noxnoctum

+1 Michael. And psychedelics all the way baby.

I was just generalizing to make a point. I'm not saying you're loaded. I know most government employees have terrible wages. I guess I should have put it differently. But what I was trying to get across was that what *you* want to achieve in life is not necessarily the same as what others want to achieve and you just don't have the right to force that on others. The walking corpse thing was a poke at old age... just a dumb joke. What I'm trying to say is that some like to wait till they're old to be able to sit back and relax... others don't. I'm not saying that people who prefer the former are "inferior" to me. I would never try to impose my values on them. I just don't want them to expect me to follow theirs. And the strata of drug users you were exposed to was obviously biased since you were a PAROLE OFFICER. What do you expect??? And stop calling other people's lives pathetic. I hate that **** man. Show a little empathy please. (ya ya I know I was talking about the "soulless squares"... again I'm just exagerrating to make a point, was probably a mistake) And if you knew the "workaholic potheads" I was talking about you'd be shocked. The main 3 I can think of were 21-22 when I knew them and making $50,000 a year in 4 months every summer as part of the sales department of one of ADT's competitors---and they weren't making that money because they were terrible at their job. The rest of the year they goofed off snowboarding, chasing girls, and smoking weed in California and Utah. Very sad life indeed . As for healthcare... well... when did I EVER say that you should be expected to pay the medical bills of someone who ODs? I didn't did I? Know why? Because I'm a liberterian if you hadn't guessed already :eek:. Now personally, I believe in helping people who've trashed their lives regardless, but I realize that not all people agree with me and some are more in favor of following the whole "survival of the fittest" line of thinking... so I'm a believer in charity volunteer work. You choose to help others, you're not forced to. Of course it's a two way street. If *you* get cancer, and have to pay tens of thousands in hospital bills then don't expect others to want to pay for it if you've shunned them because they're "lowlifes". Ideally we could have one state where all the people who agree to "mutual support" could live, and another where it's basically the law of the jungle, but unfortunately that'll never happen. Besides, humanity's rotten to the core so utopia is in any case utterly impossible. My main issue I guess is with one rotten apple calling another apple more rotten. We all have a putrid odor, just perhaps of different varieties . And yes you didn't make the laws of course not. But you CHOSE a job where you knew you'd have to enforce them. You've referred to the drug war as "stupid" so why did you take a job where you'd be a participant? Maybe just cause you needed a job and that was the only option that presented itself. I'm not criticizing you for it. But to say that just because you didn't write the laws you're excused from any responsibility is wrong in my opinion. Anyways, I'm sorry for stirring up this argument (no I'm not being sarcastic). I don't know why I post in debate threads. It's the internet. I always seem to forget... must be all that weed from my past catching up with me .

Hell I've heard that heroin addicts are switching to Oxycodone cause it hits harder. The "Drug War" is a joke. Except it's not funny. If... a "certain person" doesn't win the Republican primaries we're all screwed... ^^And Michael, outlawing drugs if anything makes them easier to get, at least for high schoolers. Everyone knows that in high school it's easier to get your hands on pot than alcohol. For alcohol you at least have to get a decent fake ID, find a corrupt seller, or have an older friend/sibling who's willing to do the deed. For weed you just gotta talk to the guy in the back of the class with the tie-dye t-shirt who'll have a friend who knows somebody. I gag every time I hear some politician going on about how it's the "gateway drug". These clowns don't seem to realize that the fact that they're keeping it illegal is MAKING it more of gateway drug than it would be otherwise! Not that I agree with the gateway theory in the first place (I've smoked pot quite a few times, and have absolutely zero desire to ever even try coke, meth, heroin etc. and know plenty of stoners who've smoked weed and only weed for years), but making people HAVE to go to a black market dealer to get pot means that they will by default be exposed to the harder stuff. Even if their dealer doesn't have it, he'll likely know someone who does (unless it's just a kid who grows a couple plants in his closet or something). I don't know whether these politicians are too dumb/shortsighted to see this or whether they just choose to ignore it because they're glorified cash whores. Probably both. Anyways, there's just too much money involved for even weed to get legalized IMO. I'd like to think it could be, California came close... but so many incredibly rich and powerful people would lose out... I dunno. Anyone who actually came close to getting it legalized on a federal level would probably be assassinated. And gunnergoz you're just off man. Why the hell should the government or their lackeys have the right to tell me what I can put in my body? You might think that the "ideal life" is to work 40 hours a week until you're 65 then retire with a bunch of money and get to travel the world as a walking corpse... but you shouldn't enforce your values or ideas on others. Besides... plenty of workaholics are also potheads . I mean damn, Steve Jobs said his LSD experiences were some of the most important things he'd done in his life. And that guy's a real slacker . Regardless, every single one of your arguments could be used to justify the criminalization of television. If you don't think TV has completely screwed up western society then you're in denial. Should we outlaw it then? I can't think of a single other thing (even alcohol) that results in people wasting such enormous amounts of time doing absolutely nothing. At least when you're stoned you can enjoy music, movies etc. in an amazing way or look at various things in a new light. Read "A Brief History of Time" while you're stoned. It'll blow your mind straight off. That sounds scarily eugenicsish. And what do you mean by "surrendered"??? Have you ever even smoked grass? Do you know what effect it has on the mind? (and no I'm not asking you to link me to some damn study, I mean first hand experience). The fact that you're automatically labeling every person who indulges in recreational drugs an "abuser" shows your bias already. If it wasn't for all these "abusers" I can assure you, your record collection would seriously, seriously suck . Next thing you know they'll be outlawing fast food, transfats etc. (it's already starting...) And then finally I guess the cops will start complaining too . (to be fair there are a decent number of LEO who support the abolition of prohibition) I just hope the federal government one day gives the right to the states to decide on what drug laws they want to have. All the soulless squares can move to one area and be able to enjoy frequent warmongering, constant video surveillance, and everything remotely dangerous being outlawed. But hey, they'll be "safe"! Meanwhile, all the "a short life and a merry one" people can move to another. And then we can have an area in the middle for people in the middle. It'll be perfect . If Abraham Lincoln smoked grass so can I dammit ! Alright I'm done, I've ranted about drug prohibition on this forum a few times already . Unless any of you are congressmen it's all for naught . But seriously, **** the nanny state.

