awdougherty

I checked my number and it was somewhere around 3900 but I don't get why. I have a P4 2.4gig with 1gig 333mhz RAM on an Intel chipset motherboard. I have an Audigy and a Geforce 4200 128MB ram. Am I doing something wrong? Does using Win XP somehow lower the number? Thanks.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Commander-598 @ Mar. 31 2003,21:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">50s? Can anyone say Korea?<span id='postcolor'> Suprised this hasn't been mentioned more, that TV could have come from the 50's. Korea could be really cool. Also, since OFP has a fictional conflict, why couldn't OFP2 have a fictional conflict? The Berlin Crisis happened in 1960 or 61, imagine if that had blown up into something huge. Maybe it was 1959, I really don't remember. The Czech invasion might be interesting from a Resistance point of view, but I don't know if that would really float my boat. I definitely would prefer not to play a Vietnam game, don't know why, but it just doesn't interest me in that way. I have to confess that the original Operation Flashpoint was exactly what me and my friends were looking for after we grew up playing a game called Twilight 2000.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Commander-598 @ Mar. 31 2003,21:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">50s? Can anyone say Korea?<span id='postcolor'> Suprised this hasn't been mentioned more, that TV could have come from the 50's. Korea could be really cool. Also, since OFP has a fictional conflict, why couldn't OFP2 have a fictional conflict? The Berlin Crisis happened in 1960 or 61, imagine if that had blown up into something huge. Maybe it was 1959, I really don't remember. The Czech invasion might be interesting from a Resistance point of view, but I don't know if that would really float my boat. I definitely would prefer not to play a Vietnam game, don't know why, but it just doesn't interest me in that way. I have to confess that the original Operation Flashpoint was exactly what me and my friends were looking for after we grew up playing a game called Twilight 2000.

I will admit it, I'm a PC gamer and I own an XBox. And I answered the poll with a maybe. If the game comes out with XBox Live support, then I will definitely pick the game and an XBox Live unit up. If there is no XBox live support, I probably wouldn't get it at all.

Ok, I have Flashpoint and Resistance, my friends only have the original Flashpoint. I was hesistant to install resistance because we sometimes play together over the net. Can I install the expansion and still play with my friends? Could I still host the game? Thanks.

I don't know if this was mentioned in the 27 previous pages, but I'd like a more accessible editor as well. I and a friend have been making a module in Neverwinter Nights and it's been a lot of fun. Would like that same accessibility with OFP.

I don't know if this was mentioned in the 27 previous pages, but I'd like a more accessible editor as well. I and a friend have been making a module in Neverwinter Nights and it's been a lot of fun. Would like that same accessibility with OFP.

My friends and I are looking to play OFP over the net, but we'd prefer coop missions. Are there some good ones out there? Sure we just get to beat up on the AI, but that's what's most fun for us.

I was thinking about getting into making missions for Operation Flashpoint. Now I plan to start small, but I wanted to ask how drastically the size of the forces in the game would affect system performance? Some missions seem to have a decent number of people in them so I was just curious. Thanks

thank you for your replies. I figured I could have most of the units just standing still until a trigger told them the players were approaching, then they could "come alive" for the encounter (except for the vehicles, that way the players could pick an ambush spot and hit them there). The thing is, I wanted the players to be able to steal a chopper and take out targets, or steal a tank, or basically do it however they felt like. It seems possible, hopefully it's not the hardest thing in the world. Thanks again.

I think DV Chris Death was closer to what I meant. Why don't I describe what I was thinking and you tell me what you guys think as far as feasibility. Basically I want the player(s) to roam around the island and encounter enemies everywhere (as if they were way behind enemy lines disrupting things). I figured armor columns could drive in circles through 3 or 4 cities. Patrols could walk around towns and take some hikes through the woods. Airfields would send up the occasional patrol. Anyway, the players could attack wherever they wanted and when they needed to heal or resupply, they would have to raid a town with supplies in it. Then when they decided they were done (or killed a specific number of enemies) they head to an extraction point to end the mission and get their tallies. Is this possible in OFP with the editor included with the game? Thanks

I agree that the potential is stunning for a dynamic campaign, and I don't think it's so far out of reach to do. Essentially, every mission is come into contact with the enemy and destroy/kill in some manner. Regardless of how you dress it up, that's essentially OFP (which makes for an awesome game in my opinion). So why not let us have control over when and where we make contact? I don't think we need the level of detail some people describe. While I would like to have trenches in the game, I don't necessarily want to dig them in game. I also don't think we should be able to pull the pin out of the grenade and then use the pin to scratch ourselves or pick a lock. Overall, the complexity of OFP was really good, although I think a little more should be done with the buildings in the game. More of them, make them breakable, and so on. I would love a game where some friends and I link up online, choose some weapons, and then run around the island causing havoc for the enemy... planning attacks, ambushing small patrols to reload our weapon supplies. I guess I don't really even need a whole dynamic campaign, just set me up with a huge open area and let me attack when and where I like.

