Tovarish

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Mar. 07 2002,15:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">of course you could. Â you are proudly flying a flag of totalitarian communism.<span id='postcolor'> Now you're just egging him on

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Mar. 07 2002,15:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">of course you could. Â you are proudly flying a flag of totalitarian communism.<span id='postcolor'> Now you're just egging him on

For some reason, with the weapon pack the West got a nice variety of scoped assault rifles, and the Soviets still don't have a scoped assault rifle. I think to even this out the Russians should get the Kobra sight, it can be mounted on many types of rifles, and even older rifles, not designed for optics, can be modified to use it: lol everything from a Bizon to an SVD using it Multiple selectable reticles too Also available in Night-vision, and for those days where you want to kill someone but feel happy and optimistic about it, Rose coloured shades *edit* typo. College, lack of sleep, and English as a third language all catching up to me

Wintermarch....Can't wait to sit in the commander's seat of a T-34 or the cockpit of an Il-2. Maybe even call in some katyusha support

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Mar. 07 2002,14:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if there wouldnt have been any gun-restrictions in Germany back in 1944 the Jewish-Germans could have defended themselves.<span id='postcolor'> Lol uh-uh, Yep, "Honey get my shotgun there's a Panzer coming this way". I'm sure that would have worked. I find it sad that people have to resort to spewing such nonsense to protect their rights. *sneaks off to re-write a small portion of the U.S constitution* Revised: "You have the right to arm Bears"

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 07 2002,14:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Most airplane crashes I have seen pictures from have either had... 1. craters with debri around 2. fairly large chunks of airplane (like parts of the cabin, engines, wings etc) 3. debri strewn over a large area Now, with a plane impacting a solid object you wouldn't get a big area of debri and the plan would in all likelyhood get smashed. But I still have a hard time seeing that it would nearly disappear.<span id='postcolor'> In the ariplane crashes you've seen, the crew would have been trying to keep the plane in the air and slow down the descent as much as possible, not ram it into an object at mas speed Check this video of a MiG-29 crash MiG-29 at Paris Air Show sure it's a small fighter, and I'm sorry I couldn't find a better quality video on the net, but try and find any large pieces after it flew nose first into the ground. After it crashed you can't even tell it used to be a plane. Same goes for whatever was left of the Boeing embeded in the Pentagon. AvonLady: You should be hired as an official investigator do you know that?

Oops, guess I didn't do enough homework on it, I knew it was a widely used "electro-optical sight" so I figured it was magnified, was kind of wondering how with only one lens. lol. Oh well me still wants

I felt a bit like that too, it's weird, it's as if I was punished for buying OFP earlier and then having to pay an extra $25 for the Gold Upgrade. (The Gold Edition costs as much as the original did) Oh well

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Monkey Lib Front @ Mar. 07 2002,04:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Would be cool to have the option to attach scope if u wanted.<span id='postcolor'> That WOULD be nice, heck I imagine you could attach it to an M-16 even....and look at that old rifle beside the Bizon that has it attached, Just picture a Kozlice with one of those on! It may actually be useful then! (and yes, these are for sale to civilians, so it would not be unrealistic

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PimpDaddy @ Mar. 07 2002,04:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They need a dynamic campaign mode, like with some games where your a tiny part of the big war. Scripting is nice but it only does so much. Being redirected during a fight because the enemy just took out a recon helo and you have to save the pilots, or escort weapon trucks. things like that. if anyone has played falcon 4.0 or comanche vs. hokum you know what I'm talking about. even though they are flight sims they have dynamic campaigns<span id='postcolor'> Amen

They still kept up with technology....for example no one in the Soviet military believed that MiG-21's or even MiG-23's would do the job once F-15's and F-16's came out, even if they had 10-1 superior numbers. And i'm sure that detachable sights like those can't be THAT expensive, heck, they're widely used now, and what is their defense budget compared to the Soviet years?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Monkey Lib Front @ Mar. 07 2002,02:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Whats AFAIK?<span id='postcolor'> Appart From An Insane Kraut....or was is As Far As I Know?

Lol funny. Just today I was reading the forum & surprizingly realizing he hadn't stuck his foot in his mouth for amazingly long

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Scooby @ Mar. 06 2002,21:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Urban legend about soviets having grenades under their shirts having wires attached to pins of grenades?<span id='postcolor'> I saw an interview with a russian Hind gunner who was there, he was the one I heard this from.