Well I'm gonna do 4/4. Good things: Ability to issue fire orders from movement waypoints (huge) Great animations, it's fun to watch the battle up close, though that will usually result in a loss hehe (less so on defense of course) The overhauled fire support system is great and offers more way more tactical options than CMx1. ---Squad splitting options (and of course the new QB system... I just didn't mention that since it was already in CMx1, though the new system is superior since you can attach a tank to an infantry platoon and that sort of thing which is def cool, and also the different rarity system which I like better) Bad things: No TCP-IP wego support or RT w/ Pause support (though wego would be necessary for 5000 point battles like those of yore in CMBB), that essentially limits the game to company size battles, which is sad given the amount of work that went into the game. Anything more than that and you're just not going to have time to enjoy watching the battle at all or be able to utilize all your elements to max efficiency. Unless you're playing PBEM of course, but that kills the tension and excitement for me. It's more fun when you know that your opponent (who could be several thousand miles away), is watching and waiting to see if that pak40 hits your tank at the same time as you heh. On a similar note, no multiplayer lobby. I think the game could gain a lot of new customers if it had one. Maybe we'll see someone come up with something like hyperlobby for IL-2? (i.e. user made, not released by Oleg and co.) That's pretty much the gigantic one sticking out at me laughing at me in my sleep... but other than that: No moveable waypoints. --No cover armor arcs. --No multi-core support. I have some other quibbles like how it's difficult to spot breaks in the bocage and that sort of thing but most of those issues go away when not playing in RT. I don't find the interface hard to use at all so I'm not sure what people are complaining about there (try customizing your hotkeys maybe??). Also sometimes waypoints go "under" the map surface but again that's not an issue in wego since you can just make sure your unit is headed where you think it is by zooming in and inspecting it up close.

As long as you don't post a commercial link.

Same here. But who knows, maybe they will see the error of their ways .

Ya ya no commercial links...: You'll have to google the rest. Hopefully it won't be a buggy mess... again. Oh what I would give for a true OFP sequel.

Some rich swiss guy basically offered what you're suggesting, unfortunately I can't find the damn thread he made.

That would be fancy gfx and explosions, not core features. But I hope you're right about that.

Ok sorry, it's a politician from a middle class background with not a whole lot of money who's propped up by his supporters financially. Better ? I was just looking for an excuse to post a Sex Pistols video.

Bump, for obvious reasons .

A benevolent monarchy being paid for by its subjects, without whom it would not exist and without whom it would have no power. Kinda like the monarchy in the UK you could say (well... they don't have any power at all really already =P).

Yes. But pausable RT would be a great stop gap and in some ways better. P.S. This thread's gonna get locked lol.

heh. Go digital, just make sure you make a backup cause your download's only good for a year.

Hmmm. I guess slightly hurting my back (nothing serious at all but still painful at the time) when I jumped off the 3rd floor of my college dorm with a couple other guys. We'd spent the entire afternoon (probably... 6 hours? at least...) collecting leaves from all around our dorm and put it in a gigantic pile (it was fall so leaves were ALL OVER the place). It was pretty great. It didn't cushion my fall as well as I'd hoped though .

The latter part of this post is v. important too. Very irritating for infantry to expose themselves for no reason when they can do NOTHING to an enemy tank. Maybe they could code it so infantry only engage at grenade range or whatever the ideal range is for any AT weapons they are carrying (fausts, etc.). By default that is. Obviously there are some instances where you would want to gamble an infantry squad on the off chance of killing the TC... or if you're facing an open-topped SPG or something like that.

