xawery

Argh... I misread 'pretention' as 'penetration' Incidentally, in his post-war memoires, Rudolf Hess (the camp-commander of Auschwitz) excuses his actions in the following manner: "I was merely obeying orders, a notion not unfamiliar to you. "My country, right or wrong", is it not?". Rather a morbid thought, don't you think?

Flying buildings into planes? This is just begging for a cartoon:) /edit: damn code...

Incidentally, there is a very good book themed in a vein similar to this topic: "The Eagle's Shadow: why America fascinates and infuraties the world", by Mark Hertsgaard. I have heard him speak on several occasions and I must say he is a very reasonable and level-headed individual. The book is written in a rather cautious, some would even say timid manner, but it is this very trait that makes it so good: it should prove palatable even to the most devout believers in USA's holiness and Infallibility. It cannot be cast aside as "US bashing" or "un-American drivel". It is a thought-through, eloquent alternative to inflammatory ego-trips like Fahrenheit 9/11.

I see what you are saying, but this is rather flawed logic. If one follows such reasoning, every action that happens to have an adverse effect later on (due to factors beyond the actor's control) can be labelled as 'stupid'. We are talking here about the supposed stupidity of the actors in that specific situation... such reasoning simply does not add up in such a situation. @grizzlie: I stand corrected, I should have checked my facts before using that little 'fact' as an example. But the fact stands - there were some blatant examples of improper use of weaponry simply because of commanders' nostalgic sentiments. Let me give you an example a bit closer to home: my grandfather had been trained as anti-tank rifle operator. These rifles (which would have been quite effective against the feeble armour of the Panzerkampfwagens) were not put to use in his unit because they were deemed 'unbecoming a warrior' due to the rather sneak 'n' hide nature of their usage. Naturally, this example hardly proves any general trends - anti-tank rifles have played an important role in the september campaign (they were the reason why the armour of the PzkpfW II's had been thickened). I do think however that it is a good illustration of the romantic mentality that has plagued the Polish military throughout history.

But... I want to know why we disagree:) Why do you think the Soviets not aiding the uprising was stupid?

Hey folks, Heh, I couldn't disagree with you more. Stalin's decision not to have his army support the uprising, while vile in itself, was strategically sound. It meant that the Germans would be weakened, and the AK (Home Army) which had staged the uprising would be pretty much wiped out. Need I remind you how the Soviets felt about the AK..? In other words, what the Soviets did certainly wasn't stupid. The uprising, on the other, was yet another manifestation of the Polish nationalist-romantic spirit: to be able to perish for your country with your sabre raised high was a great honour. Polish hussars attacking Panzers with lances during the '39 campaign were another good example... I think it's pretty clear what my thoughts are on such actions. But who knows? Perhaps coming into action, no matter how fatal in the end, was still better than doing nothing, waiting meekly for either the Germans or the Soviets to finish you off. What the NKVD did to 4000 Polish officers in 1940 didn't exactely suggest that Polish nationalists could expect good treatment from the Russians, once the Germans were driven out of Warsaw. So they fought... and died. That's very true. I certainly wish Poland hadn't involved itself in the Iraq war. However, bearing in mind political influence, Poland has most certainly gained something: the image of a rebellious loud-mouth, not about to be silenced. Not a very positive image, I admit, but it's better than being a docile follower of France. On the other hand, Poland's future depends on the EU and not the US, so antagonising the most powerful nations of the Union wasn't exactely the smartest thing to do. Whether joining the coalition of the billing was a good idea or a bad one really depends on which interests have priority... It's really a frightening pattern when one thinks about it. Poland just isn't suitable for a democracy, as frightening as it may sound. Look at the Polish politics throught the ages: the 18th century, the interbellum, even now... whenever a political system resembling a democracy was in place, the whole country was in shambles. It's really discouraging to see that unless there is a single unifying threat, the Poles only think about themselves and their own private interests. I am a Polish emigrant myself: I was honestly glad to leave the country and with it the disgusting culture of corruption and bribery. This culture has truly seeped through to all levels of society! Hardly anyone is evaluated on merit - it's who you know, and who you're paying. And I'm not only talking about politics - the educational system is a hash. When I see to what ends my friends' parents go just to get them a place at the supposedly free universities... Disgusting. Sorry for the rant chaps, but I just had to let it out. Phew!

