Second

Well at least between T-72 and Leopard2 there is clear difference. With Leo engine change is much faster, maybe hour or so. With T-72 it's been said to take almost day (probably meaning almost 8 hours). Don't know for sure been years i've heard about it, but i was astonished that it's this way around as i was sure that Soviet tanks are quicker to repair. On topic: I have small, was half inch last time i saw it.

Yup. This is how we were trained to do stuff. When sights were on target, cease breathing, squeeze trigger etc

As with ArmA and with OFP AI can be modded to have variety of reaction ways to enemy threats. Sure not all flaw can't be taken away but most basic. Such as willingness to rush and get killed without thinking. That however requires something, which means scripting more or less complicated scripts. I in ArmA as in OFP needed few minutes (or hours) of scripting per missions to get combat behaviour suit my and mission's needs. Be that fearless charge at machineguns or cautious and slow taking advancing which could mean that against strong opponent attack got bogged down for hours! They could break and retreat easily, use various enagagement methods from flanking as unit to platoon based bounding overwatch directly against enemy. I am able to get them to form defensive formations which have some (proved) value. Heck i even scripted limbing dynamically working urban tactics for securing streets and using of building walls for AI (which sucked terrible about of CPU and didnt' work well as i lack scripting-macigz and -skillz). So think BIS game is quite flexible in that sense, modders can do lots of things. And i think that lots of AI related potential which can be done by scripting and modding has not been used or studied. Dunno is it so, i don't interact with other modders at all. However... I got fed up to start scripting (or using ready scripts) those things into mission EVERY time i made missions. Seems that same story would continue with ArmA2... Blah... I don't have energy anymore for that, i want things more easily. So there. Or not. Dunno.

Not every. Some mechanic who uses wrench all day long (or cook) probably manages to get along with regular light, but every soldier in infantry platoons and fighting units in general seems to have. There probably are units which equipment isn't as good as some have so they might have less NVGs. That is my impression. Baff1: One thing with Grozny is that defenders prepared for years for that battle! In first assault Russians faced a lot stronger opponent in manpower then what they had. Maybe it was 4 to 1 or even greater favoring defender. Defenders had well organized structure, when Russians couldn't muster enough men for their offense (many units simply refused to assault Grozny! They knew better what was to come). After that first disaster Russian forces started to use more suitable ways to flush out Chechens, sadly there is little i know about that phase. Chechens did state that T-80 was thought tank to destroy. Averagely 4-6 rockets were needed hit to weak parts (rear. sides, top) of it! Worst took over 10. Telling about Chechen's skills of handling RPG as well as their tactical knowledge (as well as their knowledge conserning T-80) is that, by some sources, 90% of hits did hit weak spots.

I agree with Celery that AI somewhat ruins Ghost Recon. More inaccuracy for both sides + smaller (=more human) reaction time for AI and game might have made my favorite game, same problem with first Rainbow Six games. And overall i want' too pleased with mission design, missions generally consisted about 10 short seperate skirmishes (AI just stood there passively and waited for player to come). Then again generated quick missions player as defender were hectic :cool: Sometimes i had blast with game when AI started to use suppressive fire in heavy volumes and i as player didn't have much other options than hide behind cover and either wait for fire to cease or seek safe route to change position. But overall that happened too rarely, i think that i faced that kind situation two-three times over original campaign. Mods weren't that special, tried few and didn't get anything out from them. Still sometimes i regret that i sold Ghost Recon's CDs away.

I dont' remember which article i read from 2006-2008 which stated that most of riflesuqad's members have been equiped with NVGs, few are left out for reason that they are supposed to use their other senses as they don't see so well. So situation in that front is supposed to got better. Naturally US is spending loads of money on it's military, which naturally is good thing in that fighting and winning wars process. But yet US basically is cradle of quality thinking, some would prefer more boots on ground with less gear if they had that amount of resources.

They have not shifted completely, and as if my opinion matter it's gonna take tens of years for that to happen, if it happens at all. What Russia is about accomplish right now or in near future is getting more NCOs. From what i've understood both conscript and career NCOs. And there's talk about this new doctrine. Some rapid-deployment troops have high degree of professionals, but seems that even them have to use conscripts. In Georgia there were conscripts fighting, what is they amount of total man-power is not probably publicly known. What positive progress has happened in Russian military is that Russian military is getting more money, which it can spent on training. Hangover from "wild-years" is fading slowly away (even when there are loads of social problems still), Russian military is probably getting again prouder of it self, less corruption more motivation etc. War in Georgia must have made good for their self esteem.

