and lase a target to resolve a firing solution (which then aims the weapon as appropriate). Commanders can also override the gunner with a joystick." If this isn't ballisticcomputer then i'm wrong, as english isn't my motherlanguage and i'm not much intrested to get to know of tankers job, mainly only to kill the tanker. My idea was that if this feature would be in VBS then it should be easy to import to ArmA, IF THAT IS WHAT BIS WANTS. Appoligies granted

From info what i've gathered of VBS, there is ballisticcomputer and laserrangefinder in tanks. Stabilized guns would be GREAT, in OFP player is much worse gunner that AI as player can't react so fast and accurately to bumpy ground. realistic thermal sights would be GREAT too. But the M1A1 doesn't have, so other tanks can't have it aswell US tanker were dreaming of it, so do they have it now... i don't know, haven't spotted it from photos. It shouldn't be total simulation of tankwarfare, but more realistic touch would be refreshing. Steel beasts or T-72 balkans on fire are simulators. But that's about it, Any other aspect is only for AI, unlike in ArmA. ArmA needs to have realistical touch on every side, it doesn't have to be simulation. the great picture of warfare and it's aspects cover all that easily.

Yes. Who takes care of them in heat of battle? How many players would jump in joy, when middle of assault, one defending AI decides to surrender and player is assigned to escort it behind. I think that it leads only to executed AI and dropped rating for player. Or your squads keymember, like AT-launcher-/sniperguy has to escort him. What if escort dies in middle of his task. Does ex-POW AI take escort's weapons, and starts to shoot repairtrucks and some officer who might be needed to proceed with mission. "Oh... now it is dead and i can't finish my mission!!!" Or will it just keep going as escort would be still there. How you take POWs? will there be POWs who walks to you hands up, but in 30 meters tosses a handgrenade towards you or starts to shoot with pistol?

First ArmA was ment to be OFP 1.5 and now it is called OFP 1.75. So there has been change of plans. Elite wasn't published to PC as ArmA was considered to be ready before year 2006, soon after Elite. This is atleast my thought from info i've get conserning ArmA and OFP:E. From start OFP:E seemed to be it's individual release for XBOX and ArmA individual release for PC. As it has turned out. I think that now they will finish ArmA. And after that release new VBS with ArmA upgrades. And they stated in E3 in 2005 that VBS has kept they busy and OFP wasn't thought to be so complicate to convert for XBOX as it turned out. And how much they are working with Game2 right now. But i do think that ArmA is their main target now... And to me it seems that now has been too quiet... Soon something should happen. ps. What about US and Australian militaries (due their and BIS cooperation in VBS)... Do they have right to deny some parts from ArmA: 'You are releasing our military secrets with that M1A1/Stryder model'? Just curious point, but not very important.

Okay seemed that i didn't make myself enough clear. I'm meaning that you can point location forexample at your map. let's think this kind of situation: men are in line formation on hilly terrain. There are too much blindspots behind hill, scatteres trees, long grass. Now i can simply think that i want men 1,3,6 to watch location behind hill. 2,4,5 to sensor area behind trees. I click these spots at map and order 'this is your firezone' and i don't need to scan all elevation lines from the map to determe to where men should be ordered to 'move' that those areas are under their observation. They would now (in 'firezones'-order) search their positions according my order, which is that they need to see this 'firezone'. And i can be sure that men will see the area and i don't need to go to look it myself. Plain 'watch' order gives them only direction to look, but they stay where they are. This is most important in behindlines action, as every time as movement stops, men should secure the perimetre, to make sure that whole squad isn't surprised. Expacely in hilly areas, as hills have round shapes. And you don't know if man can see from spot A to spot B without checking it yourself. It is also good improvement for organizing defence for large area. Then again how AI would use it... Don't know. ps. This would be in reallife mostly arraged in platoon/company level, so squads should takes care of these 'firezones' (well situations change), but in ArmA we won't get platoon level commanding. So squads in ArmA are the main operating unit.

Ukraineboy hit the spot with that one. Just as i think of it. As there will surely be not much of civilians in towns. There was some allmost obsolent commands in menu like flankings, but then again, some guys use them. I use very much advance and stay back. Some might use flankings and others. I liked commanding men to their precise spots. But it gets too glumsy if there were more men than 6 + me, and so i got killed those who were too much If AI would behave so that they look good spots for themselves i'd be happy. If i could order 'firezones' to them, where they have to be able to see/shoot and then they would look good cover themselves by concerning that 'firezone'. That would be like in realworld, very simple and good. But like said: easy to say, not so easy to code.