I agree that the potential is stunning for a dynamic campaign, and I don't think it's so far out of reach to do. Essentially, every mission is come into contact with the enemy and destroy/kill in some manner. Regardless of how you dress it up, that's essentially OFP (which makes for an awesome game in my opinion). So why not let us have control over when and where we make contact? I don't think we need the level of detail some people describe. While I would like to have trenches in the game, I don't necessarily want to dig them in game. I also don't think we should be able to pull the pin out of the grenade and then use the pin to scratch ourselves or pick a lock. Overall, the complexity of OFP was really good, although I think a little more should be done with the buildings in the game. More of them, make them breakable, and so on. I would love a game where some friends and I link up online, choose some weapons, and then run around the island causing havoc for the enemy... planning attacks, ambushing small patrols to reload our weapon supplies. I guess I don't really even need a whole dynamic campaign, just set me up with a huge open area and let me attack when and where I like.

I took a look at that Virtual Battlefield System. I don't see why Bohemia Interactive just doesn't release some form of that as a game at some point. It definitely looks cool. Things I'd like to see in OFP2: 1. Better sound effects. Let's face it, the EAX is pretty weak (maybe that's creative's fault, but it's still weak). Also, it feels like the sound effects are accurate, but they don't sound really clean for some reason. The voice acting is pretty bad, but that's standard for the industry. So better sound in general. 2. Better graphics. I like the graphics of OFP, but this seems like just something you have to do for a sequel. 3. A few more weapons and vehicles. I actually don't think OFP2 should include everything and the kitchen sink when it comes to added equipment, but there should be a little more variety. 4. Better physics, by the time the game came out, the average CPU speed should be pretty high compared to when the first game came out. Hopefully some of that increased CPU power can go towards better physics. 5. A dynamic campaign. This is what I think they should really go after. I don't find the included story driven campaign all that great, the missions are ok, but the glue holding them together feels weak. What players seem to really want are the missions, not the story that goes with the missions. Why not let the players select an object, such as clearing a town, then letting them choose the team, then letting the attack commence. That's essentially all that happens in the first few missions in the real campaign. Then if the player succeeds, the allies gain more control of the map. If the allies control a certain % of the map, maybe the enemy surrenders or takes to the hills and you have to clear them out. I don't know, maybe having to clear them out is too complicated to program. Basically just have an island with the enemy controlling 75% and the allies controlling 25%. When the player starts, have there be a list of objectives that need doing. The player can then go down the list and do them or decide to let the AI handle the task (this way people who don't like flying don't have to). Also if the objective is to hit an armored column, the player could choose to hit them with a tank platoon, so A-10's, or an infnatry ambush using LAWs and AT mines. As the player succeeds, promotions get handed out, and soon the player is creating that objectives list. Does this seem feasible? I don't know if anyone out there every played a game called Twilight 2000 by Game Designers Workshop (GDW). It's been out of print for a while, but the basic idea was that NATO and Russia go to war in Europe and you roleplay a small squad of NATO soldiers trapped behind enemy lines. We never really roleplayed stuff too much, we just hunted around for tactical engagements and picked fights and we loved it. OFP is the closest thing to Twilight 2000 except that OFP doesn't let me have the freedom of choice in targets and weapons. Give me a dynamic campaign that let's me control what I hit and I think the magic of Twilight 2000 will finally be there for me.

I took a look at that Virtual Battlefield System. I don't see why Bohemia Interactive just doesn't release some form of that as a game at some point. It definitely looks cool. Things I'd like to see in OFP2: 1. Better sound effects. Let's face it, the EAX is pretty weak (maybe that's creative's fault, but it's still weak). Also, it feels like the sound effects are accurate, but they don't sound really clean for some reason. The voice acting is pretty bad, but that's standard for the industry. So better sound in general. 2. Better graphics. I like the graphics of OFP, but this seems like just something you have to do for a sequel. 3. A few more weapons and vehicles. I actually don't think OFP2 should include everything and the kitchen sink when it comes to added equipment, but there should be a little more variety. 4. Better physics, by the time the game came out, the average CPU speed should be pretty high compared to when the first game came out. Hopefully some of that increased CPU power can go towards better physics. 5. A dynamic campaign. This is what I think they should really go after. I don't find the included story driven campaign all that great, the missions are ok, but the glue holding them together feels weak. What players seem to really want are the missions, not the story that goes with the missions. Why not let the players select an object, such as clearing a town, then letting them choose the team, then letting the attack commence. That's essentially all that happens in the first few missions in the real campaign. Then if the player succeeds, the allies gain more control of the map. If the allies control a certain % of the map, maybe the enemy surrenders or takes to the hills and you have to clear them out. I don't know, maybe having to clear them out is too complicated to program. Basically just have an island with the enemy controlling 75% and the allies controlling 25%. When the player starts, have there be a list of objectives that need doing. The player can then go down the list and do them or decide to let the AI handle the task (this way people who don't like flying don't have to). Also if the objective is to hit an armored column, the player could choose to hit them with a tank platoon, so A-10's, or an infnatry ambush using LAWs and AT mines. As the player succeeds, promotions get handed out, and soon the player is creating that objectives list. Does this seem feasible? I don't know if anyone out there every played a game called Twilight 2000 by Game Designers Workshop (GDW). It's been out of print for a while, but the basic idea was that NATO and Russia go to war in Europe and you roleplay a small squad of NATO soldiers trapped behind enemy lines. We never really roleplayed stuff too much, we just hunted around for tactical engagements and picked fights and we loved it. OFP is the closest thing to Twilight 2000 except that OFP doesn't let me have the freedom of choice in targets and weapons. Give me a dynamic campaign that let's me control what I hit and I think the magic of Twilight 2000 will finally be there for me.