[SP] HETMAN: War Stories

[ariel777111 12]

Hello, me again ..
Now bothering on this thread.
Use HWS, on the Pandora map with the SWO mod, but when you start it says: "not enough relevant locations found"
I assumed that just like in ARMA 2, there are maps that have no locations, so try to create some using the BIS WIKI information.
I put this in the init.sqf header

 

_location = createLocation ["Strategic", [170.90851,105.60309,10296.137], 100, 100];
_location setText "MONTE-1";

_location = createLocation ["Strategic", [918.20349,210.95837,7693.0791], 100, 100];
_location setText "MONTE-2";

_location = createLocation ["Strategic", [1290.5288,193.86987,6785.0508], 100, 100];
_location setText "MONTE-3";

_location = createLocation ["Strategic", [4935.498,108.09399,7007.9077], 100, 100];
_location setText "MONTE-4";

(the coordinates are from a test for another map)
I did not get any results
I don't know if it's the proper way to use the script, I also put it at the end of the description.ext.
I even tried a trigger, nothing worked.
Apparently at the beginning of the mission you should see the markers with the names when using the map.

 

Is there a way to create enough locations on maps, when you don't have them, to be able to play WHOLE MAP?

[Rydygier 1309]

Quote

, there are maps that have no locations

 

Correct, some have too few or none at all (at least of desired kinds, like towns, hills etc.).

 

Quote

so try to create some

 

Sadly, IIRC, script commands doesn't detect locations placed by the user so this won't help.

 

Just don't use maps without proper amount of typical locations defined inside the map itself.

[piter306 16]

This Fayshkhabur working with HWS. Enjoy:)

 

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1922303672

[Caldeira_ 0]

Hi guys, apologize if someone already asked this ... Does anyone has HWS for Prairie of Fire CDLC  map ?

 

Thank you

[alky_lee 279]

5 hours ago, Caldeira_ said:

Hi guys, apologize if someone already asked this ... Does anyone has HWS for Prairie of Fire CDLC  map ?

 

Thank you

 

I did port the mission to Cam Lao Nam, but the DLC factions weren't properly configured, so I found pilots on static weapons but no helicopters, so it hasn't progressed any further than that. But the mission will work on the new map.

[uk100 10]

Really enjoying this mod and ports, but can anyone advise any factions which work well other than A3/Apex ones?

 

I haven't had any luck with RHS, and only patchy results with CUP. Thanks!
 

EDIT: 3CB Factions worked well. If I understand correctly it's mostly a repack of RHS to form 'complete' factions..?
https://steamcommunity.com/workshop/filedetails/?id=1673456286

Edited November 10, 2022 by uk100
Answered my own question

[lyingsackoffun 0]

Here's that RPT file.

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnqAbEplrn-falzOpPCYqCqooSc?e=0cCf1F

[Rydygier 1309]

All right, that's your culprit:

 

19:19:57 Error in expression <rlFill),[_newIx,_name,toLower _fac]];
}
foreach _factions;

_newIx = lbAdd [_ctr>
19:19:57   Error position: <foreach _factions;

_newIx = lbAdd [_ctr>
19:19:57   Error foreach: Type Bool, expected Array,HashMap
19:19:57 File steam\__cur_sp.altis\init.sqf..., line 833

 

_factions somehow is not an array. This var is defined this way:

 

    _factions = switch (_ix) do
        {        
        case (RYD_ix_SideA_B) : {RYD_WS_B_Factions};
        case (RYD_ix_SideB_B) : {RYD_WS_B_Factions};        
        case (RYD_ix_SideA_I) : {RYD_WS_I_Factions};
        case (RYD_ix_SideB_I) : {RYD_WS_I_Factions};
        case (RYD_ix_SideA_O) : {RYD_WS_O_Factions};
        case (RYD_ix_SideB_O) : {RYD_WS_O_Factions};
        };

 

Probably something is wrong with one of these faction lists: RYD_WS_B_Factions etc.

If you don't see, what exactly, just give me your HWS scenario as open folder, so I could test it quickly in EDEN. 

[lyingsackoffun 0]

I can't find that at all. I'm assuming that's in the WS_fnc file but I looked in a few others just to make sure and I can't find anything.

Here's the mission: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnqAbEplrn-fa0g4FrPSm8Xh1jo?e=kH5ok7

[Rydygier 1309]

I downloaded this scenario. I ran Arma 3 pure vanilla, obviously 2.10 stable branch. At first it was impossible even to load it in EDEN, there was loading error message, no RPT log about it. Then I removed spaces from the mission folder name and at second try it loaded properly. So I did preview and all seems normal:

 

 

Later, after loading screen, there's one script error, but apparently nothing directly preventing from playing. I would say - a share of such errors would be expected, when you mix NR6 with HWS like this...

 

Namely:

16:44:30 Error in expression <Dvs = [];

for "_i" from 1 to _amnt do
{
_rDiv = [];
for "_j" from 0 to _recAm d>
16:44:30   Error position: <
_rDiv = [];
for "_j" from 0 to _recAm d>
16:44:30   Error Missing }

it is not the error, you saw. After that I was properly "incarnated" into some soldier and gameplay started as usual. Didn't test longer. 