Poland is rather well-known for military victories and diplomatic defeats... As Otto von Bismarck said: "You can't destroy the polish national-consciousness or Poles on the battlefield, but if you give them power, they will destroy themselves". Polnische/Poolse Landtag is the germanic reference to a chaotic meeting, in 'honour' of the incompetence of the Polish parliament during the 18th century. The Warsaw uprising was an extremely heroic act of stupidity. Strangely enough, Poles are rather hell-bent on attaining the status of martyrs through their own actions. As it would happen, the only Polish uprising that happened to succeed (the Greater-Poland Uprising) is the least well-documented one, and most certainly the least well-remembered one. The Polish mentality is plagued by an identification with irreflexive martyrdom; thus only excessively blood-soaked actions and undertakings are commemorated in Polish history. Incidentally, from Poland's point of view, joining the coalition of the willing wasn't such a bad move at all. Instead of becoming Germany and France's obediant lapdog (what was Chirac thinking when he gave his "you passed a good chance to remain silent"-speech?), it became the obedient lapdog of the USA, one of its more loyal allies over the past few decades. By doing so, Poland became less unimportant within the European political scene. Relatively, Polish troops have achieved good results in Iraq without suffering significant losses. All in all, the results of this decision could have been worse. Still, time will show... In sum, Poland is a quarrelsome nation, only united when it bleeds collectively. Ironically, Poland's historically disadvantageous geographical position isn't so bad at all, when one takes a closer look: in my eyes, the threat from the east and the west is the only thing that has kept the country together throughout the centuries. Whenever there was relative peace, the country was plunged into a period of political chaos. Bah... regards, X.

Heh, Kooky, I think the trouble began when you decided to drink Southern Comfort in the first place... *YECH* However, you are right in saying that upbringing is not synonymous to supervising. If you pass onto your children a set of universal principles to follow they *should* be able to make sound decisions based on those principles. Please note the emphasis on 'should'. Now, let us look at what you yourself have said: How many strong-willed, independant teenagers do you know? There were precious few of those in my time (which is quite recent, dammit!). Of course individual experiences don't really count as proof, but as scientific evidence points out - teenagers are very impressionable, so ALL stimuli are bound to influence the development of a young human. An average child spends two thirds of a day outside his home (school, sports club etc.)... My point is, while the parents OBVIOUSLY play an enormous part in the upbringing of a child, the environment as a whole shapes the individual. Don't blame it all on the parents. Just a last minute example - my upbringing has always been of the goody-goody/polite/respectful type, but my behaviour certainly changed when I moved to a different school (country even...) at the age of twelve. In the original situation, violence was commonly accepted as a valid method of resolving conflict. In the new situation it was unheard of. Nothing had changed in the way my parents were bringing me up, but the change of environment changed my behaviour. That's one of the factors I'm talking about. There is more to tell, but now I must be off! /edit - style amendments