And for that i believe we won't get realistic CQBs in ArmA. Is it too hard to implent? But then again some countries uses still the same old 'molotov coctail to that window and then we wait for house to burn down. Here have a sausage'-techique. Or 'Let's get here a decent 12.7mm machinegun and rock that house full of holes'-techique. I simply can't believe that ArmA could developed to that. Two sets of different command-stuctures or it gets just too complicated. How you determe when one is on and other off. We have Rainbow Six and others for that, why ArmA should try, as for its engine it will surely fail comparing to CQB-designed games. I think that they only improve AI in CQB, which is fine by me.

Yes. 12 men is just too big, first firefight and some are propably killed just because you can't command all of them. I've noticed that some six men + leader is best. You can relatively quickly order each one to their spots. Still enough firepower and treshold of casualities. That formation thing is intresting, they are either too strick with formation, or don't give a damn. Reason why combat behaviour doen't necessary suit for defence. Some men can wander even 200 meters front of they leader. Trying to put infantry squad in to forest safe (or in ambush) from armors and soon some goosehead is moving just outside forest 'I didn't find cover from forest but from here certainly!'. I'd say that more behaviour models. defence behaviour, ambush behaviour, combat with 'keep formation' behaviour, aware with 'don't give damn about formations' etc... I think it is intendent in OFP that squads have formed somelike 3-level line. one or two front(spotters), then some three to two men(cover for spotters) and then rest of squad with leader(what the heck their meaning is?) and sometimes there is guy behind squadleader. Reason why i wasn't overjoyed of version 1.96. 1.91 didn't have this feature, if i remeber correctly. Formations can be kept as they are in OFP (well mens distances to each other should be increased). More models for behaviour. And my newest idea would be waypoint in which you can order squad to spread to ~100 meters line, forming long defence line. Helicopters have replaced gilders, everything has been boosted to be more efficent (more or less). but everything in modern combat has been used in WW2 in one form or in some other. plain infantry work isn't diffrent from WW2. Only some tactical manuvers are changed, like i said assaults can be very-very devastating but they've been that in WW2 too. MY dad's dad (over 60 years ago in WW2) and Finnish volunteer in Bosnia, have same things to tell, they've been through same hell. As high-tech and missiles entered the ring that doesn't change the fact that in forests they are useless and tired old grunt is still alive and kicking. At open plains combined arms works like in WW2, basics are still the same only balances change from time to time.

That is because of we western people can't think guerilla war any thing that pathetic. In Middle-East this kind of fighting has been in use for centuries. In Crusades forexample. Knights in their shiny armor, didn't stand a chance against fast, manuverable light cavalry using shortbows. They were traveling as needlepads for there very so many arrows pierced their armors. And still knights only thought them as cowards? In moderntimes things haven't changed. Western way of war. BIG armys, direct action, fast wars, handles well against other same like fighting nation. But it doesn't handle well eastern fighting way, as they are in no rush. This has been problem for us centuries. Preus(Germans) had this problem with cosacks (russian robber/cavalry). We don't understand the point of these small actions, in which they kill few men. They seems to us that they don't have gourage to fight with us straight. Eastern way of war, it takes time. how long Mao-Tse-Dung (or how he has been spelled, that Chinese communistic leader) repelled against chinese authorities. over ten or twenty or thirty years? And at last he won. We don't have time. Year or two and we are TIRED, as they are just warming up. Think about that! Iragi war will be lost by US. US thinks that it is won already. The resistance does not. And now it is their call and they doesn't have rush. That all about cultural diffrences. Which generaly nobody understands.

Jep. Well In fact as i read my (stolen) urbancombatguide, the formations aren't only things needed to be changed, behaviour of units too, as urbancombat is whole other case than non-urban. Units should look over all the time, moving should be like one man at time, others watching and covering. Formations should be used very strickly as you need to be sure that all men are where they should. Housefighting would the most needed to improve. Tactics in doors etc. Grenades should be bounching, throwstyles diffrent... Will not be most likely in ArmA, And i think doesn't need to. There are plenty of urbancombat "simulations", noone matching with OFPs open areas.