Crytek follows path of "hollywood realism" Things need to look cool.

Yup... I really can't name single naval infantry unit which wouldn't have these we're the "best-of-the-best"-illusions. Maybe sea-water just makes person more dumb or something? ... Or they chat and hang-around more with navy-guys than grunts? :D On-topic: US is very rare country in it that it has afford to equip every soldier with NVGs. Some is soon going to come in suggesting that Marines are poor and have poor equipment? BAH! They have NVGs, optics, radios to low level! Sure compared to Army they are poorish, but compared to usual level in world they have "insane" amounts of top-quality gear.

Anal is most perfect way of communications. One fart is enough to spice the atmosphere. Longer and louder is always better. Works always. Not communicating at all but staring at distance? Preferably with cigarette or cigar hanging from lips. Very considerable option.

Err... Wasn't that 1969? :D

Hmm on immersion level i've played better. In that ArmA2 isn't at it's best in my case, well atleast demo. It has lots of potential, but AI unfortunately shoots most of it to knee. Seems that even when Ai was taken big step form ArmA, it's still "one of it's own kind". There is not much idea of taking it slow, no "thought" involved. And that affects to my play as well, hardly ever enemy escapes from my sights. It feels too easy. Every time i see AI standing in middle of airfield. AI taking insane 100 meters long rushes while being shot at... mmm... Ugly. When i hit the ground and see AI still moving tactically (doing slow walk) around while he gets shot at... Ugly. Terrain... Too smooth. Forests? Too smooth soil. MP? Mostly as bad as SP, even worse in days of ArmA. In realism sense. Controls? i don't like a bit. Better game to represent firefights? I highly enjoy Vietcong. If i want to go thru those feelings and experiences i went thru in exercises (no real combat experience here), Vietcong currently is first one to get launched in my computer. Sadly don't work much on 64-bit Vista, and there is no way to repair it! It's not necessarily more realistic than ArmA (it has it's share of arcade stuff), but it feels more realistic. And it's controls are fast and easy to handle. Sure that depends of point of view, and of what realism one likes. I like immersion factor most now days and don't really care for weapon and vehicle spec. realism. ArmA2 seems to be rather good game thou. If i would like to do patrols at night and stuff like that ArmA2 as well as ArmA are great games. Mostly it's problems are in combat.

BIS and ArmA forums have lots of older players, who has been enjoying the ride more or less from days of OFP. They have crawled to daylight from underneath their rocks and piles of garbage at release of ArmA2... So to speak :p OFP DR forums on other hand are starting pretty much from zero. I stick around here because i registered once. Until i get change to test OFP DR and judge it to be worth it i won't register into CM-forums. Could be other reason, but this comes to mind.

He-He I had pretty much same points with ArmA campaign. I genuinely liked it when i played it thru first time. I was lucky enough to evade most bugs, and had to cheat just one mission thru (that chopper mission). I have restarted OFP campaign for about 20 times. There are certain missions which makes me to halt. I hate that black op guy, james kustuvituiksi, and piloting missions. Tank missions were almost okay. In that sense ArmA campaign was more solid, it had "vehicle borne missions" but those were mostly optional, while in OFP i was forced to play thru them. Also campaigns process was much more clear in ArmA. In OFP i felt like i got threw around map and i dont' have glue how i got there (which is ofcourse pretty natural for ignorant grunt). Then again i've restarted ArmA campaign just 3 times... and ceased it after few missions. Well my interest for whole game dropped quite fast. So OFP in the end turned out to be better for me. Interesting to see how ArmA2's campaign fares if and when i buy it.

Then what was Operation Flashpoint? ArmAs aren't much more simulators as OFP was, a tactical shooter with arcade vehicles and simulated world with moon cycles, daylight, weather etc. And ofcourse mission editor. Yet it sold million(s) of copies. On your another point i have to agree: Problem is that BIS's titles haven't much advanced, few veteran reviewers have said that ArmA2 is basically OFP 1.9, while ArmA was OFP 1.5. And they can't finish campaign without cheating and there are bugs. And they score ArmA2 by that, not great game, just good. Oh and those particular reviewers did give astonishing scores to OFP. I haven't read tons of reviews but wouldn't be surprised if this would be general line of reviews. And final note: I expect ArmA2 to sell better than ArmA did (it seems to be better game and marketing seems to be better), but it doesn't have change to reach sales of OFP. BIS's expectations for profit from ArmA2 probably are reached and BIS can keep up with doing more games. True they probably don't have enough money from ArmA2 to spent polishing their next :(