Sneak in from bush to bush, plant your sachels, sneak out & blow whatever it is up. Only fire at an AI if he discovers you/you see he's about to discover you. (In other words, only shoot at e'm if you have to, better if they don't know you were there till something explodes). If you DO get discovered, kill anyone around you quickly & hide in a bush.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 06 2002,15:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The same people who say that someone OTHER than the Taliban or Al-Queda were behind the WTC, choose not to believe this.<span id='postcolor'> That generalization. Anyways I thought it might be implying something the way it was worded. No offence taken or intended

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Greadius @ Mar. 06 2002,18:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hardliner @ Mar. 06 2002,17:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But in this Afgan-Soviet war you can't be american. I know america supported afgan but I don't think they actively paticipated.<span id='postcolor'> Actually, the CIA had operatives on the ground early in the war to train the Afghans on how to use modern equipment, especially the rocket launchers, and some basic combat tactics. As far as I know, they didn't actually see any action, but they were THERE. We can always rewrite history a little <span id='postcolor'> After 911 would you really want to ally yourself with the taliban just to play as an american?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Greadius @ Mar. 06 2002,18:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hardliner @ Mar. 06 2002,17:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But in this Afgan-Soviet war you can't be american. I know america supported afgan but I don't think they actively paticipated.<span id='postcolor'> Actually, the CIA had operatives on the ground early in the war to train the Afghans on how to use modern equipment, especially the rocket launchers, and some basic combat tactics. As far as I know, they didn't actually see any action, but they were THERE. We can always rewrite history a little <span id='postcolor'> After 911 would you really want to ally yourself with the taliban just to play as an american?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 06 2002,18:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What I AM saying is that it is not so strange that they did.<span id='postcolor'> Thing's we've known about the Taliban: - They targeted and slaughtered civilians in the WTC - Brutalized and executed their own people - In the Soviet-Afghan war they were known to skin captured Russian soldiers alive. It got to the point where Russian soldiers/airmen wore a grenade inside their uniform with a string attached to the pin in case they were about to be captured. (Granted the Soviets weren't too big on the Geneva convention themselves) You mean to say these same boyscouts would excecute a captured enemy?? OMFG what is the world coming to??!!

Right...ok, I thought you were referring to the replies this thread. My point was that suggesting the Russians bombed those appartment buildings is as ridiculous as suggesting the US or Israel were behind the WTC. I choose not to believe Russia was behind the bombings there, and I choose not to believe the US or Israel destroyed the WTC, so please avoid making generalizations stating that because I believe one side didn't bomb themselves I believe the orther did...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 06 2002,15:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The same people who say that someone OTHER than the Taliban or Al-Queda were behind the WTC, choose not to believe this.<span id='postcolor'> WTF are you talking about? has anyone here said anyone but the Taliban/Al-Quaeda were behind the WTC?

Y'know, after all those Chechens have been found with the Taliban in Afghanistan, I would have thought people would stop with the "The Russians did it to themselves so they could have a litte war" theories...I mean, how different is that from the people who said the Jews blew up the WTC? Cold war's over folks, There's still some political differences but I think we're all pretty much on the same side now

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Monkey Lib Front @ Mar. 05 2002,04:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They would if they could but there is something called the geneva convention.<span id='postcolor'> Bit offtopic here but wanted to put in my 2 cents about the Geneva Convention. Although I fully understand why it exists, from what I've seen it is practically useless and sometimes illogical. First of all, in every conflict, there is always at least one side that completely ignores it, and it is usually only democratic nations that follow it, at least "officially". Heck, it is now known that in the Soviet Union, soldiers were not educated about the Geneva Convention. They didn't know not to shoot at a vehicle with a red cross on it for example. Moving onto my second point, the flawed logic of it, especially when it comes to banned weapons...IMHO, if ANY weapon should be banned by it, it should be nukes. But no, we get things like no flamethrowers,no napalm, 50 cal sniper rifles can only be used against equipment, but hey let's let countries have a nice little bomb that can royally screw over the whole planet. I mean, how many times did the world almost get blown to hell? More than we can immagine I bet but I can name the Cuban missile crisis, the Vietnam war, where Nixon wanted to use it, the Korean war & Mcarthur, that recent little mess with India & Pakistan, heck during the cold war there was even an incident where NORAD mistook a flock of Canada Geese flying over the Canadian artic as a flight of Soviet bombers & launched their Bombers & interceptors, luckily one fighter pilot realised those were birds and not Tu-95's :O So, what I'm trying to say is, I think governments should take a long look at the Geneva Convention, and revise it so that it makes some sense, or scrap it.

Lol I want the Anti-tank dogs that book described!

IMHO BIS made a major PR goof in stating they were going to release the tools to the general public at a certain time and then going back on their word one or two days from that time. I understand why people were upset, heck I too was looking forwards to messing around with Oxygen during my spring break...however, people have been showing way too much hostility to the creators of what I think is the best damn game I've ever played. A lot of us in these forums have been bawling and crying about it like spoiled brats who didn't get that shinny new toy. Jeez...first of all...there's that Russian team working on their unnoficial editors, which should be completed soon and from what i've seen show lots of promise, and second....BIS themselves have said they will eventually give us all their goodies, so have some patience & stop whinning. If you REALLY want the tools NOW, get organized, start a website, build some models to show off in some other 3d tool. I know if I was on BIS's staff and I read some of the crap being spewed on these forums, I would have no motivation in trying to improve this game/support it's comunity...and from the amount of patches that have been released since v1.0, it is very clear BIS is committed to OFP and us, the players. So, before I write a post long enough to require a title page, I want to say thank you once again to BIS, and to all those who are boycotting any new addons and predicting that the lack of editing tools at this instant will bring around the demise of OFP, I just want to say, don't go away angry, just go the F*&ck away.