Formation is still used by modern combat. It's one of basic functions of warfare and has been and will be... If you think that formation is somekind stiff moving mass of men, you have caught it totaly wrong. Modern combat isn't too much diffrent from WW2, fire power and equipment has changed, assaults aren't that important (more like slaugther) as they used to be, as whole platoons might be wiped out. Formations are the ones which keeps whole contenst of battle organized, leader knows where their men are and men know where leaders are. leader sees what men see and men sees that leader leads. This applies to squadlevel as well as platoonlevel. Why in the hell These things are still in traininglist of armys, if they are useless, for fun... Gees. In OFP thei believe in y apply aswell. Make script that orders two squads to follow one squad in 'platoonline'. They are superior to independent squads. As there will be much more INSTANT FIREPOWER and CASUALITY TRESHOLD, as all squads react to enemy presense. This way one squad won't wander away behind hill or to woods and become useless if rest of platoon is facing enemy. Open areas as well as forest. How it would be possible to command whole company or even platoon if there would be no formations. In forest you don't see a thing and it makes hard to lead men if you don't know where they are and what they see. No radio can replace leaders eyes for whole picture. Men generaly behave braver when there are other men around, if leader advances in enemy fire, some men will follow him, and rest are likely to follow these. Teams of 4 men can't take a shit of beating, one/two men down and thats about that team, it is likely to be dismoralized. Which mens that instead of one/two men there will be 4 men out of battle. Squads acting as whole can take much more beating, before dismoralizing(Depends of overall morale in both cases, but that is fact of WW2 and i believe in it in nowdays). Teams are more usable in urbancombat, where squads are too big. But else Teams have to move as whole squad or they lack of coordination and leading as one fighting unit. And that means formations.

Unfortunately engage-at-will is not safe and reliable. the whole squad may hide some object that is not even a treath to them. Best i've still met was that paltoon sized force was hiding from medical tent, and they did it the rest of mission shame as AI has given me some vary nasty surprises with enegage-at-will. "seems like enemy is gone." i think and start to scavenge enemy equipment from field. Suddenly bang and i'm under fire, several enemies still was lurking behind bushes, trees etc...

Nay. Some militarys teach their soldiers to move as whole squad, One way is to assign every squad member to two men pairs, they move as pair one moves other fires/covers. In this keeping formation has very important part. Pairs has to adjust their movement to rest of squad. This keeps squad fast moving (as artillery is grunts worst nightmare, and only option to that is to move fast) and firepower very good as half and probaply more of squad members is shooting and if they keep their level in formation they might even see the enemy what they shoot. That clustering is what is galled mob. squadmembers have long enough distances that one handgrenade generaly kills or injuries only one. In OFP squad which members are spread around back and forth right and left, can't fight effectively instantly if enemy is spotted and it means that most of them killed and enemy wins the day. That is all about fighting terrain. Those fireteams might shoot each of other if they spread around in low visibilty areas. You can't tell to other teams where are you as no landmarks can be given, if you shout "WE ARE HERE!" you might get lead from lurking enemy. There you have to keep formation even with rest teams or you might get shot from friendly fire.

I'd say that sights are not a problem, only that are you used to use them (well if sights are that shit that they bounce, then i truly doupt they have shot with some very cheap copy, AK was designed by experienced soldier so i highly doupt that they has this kind of flaw). If you have done most shootings with diopetric sights (or how is it writen.. that hole on backsights type of thing), you are used to it. I prefer more AKs style of sights, as i've been shooting with those kind of sights all my life. Using Finnish RK-62 (which is kinda copy of AK, and used as marksman rifle too) was little challenging as it has that holesight thingie. I shoot faster with AKs sight type and i consider it more accurate The point i'm trying to say that if you ask this from Russian (or someone else) soldier and give him shoot couple of times with M16. You'd still get reply that AK is better, as he has been trained/used to use them. FA-MAS has some lacks as has M16 or M4 or AK or G36 or FN-FAL or... depends of your view point what you look from your weapon. From way back Finland didn't consider 5.56 enough good bullet to our geological terrain as 7.62 was considered superiour (richoeting 5.56 just sucks) so M16-type was considered lousier than AK-type.

Aks comes in from diffrent producers. Original Ak is unaccurate (Poor guality bullets are one main thing, but that can be corrected with increasing quality), but still it is considered accurate weapon to 300 meters (how much more can you hope with plain eye/iron sights?).And oh... by the way.. i'll tell you a secret... Main thing that affects to accuracy IS THE SHOOTER! There are many-many diffrent Ak models made by others under licence, some of them are better (that depends of what you are looking from rifle - To me M16 is just long stick, i prefer shorter weapons... like FA-MAS, boy that felt good in my hands).