Hey there people, I think we're talking past each other here. It is indeed true that ultimately, parents bear the full responsibility for their (underaged) children's actions. This is not a debatable matter, that's how the law of liability works. Acknowledging this does not, however, solve the problem. Sure, we can all smugly claim that it's the parents' sole responsibility and just leave it at that, but that won't help us solve the problem. There are more powerful and tacit factors at play here than mere parents' laziness. Upholding a standard of living, for example. Once you've reached a certain level, you're not prepared to go back. The whole western world (sorry for the generalisation) seems to be mesmerised by the goal of increased productivity. The interesting thing is that while the US exhibits higher average productivity, it has attained it only by working longer hours, not being more productive. Productivity per capita is higher in (continental) Europe. What does this all mean, in the end? Less time to spend with your family. Another matter is the dire state the European pension systems are in. They are completely unsustainable, and the current generation is going to have to bear the cross of the underpriced pension premiums of the nineties. What does this result in? Longer working hours, same pay. Already a 40 h working week is being implemented in the collective labour agreements in the Netherlands (it used to be 36), without a raise in wages. In summary: the trend is more working hours, less/same wages. It's not hard to see how that is going to impact 'quality family time'. And it has nothing to do with laziness. As Balschoiw (I believe) mentioned, there is a growing information asymmetry between the parents and the children. In a world of ever advancing technology, who is going to be the first to comprehend it? The ones with more spare time on their hands, i.e. the children. Already there is a hard-to-bridge gap between what the children know about computers and the knowledge the parents possess. Believe me, once you actually start earning bread to support your family, you will find yourself very hardpressed for time, and learning the ins and outs of the pc will not be on top of your list. After all, you could be spending this time with your family In other words, while technically it is the parents responsibility to know what they're children are doing on the pc, it's simply not at all feasible to monitor their activity 24/7. Before anybody chips in chanting the "parent to blame, censorship bad"-mantra, allow me to state something clearly - the purpose of my argument is not to absolve the parents from their responsibilities, but to put the conditions under which the parents are forced to fulfill these responsibilities in a more realistic light. What am I saying with this? Censorship is not the way, not only because it's principally wrong, but also because it's impossible. Unless you run a totalitarian state without access to the internet, no form of prohibition will work. Also, as has already been stated numerous times video games, as any other form of media, are capable of influencing an individual. That individual however must be mentally unstable already to act upon such influences. What we thus need to focus upon is why that individual was in such a poor mental/emotional state in the first place. One is inclined to say: because of his upbringing, thus pointing to the parents - the circle is full. Seemingly I have said nothing new in this post. But the point we are missing is that it is unrealistic to place the full burden of and responsibility for the upbringing on the parents. The way our society is structured (mandatory education etc.) simply prevents the parents from supervising their children all the time, EVEN if they would be available 24/7. Put differently, there are other parties in our society who need to accept their responsibility for our youth (gah I'm starting to sound conservative...). I'm usually loath to say things like 'families are the cornerstones of our society' and 'the youth is the future of our nation' or similar rightish slogans, but that does not prevent me from acknowledging that upbringing is important, children/teenagers are (on average) very impressionable, and that parents can't pull it off alone. Does this solve anything yet? No. But I hope this point of view will help us come out of our respective trenches and look at the discussion from a different perspective. It really isn't a dichotomous choice of censorship - no censorship. regards, Xawery

This is simply not true. Research has suggested that there  isa possibility where regular usage of large amounts of marihuana could increase the probability (not CAUSE!) of psychoses manifesting themselves during the latter stages of one's life. This has a somewhat different meaning than the assertion you have presented us with, wouldn't you concur? Besides, considering the fact that alcohol can cause the Korsakoff syndrome and smoking causes cancer (direct causality!) we should be banning all non-medicinal drugs if we want to keep marihuana illegal and be consistent at the same time. I don't see that happening, do you? Sure. Incidentally, this is true for *any* drug. Alcohol, tobacco, caffeine even. Let's ban them too. The Prohibition was just swell, don't you think? On a (comical) side note... I must say that I find spending time with people who have never touched drugs on grounds of them being "bad, m'kay" much more problematic than being in the company of people who are able to make an informed decision. They tend to be less... dogmatic. In other words, "bigger problem" is a very relative term;) To answer your question to my last post... no, I am not in favour of illegalising marihuana. I do not use it, I am aware of its hazards, as well as the hazards of other substances being regularly consumend by our society. I choose to live this way. If you let decennia-old drug-scare propaganda guide you, you can't claim to have made a choice. regards, X.

I see it as highly unlikely that any significant steps towards lifting soft drugs from the criminal circuit will be taken in Europe any time soon. I'm just hoping that the Dutch government will stand its ground in the EU and retain the opportunity principle. It's really a mervellous example of the traditional Dutch pragmatism - make up a clause that allows to circumvent the laws if the result of a certain (illegal) phenomenon is 'socially desirable'. The coffeeshops in the Netherlands are, technically, illegal. But as they enable the Dutch dept. of justice to exercise quality supervision, collect taxes and generally keep tabs on things, they are being 'tolerated'. That is the official word for it: 'tolerance policy'. Isn't that fantastic? It's a striking example of how the law does not need to be a stifling dogma, but is actually capable of adapting to the needs. I don't know the legal technicalities though, and I'm *really* interested how they guard this principle from abuse... On a sidenote, the Dutch government's policy of tolerance may have been succesful, but it has failed in one respect - it only tolerates the sell of cannabis, not supplying it. In other words, where the coffeeshop owner gets his cannabis from is anybody's guess. He might be growing it himself, but the more likely option is that he is being equipped by professional mass-growers, who are illegal... So, while the Dutch policy has managed to decriminalise the selling and usage of soft drugs, the left end of the supply chain is still in the hands of criminals and the government thus has no supervision over they way the weed is grown. Very, very stupid. There is also the case of medicinal weed, for people suffering from terminal or chronic diseases like AIDS, cancer or HMS. Tests have proven that pills with THC extracts have very little effect, it is really the smoking that makes the active element of weed so effective. Anyway, this government-manufactured weed is distributed via the apothecary. The problem is, the price is far too high (due to extensive testing, packaging and the permanent quality guarantee) and the weed contains far too much THC, and far too little BDC. Simply put: THC is the bit that makes you drowsy and gives you the munchies & the giggles, while BDC is the stuff that relaxes your muscles. You can probably imagine that such weed is pretty much useless for people suffering from, say, the hypermobility syndrome. There still is a long way to go... but at least we're on the right track. regards, Xawery

Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX: There is little difference, only that the NATO version starts to tumble earlier on. The yaw is the same. On a sidenote, my original remarks were referring to the WGL mod, where (AFAIK) the 7.62 is only applied to the AK. But perhaps that has changed. Here's an image of the 7.62 NATO wound pattern: I agree, however, a 7.62 possesses enough area pressure to knock someone down if it hits him in, let's say, the chest. Simple leverage. Amongst other things. The fact that the AK does not jam as easily as the M4 also helps. Jinef: Ignorance is not an excuse (please, PLEASE note the smiley!) But you're right - this is far too complex to model in a computer game. Nor was that the point of my original post. I'm just trying to show people that the momentum of a round is not the single factor influencing damage done to tissue. This was a myth propagated by the designer of the M885 round (and WGL designers). Army officials and doctor's reports contradict this. regards, X.

I'm not. Please re-read my post and you will see that what it actually says is that things with more momentum knock you off your feet more easily. 7.62 = more mass = more momentum. The 5.56's higher velocity does indeed mean that the pressure at the bullettip is much higher than is the case with the 7.62, but that only means that the 5.56 is more proficient at penetrating armour. Pressure over the area is what determines the likelihood of getting knocked off your feet. The 7.62 being not only longer, but also broader is thus more likely to knock you off your feet. you were quite right to correct me though, I seem to have used momentum and area pressure interchangeably in my original post. Sorry for the confusion. Please note I'm comparing the Soviet 7.62 round and the NATO 5.56 M885 round. The 7.62 does tumble, but because of its length, it only begins any significant yaw after passing through ca. 25 cm of tissue. The 5.56 M885 starts to tumble after only 12 cm (note that this is the average distance; there appears to be quite a standard deviation from the mean, resulting in a 70% confidence interval between 9 and 16 cm). This is simply untrue. I'm wondering where you get your facts from. First, allow me to quote Dr. Martin Fackler, from his article on patterns of military rifle rounds, International Defense Review, 59-64, 1/1989: "Bullet mass and bullet striking velocity establish a bullet's potential; they set the limit on the tissue disruption it can produce. Bullet shape and construction determine how much of this potential is actually used to disrupt tissue; they are the major determinants of bullet effect." Second, To illustrate my point further, let's take a look at some wound patterns. This is the wound as caused by an AK-47 round. This is the wound caused by a 5.56 M885 round. Notice how the M885 has caused massive damage long before the 7.62 round has even begun to tumble. It would really help if people started to base their assumptions on scientific and statistically proven evidence, instead of "Black Hawk Down". Now, you might wonder, why do some U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan choose to use captured AK's instead of their M16s or M4s, if the rounds used be those rifles are so much more deadly? Because the 7.62 simply has more stopping power. Please note that the above figures and facts assume that a sufficiently fleshy area is struck, i.e., a thigh, or a lung, or even the stomach: doctor's reports from Vietnam state that the typical path through the abdomen caused minimal disruption; holes in organs were similar to those caused by a non-hollow-point handgun bullet. In those cases a 5.56 is far more deadly. The point, however, remains that you want stopping power. If you hit someone in a sufficiently thin area (say the arm) the bullet will have no chance to fragment and will simply pass through the tissue leaving a neat, clean corridor. If you're using the 7.62, the sheer area pressure will knock the target off his feet. Same applies for obstacles: while the 5.56 has a better armour penetration, things like thick walls will usually stop it due to the bullet fragmenting. The 7.62 will get slowed down due to its bulkier silhouette, but it will pass through. I hope I've explained my stance on the matter. If you'd like to read some more things about wound ballistics, I suggest looking up some articles in the Journal of Trauma (should be available in most medical libraries). regards, Xawery