-Bah-

Well they did with Operation Flashpoint. Sure it's about 7 years ago, but i don't think that gaming genre has changed so much. Tactical shooters seems to sell well, people lust for shooting things. Problem here is that OFP was cheer success which had loads of great reviews, while it seems that ArmAs are both doomed to be just good games in reviews, which is directly influenced to sales. Partially reason is that level has increased, OFP at it's time was one of those rare games where you had iron sights and basics of being realistic set. Now days every shooter fills those requirements rather well, competion is hard and level generally is high. Sure simulators don't sell well, but luckily for BIS ArmA is tactical shooter. Flight sims and other vehicles simulators haven't never sold well as not many people want spent so much time with game to learn even the basics. ArmA doesn't need 400 pages of user manual.

Was this your point? Is that they way you fire in ArmA2? Here's bit, with bit better ROF: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux3x7ZxOi7s&feature=related One needs to to quite an sniper-eye to spot that from several hundreds of meters. To be honest i don't remember that i would have ever in daylight spotted opponents from muzzle-flashes or smoke during exercises with blank adapters, which caused wicked muzzle flash. Cartridge's smoking powder still was issue around ww2 for some nations.

They are not using black powder anymore! Don't tell me you learned that from ArmA2...

That Mad Jack seemed to be quite traditionalist, sounds like total lunatic in a good way :D Yogendra Singh Yadav's story is also quite amazing! They probably don't have all facts right (With Hayha there's bit of false info), but great reading indeed.

I greatly enjoy reading homo-erotic writings, when it has elements of worship and mustard involved.

Mmm, this leads me to question... Do they cross bridges by now? Just asking :D (I still don't own the game)

Well, US manuals seems to also suggest that MG's and indirect fire's combined effect should result as neutralized defending enemy as they hardly ever can do more against dug-in enemy. While assault element's objective is to destroy enemy or occupying terrain (forcing enemy to evade). If enemy won't evade easily then it gets to destruction part. When we discuss about about small unit-tactics (leaving indirect fires out of the picture) base-of-fire element can mostly just suppress the enemy. True, statistics might be another thing. About war in Finland being somekind of exception: Germans stationed here in ww2 admit this, as do Soviets. WW1-WW2 Finnish active officer who's points-of-view's i've been reading gives rather simple example abnout it: "when in south charge ends the battle, up here north charge is what starts the battle". So yes things are different, and i must admit i don't understand the "southern setting" very well for that reason.

Hmm where i said that assault element needs to be 90% or that MG's arent' needed? I very well know that LMG is vital thing to move along in squads. Yet, what LMG did , in ww1 or ww2, or even present day, was to keep enemies hidden in trenches by fire and make their movement hard while own storming unit is clearing trenches with their agile SMGs, assault rifles with high-capacity magazines and hand grenades and pile-up-charges and similar. Based on what i know, assault element was which caused lots of casualties (most others were generated by indirect fires) and ultimately drew enemy away from fortifications, there necessarily weren't many guys in assault element, but they usually were most trusted and highly esteemed soldiers of their unit, equipped well and supplied well during fire fights (full mags and hand grenades brought to them as soon as they requested). Then again German squad tactics back in -43 (atleast by -43 squad leader's manual) were such that small team remained with LMG (SL, gunner, ammo bearer) while most of squad went on assault. Dunno what weapons Isrealis used back in -56, but could be that they were using Bren or such which technically aren't LMGs but automatic rifles with high-capacity magazines (sounds alot ww2 era US way of dealing with insufficent firepower of BAR). German MG-42 and MG-34 were bit different beasts when it comes to firepower. Yes. still MGs and rest of base-of-fire and support(supply) element, are there to support assault-element by fire. Which means that base-of-fire element mostly shoots at landscape from longer or lesser distance while assault element moves to clear enemy stronghold, firebase or what ever there is. Quite ridiculous to have one AT4 which takes half of inventory space, while with SMAW one can have several shots... Besides it was half-joke.

True. I took this to MG vs rifle axis, ignoring mortars. Silly me. Ontopic: Hmm... Should SMAW guys be handled like MG-gunners :) SMAW taking both weapon slots leaving gunner with pistol :):):) Juuuust a thought.