T-80s have autoloader in which shells are positioned upwards as in T-72 they are sideways... What i mean by easily destructible is that T-80s shells are more likely to be damaged (and then exploding) if armor of tank is penetrated... as they are bigger targets than if they were sideways. If i recall correctly this was one weakness that was corrected to T-90 (shells are again sideways). So ukraineboy please not jump on my toes... I'm trained to destroy tanks and T-80 is my main target... Russia has thousands of them still.

I voted for Bit more realistic... If ArmA was a "total realism sim", this game would be ready somewhere 2007-2008. If some one wants to feel ultimate realism, there is no other way than hire up as a mercenary to war (you U.S guys too, as these "wars" you are having are still just conflicts). You cant simulate feeling of fear, and no body does want to play three hours of deadly boring quarding/patrol duty. So warsims for computer are just plain utopia. You can brag about specs, but they are just little details, like having a nice car comparing to emptiness of soul/mind. Still it would be nice if tanks work like they are in reallife. Reason i don't play as tanker in OFP. There are some minor things to correct, but they are just minor. boost of editor, scripting, multiple ways AI could works, very adjustable gameplay from newbies to veterans(in video options seem quite good) are things i expect from ArmA.

"What I hope BIS considers is a Vietcong style, where you can fire from the shoulders, and still be accurate to some extent, and then bring it up to ironsights. I hope that you raise your body when you do this." When you are standing in OFP isn't the weapon right there where you mean it should be: shoulder. when looking at irosights the character lower his cheek to stock. Well generaly LAWs and RPGs do need to hit several times to armor before some efect will arise. If you are extremely lucky tank may be destoyed after one shot... in Grosny T80 (which is considered (by NATO?) to be pretty easily damaging tank because of it's automatic loader system) proved to be hardy to destroy even when some of them were shot ten times with RPG-7s to deck, sides and rear parts of chasis. I dont give a damn about is LAW/RPG disposaple launcher or not... as long as you can carry multiple of them. What i think would be nice feature to future realistic FPSs (or sims if you like it that way) to adjust you position higher or lower. meaning that when you are forexample standing, you can raise yourself up (standing on your toes) or push down (bending you knees). This would give you and AI flexibility to benefit better from cover. As in OFP shooting from window was pretty frustrating, when target was covered by window texture, this way you could lower down so that you have clear visibility to target and at same time benefit maximum cover from wall. using launcher from prone, crunching or standing would be nice thing (seems that we are not geting it from ArmA).

AA isn't threat even to original OFP (no mods installed). Like it has been said it's arenamatch... not truly missions, but gunfights something -150 meter ranges. It is just marketing-/PR-tool when OFPs engine has been issued as a trainingtool for this same faction... so... I don't think that AA3 will compel against ArmA. Not without seriour modifications: developement tools for community (what community?). AA3 will stay as kids game... As ArmA wil be for RAW men.

Well yeah. If you think that game being fun, means that you don't have to think how you move, then you just have wrong way of seeing things (from my point of view). In real life you have to drop from running long before stopping. Simple as that (and still pretty good way to boost fun-factor). If you think that you don't have to think things so, then it is your fault that character is like drunken chicken. Experience don't make him to gain control of that heavy pack, he adjusts his movement by that pack (understanding that movement begomes glumsier). As you don't seem to do (which should be you job as you are his brains, Soldier doesn't know when to stop... you do). Should character then shoot too when target is in sights, even if you don't press fire-button. I just don't see your point. with f-key you can creep forward inch-by-inch. Don't run to that corner, stop early and then walk rest of it (that is my way of doing that). If that doen't help, then there is only one solution... get a new keyboard!

Press "F" key (this toggles slower movement) when you need to gain more control of character. this key makes him walk (and so react faster to your next commands, like prone or crounch). "E" and "W" (without "F" key pressed) keys mean different levels of running (infact). Practise it and you handdle it, just like dives. I dived too late and so character dived pass the cover. OFPs way of movementsystem is THE BEST. Every game that has instant stop or dive, just don't feel right. Learn it, use it, master it...

Black Op. Some one said that he felt like being actual Spec Op in the campaign as he was playing. Shit, that was only little part of being "Black Op". As true Black Op you should be 99% of time watching your back, sides and front wether in rest, on move or completing a mission. Always under stress and "fear" that some enemy sees you. As if your caught, there's no easy way out of sitsuation, probably only in goffin. Read couple books about REAL Black Ops in "action" (as generaly they just try to stay hidden). Then fast hit to target and again hiding week or two somewhere. Not enough sleep or food or fear that EVAC is busted. Better again read about WW2 men who had to find their way across enemy lines and after a mounth get back behind their own lines. forexample finnish sissi-troopers most dangerous part was after the strike, as massive amout of soviets were hunting them down. hunger and lack of rest made these trips usually inferno. as they were moving in foot or sking on their own. As long as Black ops in AA are just killing machines for half an hour in some enemy base. I can't speak about realism, as true survival of these men depends events before and after the mission.