that's exactly the point: momentum isn't the single contributor to the damage caused. Sure, more kinetic energy means a higher probability of knocking you off your feet (something that should MOST CERTAINLY be included in OFP 2, although WGL already simulates that quite nicely), but there is also the matter of bullet fragmentation after it enters the body. I have already written massive posts about this matter on other forums, but I'll restate the conclusions here: disregarding direct hits to vital organs (because then it really doesn't matter what caliber you're using), the 5.56 M885 is more lethal than a 7.62 round. Due to its high momentum the 7.62 flies through the body leaving relatively small permanent cavities behind it, while the 5.56 tumbles and fragments, causing extensive permanent 'tunnels' in the temporary cavity, resulting in massive blood-loss. In other words: momentum is not the only factor. The problem is, how are you going to model that without forcing the CPU to perform staggering amounts of calculations for a single shot. Perhaps some sort of LOD could be applied to the damage models? Allow me to explain. The more units are present in a battle, the less detailed the damage calculation model becomes. After all, in anything larger than a skirmish the individual lethality of a weapon is of little concern, battles are won by maneuver... Just musing... regards, Xawery

I agree with Gordy, an adjustable hand place anim thingymabob (is my ignorance showing?) would be the best thing. While individual holding anims mean that the system is not universal, and that would be rather bad for the modding community... On a sidenote, I believe the word 'bipod' has been mentioned. I would just love to see weapons with working bipods (kind of like the MGs in Day of Defeat)... regards, Xawery

Before we go on, I think it would be wise to define status. I think it is being confused with fame/popularity. Let's see what the Oxford Dictionary says: Stâ'tus n. 1. Social position, rank, relation to others, relative importance, superior social etc. position. Relativity is an inherent element of status, and as Ex-Ronin mentioned, it all depends on who your 'target audience' is. So, if you are trying to achieve a high status among the lower/middle class, appearing in tabloids, tv etc. might be a requirement. If on the other hand you are trying to gain a high stature amongst the intelligentia, your academic output or what have you could be the criterion. A gross generalisation, I know, but I just want to illustrate the relativity of the whole concept of status. To continue this discussion, we should try to establish which definition of status we are using. Are we discussing status amongst the minority that matters (i.e. the influential elite, academia, politicians, businessmen), or the less influential majority? regards, Xawery

I have just performed a clean install of OFP and OFP:Res. I've updated the game to 1.96. The problem I'm having is the following: the in-game sound effects (i.e. not music or radio) are mono, i.e. when I throw a grenade or fire a rifle, I only hear it over the right speaker. Only when I deliberately turn my left 'ear' towards the sound do I hear anything over the left speaker. However, there is no 'middleground' so to speak, the sound jumps over the speakers. This renders the game completely unplayable as one constantly has the idea that sounds are coming from the right. I have never had similar trouble before, in any game. I have an on-board soundcard (C-Media), and I've updated it to the latest drivers. As a matter of fact, I've just updated the drivers of every single piece of hardware on my PC, I was so desperate to get things working. I'm running an AMD Athlon 2200+, 768 DDR RAM, GeForce 4200, latest DirectX... That's about all the relevant info I can give. Hmm, now that I think of it, there was a slight hiccup during the installation of a patch. I was trying to install 1.91 and 1.96BETA, so as to be able to play without a cd. Sadly, things went awry with 1.91. So, I reinstalled Res and simply installed the 1.96 final. Perhaps I should have reinstalled the whole thing... Well, I can always do that, but it's quite a labour, so perhaps you chaps know of any solutions..? cheers in advance, Xawery

Cheers for the prompt response gents, as it turns out Llauma was right, the problem was related to the number of speakers the pc thought I was using. the funny thing is, when I installed the new drivers for the C-Media soundcard, it asked my how many speakers I was using. Naturally I answered 2. A while later, on my wild quest to acquire all the latest drivers for EVERYTHING on my system, I downloaded Windows updates from the Windows site. I'm looking at the log now, and guess what I have just found amongst all the 'critical updates'? That's right, C-Media drivers. Of course this time, noone asked me about the amount of speakers I was using. Anyway, I went into the C-Media Mixer to fix things, but that didn't help either. I set everything on 2 speakers, but as soon as I started up OFP, all settings went back to 5.1. As it turns out, in something like the 15th layer of sound settings under Control Panel, there still was this wee little option claiming that I was using 5 speakers. Phew. Well, now I've finally fixed it and my return to OFP can truly begin. Onwaaards! X.