Then why did so many stay with CMBB/CMAK and its aged graphics over CMSF? Cause they preferred the gameplay of WW2 over the graphics of CMSF. I really don't think most wargamers have graphics at the top of their priority list or they'd all be playing Crysis, etc.

Oh no not ANOTHER thread !

And it could be it just wouldn't ever come close to the SP "campaign" (I should really call it the SP "epic story" ), and you'll agree if you've ever played Thief 1 or 2.

The difference is Thief was built from the ground up as a singleplayer only game. The idea of multiplayer in Thief is kinda ludicrous tbh. I mean who would your "opponents" be? The guards ? Ya standing around for an hour waiting for some guy to sneak in and maybe just knock you out before you know he's there sounds reaaaaal fun . There was a MP thief mod released a while ago on the UT engine I believe, but I can't imagine it having anywhere NEAR the immersion of the singleplayer campaign. It just couldn't when you hear guys yelling in American English to "dude don't go up that ladder man... haven't you been paying ANY attention to the patrol pattern that guard has? Dumbass." From what I heard, the mod, "Thievery" played more like a big online version of hide and seek. That's not really at all what the Thief games are about. (though people are welcome to play Thievery, I'm just saying that Thief was MADE for singleplayer---it can't be compared to Combat Mission where the AI will NEVER be up to snuff until we all have super computers running in our houses)

@sburke Go play Thief 2: The Metal Age (no it's not a "shooter", not even close), and come back and tell me graphics have anything to do with immersion. And I highly doubt the vast majority on here are as concerned with graphics as you seem to be.

Ya but that's kinda ignoring all the potential customers that WOULD buy it and be on these forums rabidly recounting their war stories if the game already had good multiplayer options . Honestly, I'm curious if we could get some kind of "multiplayer fund" going. I know I'd donate at least $100 if it meant tcp-ip wego in the next module. I bet that's the case for many others too. The way I see it, once that's in, I probably won't be buying any other games for a LONG time. Between Combat Mission, IL-2, Red Orchestra 2, and Starcraft 2 (it's a blast, just in an entirely different way than Combat Mission), I really won't have the need to buy anything else, except for sequels/add-ons/modules to the four games mentioned above . Besides, wasn't there some Swiss guy with disposable income who seemed very eager to donate money to BFC on here a few days ago? I wish I could remember the thread he posted in.

I think most people are upset that BFC fails to see that better multiplayer options = more people playing online = more sales. Especially in this age where everyone has DSL and cable internet connections. I mean damn, my family even had a high speed DSL connection in Morocco when I was there a few years ago.

The fact you're even mentioning how it looks is comical to me. Who gives a crap about graphics? Seriously? Many of the best selling games, mods, etc. of all time had substandard graphics. Tripwire Interactive, which has a forum completely swarmed by realism fanatics who are bothered that there is even going to be the OPTION to have more "gamey" features in RO2 (though they're ENTIRELY optional), listen to their community often, and shaped their mod that turned into a retail game mostly based on feedback they were getting. Just one quick little example? There was a general outcry for a built-in game mode to turn off death messages and the scoreboard entirely... and as a result, that's what we'll be getting in RO2 (server side option, obviously there will be more "arcade-like" servers as well). Also, they've implemented a suppression system based heavily on the fact that people were ranting in gigantic threads for a suppression system. Actually, they modeled their suppression system for RO2 based largely on the success that a mod for RO1 had with its suppression system. (many people wanted it so as to minimize unrealistic behavior---since you can't ever have "fear of death" in a computer game, the closet thing you can do is have a system where a player who has swarms of bullets around him HAS to duck and cover because he can't fight effectively while he's getting hundreds of MG42 rounds thrown around him) Now RO has sold over half a million copies and CONTINUES to sell copies (TWI has reported this as a fact) despite the fact that its graphics are TERRIBLE compared to modern shooters. But people stick with it because of the GAMEPLAY. Another completely different example is Killing Floor, a mod-turned retail game that Tripwire produced. It sold like hotcakes (it was actually outselling the latest Call of Duty game and Left 4 Dead---its main competitor---at one point)... despite the fact that its graphics looked like they were from 2005. Most PC gamers, even those who play zombie games lol, realize that gameplay > graphics any time. (personally I prefer Left4Dead, but it certainly isn't because of the better graphics) And sorry, but no AI in the world can compare to the feeling of playing a human. I don't think there's a person on earth who would disagree. The only reason you would play AI is if a) You have no time for multiplayer and have to play the game in small 10-15 minute sized bites. You're really bad at the game and so prefer to stick to playing an easy opponent c) You don't have a decent internet connection (how many people does that apply to nowadays? Seriously?) The AI does decent on the defence... but even then, it has ZERO flexibility. It's much more obvious when they're on the offensive though. Even though the initial "plan" the scenario designer made might have been brilliant, we all know that plans go into the garbage bin the moment contact is initiated. Very few of my CMBB QBs played out according to my initial "plan". It's a human being's ability to adapt that makes playing against one much more fun.