I just Don't Get it. Have you people played OFP just with Ai skilllevel at 0.1-0.4. Expert (skill 1.0) react far more quicker to threats. Remeber skill around 0.3 does have nearly any combat experience. Many humans react in firefights as Rambo (running, shooting from hip), as they are fresh. Some dock and grap to their pants... In OFP Experts react by terrain better than novices. ofcourse there are limits and stupidness, as OFPs AI has to handle big array of things. It is up to editor how them behave. If squad detects enemy, it can be ordered to stop and find cover. With minor things AI can be boosted much, as generaly AI works well. Btw. AI ain't that formation loving if it behaviour is assigned to combat. But hey in true life formation really has meaning, you won't run to some one elses fireline forexample. If you are in wide open, moving is best defence as moving targets are difficult targets. Much harder than lying targets. AIs orders are still to move to next waypoint (mission completion might count on it). Machinegunners actually cover others movement for a while (short). AI finds cover, but in many cases it is more effective and safe to start shooting immediatly. Something also trained in military. OFPs general problem was too open areas (for sake of CPUs). I'm happy with AI, i understand that it can't be better than me as i've played over 2 years intensively. I just try to think ways to boost it. But then again my expetations for AA are mainly in AI. and if AI is the same (or just bit boosted) it might be that i won't buy AA.

THANKS TO YOU DINGER! Seems like i've been wrong about CPU power and Ballistics consume in UA... then the answer must that i simply SUCK as FO. I don't think it's been matter of devotion to learn, i've tried to handle UA. But when i just don't get adjusting rounds and much less fire for effect to right spot. It is neat addon and as you said, it is good that game has depth (has it more and more by time). That was my opinion , which might easily change. I'm more that grunt which blows tanks up with launchers and shoots with rifle... at the end. Can you give me answer to why forexample BMP1 73mm shots some times (extremely rarely) perform very strangely. If target is over hill and i shoot it, round hits hill few meters low of target and after rising aiming a bit it shoots over of target. by these events i'm not too sure about OFPs ballistics, but if you can clear this to me. The main reason why i don't like UA (along with reason that i don't hit) is it's actionmenu based system. I don't get pleasure out of it. FDFmod you can write down fireposition-card to paper (reminding me of days in Finnish Defenceforces) where you put down firemissionscodes, main features of terrain etc... (and it has effect to assigning firemissions quicker) I'm not blaming the system, it's just not for me as i don't give a damn about actual howitsers and mortars in the map or how skillfully they were created and modelled (both which at start felt neat). Most pleasure i've get of my own scripts, which can be assigned to actual FOs which handle indirect fire's use as it sees it "Best". I just shoot, fight and fear that next firemission lands upon me and not the next platoon to right. As still i haven't met the one that gives AI the same way of using indirectfire as to me, which means actively and unpredictaple.

Ok. One specific area that wasn't pleasing me in OFP was AI leaders way of issuing engage command to it's squadmates. OK it is aggressive and active... but sending one or two men against whole group? that means only suicide. Making defence missions that was troubling as groupleaders didn't keep their men in positions but killed them in engage orders I'm would like to hear does AI behave differently in OFP:E or VBS1. I understand engage order if armor needs to be destroyed, sniper, machinegunner or individual soldier (ie. scout or blackop). But forexample in defence, is there possible (in VBS1) to issue AI so that it is in defence positions, and so its main job is to keep area-of-responsibilty, and destroy or drive away enemies from it's area-of-responsibilty. Not sending its men one-by-one behind that hill where is enemy squad lurking. Or can it be possible that in AA, missioneditor can give to groupleader a "personality" how it may behave in situations (does VBS1 have this kind of tool). Being agressive and active is not a bad thing, but if it's constant pattern then it's no-good. What i think as hard defender is the one which doesn't move but is keeping low and searching for targets (that's what defenders normaly should do). Tip for missioneditor create two squads (default west and default east), but them to forrest and issue other (attacker) to move towards the other (defender). watch the fight as civilian and count remaing defenders (or attackers). Now ungroup all group members from defenders and watch the firefight again. count defenders now... there should be dead only few men. maybe now you understand what i mean with suicide-engage-orders.