Yeah, since back in 1985 there were no urban areas: God didn't create them till the mid 90's... Anyway, I agree with Baron H. There is little need for change in movement speed to accomodate for CQB. The F button is an excellent solution: you move at a reasonable pace and retain reasonable accuracy, without sacrificing oversight (like you do when you use ironsights, which cause tunnelvision). That's how CQB works. Friedchicken, you admit it yourself: films and games are a rather poor reference... However, as an exception to the rule, Rainbow Six Raven Shield is an excellent example of how it works. Move, kneel, fire, move on. The first and foremost thing that is necessary for half-decent CQB in OFP is no more of that damn clipping! Sure, it has been improved by the patches, but it's still very much present and very much annoying. Better explosion simulation: walls and other objects need to stop shrapnel. Currently, the sandbag fortresses are complete deathtraps instead of tactical strongholds that they are IRL. On the other hand, other objects need to become less solid: currently, you can hide behind a chair while the other guy pumps a whole 7.62 clip in the aforementioned chair, and still survive. And one more thing... leaning. I think the merit of that option is rather self-explanatory... In sum, I would like to see a hybrid of RVS and OFP:) regards, Xawery

21. I feel so terribly, terribly old. This is the age one starts discussing car insurance premiums and mortgage rates at parties... And the most worrying part is that people in their forties address me with 'sir', while I'm sitting next to a friend who's 10 years older than me, to whom in turn they refer with a simple 'you'. Where did it go wrong?!

Hmm, yes, I'm afraid I have also had the dubious pleasure of encountering an unusual amount of CTD's, especially on mission CLEAN UP. Things appear to go wrong whenever a new radio message is being loaded. I am however running this campaign under ECP, so it may have something to do with that.

Hmm, I'm using Syntrillium's CoolEdit 2000, which has proven to be a rather powerful tool... I might be lacking in the microphone department though. I'm having most trouble with that incessant hiss; no amount of filtering, noise-reduction etc. helps. Or rather, it does get rid of the hiss, but also manages to reduce the sound to a metallic gurgle in the process. Sigh. Heh, I've had my share of acting-practice in my life, so at least that is sorted:)

Hey, that's a really good idea, MacGuba. It would certainly be tons of fun to hear the 'real' voices of Armstrong & co. in a completely different setting (ideologically, I mean;)). If you are looking for English voice-actors I too would be more than willing to help. However, I am really wondering how you managed to achieve such a high audio-quality. Did you rent a sound-proof studio or something? There is no way I could achieve such quality with my equipment here...:/ Oh and btw, I noticed a small bug (maybe not a bug as such, but it certainly is weird:): *SPOILERS AHEAD* When you capture the terrorist leader and he joins your group, you can order him to pick up a weapon and he will fight on your side, firing away at his own men My knowledge of OFP editing is limited to 'ThisAddWeapon', hehe, so I can't offer any solutions, but I was wondering whether there was any way to get rid of this somewhat annoying bit. It kind of ruins the GREAT atmosphere the rest of the campaign manages to create. Dear lord, I should be studying for my exams, but I just can't get enough of this:D

Gentlemen, I must congratulate you on making the best campaign ever. I am enjoying this more than I did enjoy CWC the first time I played it (and believe you me, that was quite a ride). The voice-acting is truly of a superb standard, at first I thought you were re-using soundfiles from one of the original campaigns, the quality was that good. And the humour is excellent, simply spot-on. I am not certain how enjoyable it will be for non-Slavic players, but I believe that the translation does it justice. I could write tons of comments on the fun little details in the missions, but that would just spoil the fun for other people. Just go play the damn campaign! All that remains to be said is: choroshoya rabota! X.

That's quite correct. And the good part is, it has been stated by the ECP team. I can't recall where exactely (in this topic IIRC), but it has been stated clearly that at the beginning of a mission the lag can get tremendous because all the scripts need to be started, checks need to be run etc. I have been hosting MP mission for quite some time on my feeble 128/768 con, and have indeed experienced drastic drops in framerate at the beginning of the map. After that, things were running as smoothly as ever. I have to admit though that I haven't tested it with as many players as Lt. Damage has. I will try to write up a report as soon as me and my chums have tested MP ECP with larger amounts of players. As to the matter of validity of SP efforts, I cannot believe these are even called into question. SP is what made this game great, and there are tons of things you cannot do in MP that are possible in SP, for example any simulations of large scale military situations. I think that the FDF campaign is the best example. Try doing that in MP:) regards, Xawery