 

As for that error, it seems harmless, it comes from HQOrdersEast.sqf, never finished alternative combat doctrine, which isn't used by default, but it is compiled, apparently the error pops up at compiling. The cause seems to be in line 74:

 

_attackAv = _attackAv - ["Del];

 

should be:

 

_attackAv = _attackAv - ["Del"];

 

But there may be more errors later in this file, still doesn't really matter, as this code is unused. 

 

What can I say, once I repaired mission folder by removing spaces, all the rest is working fine at least till the gameplay start. 

[lyingsackoffun 0]

Thank you so much for the help. I would have never figured this out. That's a bit strange. I don't know how that happened. Maybe I was half asleep and accidentally changed it but I'm glad you could spot the problem. I think if I mess around with the NR6 modules I could make most things more stable and work more like it should. There are a couple scripting things too but I'm cautious with it for the most part [NR6 starting too early is one problem].

 

It still plays well enough in it's current state and is pretty enjoyable though very rough around the edges.  That issue was the only one that had me stumped and brought me to a halt. I can't thank you enough for helping me with that. I haven't tried it yet but I will when I get time.

[lyingsackoffun 0]

Okay I tested it and it still doesn't work for me but I took a screenshot. I probably should have attached a screenshot from the start.

 

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnqAbEplrn-fg3z5Ix1sFexRCz0E?e=3xRGPQ

 

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnqAbEplrn-fg3vrPcPBBUIxuAGC?e=Bg3ZhN

 

Idk how to post images so I put them in links.

 

[lyingsackoffun 0]

I think it might just affect me since it is carrying over from map to map. Idk if it would be affecting you even if you have the same exact mission. Idk where Hetman war stories saves the data that carries over. Is there some way do reset/delete all that data? If so I'll try that.

 

 

[Rydygier 1309]

Sorry, I saw those answers only now. So I see your pic, but, as shown, I was unable to replicate this issue with the very same mission, you gave me (run via EDEN on Arma 3 2.10 stable, no any mods), so it is nothing with the mission itself, if the exactly same mission works on my PC and does not work on yours. HWS doesn't save anything, that would be necessary to run it. If I can't replicate the problem, I'm unable to determine the cause and apply a fix. 

[Meeko_the_Raccoon 1]

First of all thanks for creating this mission! It's quite great and as someone mentioned before this type of gamemode should be included in the base game from the start.

 

I'm bringing here some feedback about one problem which I keep encountering while playing Hetman War Stories:

 

I set up both teams (for example vanilla nato vs csat) to be of equal size, equal amount of armor (both medium), I start the game and what often happens is that enemy team has plenty of tanks (Varsuk, Angara) while my team has none, only some IFVs and a couple of PCML and one Titan AT. As a result such a mission is lost from the start, with such equipment it's impossible to destroy the enemy armor, a single Angara can steam roll the whole team. Similar thing can happen with modded factions too - as an example I tested today 3CB Factions mod. Enemy team gets BMPs, BRDMs, BTRs, my team gets couple of unarmed Jeeps and the whole AT consists of either 1 or 2 MAAWS guys (for the entire team!). This forces the player to play as a rambo, trying to use those extremely limited AT resources to destroy all the armored vehicles around the whole battlefield area (which typically ends as a failure due to shortage of rockets and big distances to cover), this feels to be very against the whole concept of being just a cog in the war machine. I'm wondering if that's a result of very unlucky dice rolls or perhaps I'm setting something wrong in the settings?

 

[Rydygier 1309]

1 hour ago, Meeko_the_Raccoon said:

that's a result of very unlucky dice rolls

 

This. It simply can happen. There's no balancing mechanism ensuring, your forces are a match to your opponent. Numerically forces should be roughly adequate, but that's it. Think about it in this way: not every war story is about a fair fight and not all has a happy end so don't feel bad about loosing a battle, just immerse into another war story. A part of being a cog in war machine is, sometimes you'll be ground to ashes between bigger cogs. 

[Meeko_the_Raccoon 1]

I see, it's good to know. It makes perfect sense in a way, I guess what I expected is that both teams should have a chance to win. I'm thinking right now about a workaround and so far my only idea is to use factions which are guaranteed to have AT launchers in each infantry team or to have some sort of AT launchers stored in unarmed trucks/jeeps. 3CB's "Cold war US early" seems to be the worst choice so far due to no AT and only unarmed trucks and jeeps as vehicles (ramming T72 with a truck isn't working, at least here arma could beheave like arma and yeet that tank into the space, haha), I will keep experimenting. Thanks again!
 

[osterizer8 7]

Rydygier- I'm currently using a group of factions I made in the Alive Orbat Creator for HWS. I've noticed for some reason that motorized groups mounted in soft-skinned, unarmed vehicles with FFV capability tend to immediately be classed as "understrength" or something by the commander and given rest waypoints at the beginning of the mission. So for example, a motorized team mounted in an Offroad will be immediately sent to the rear to sit around for the entire battle. The odd thing is that the vanilla FIA has motorized groups in Offroads and they work fine. Additionally, groups consisting of just the vehicles with crew seem to work fine, the addition of mounted infantry beyond just the vehicle crew seems to be the problem.

 

I'm wondering if the problem is the way the Orbat Creator codes the factions versus the way the vanilla factions are coded, causing HAL potentially to think the unit is understrength when a bunch of the unit that's supposed to be infantry ends up sitting in "turrets" (since that's what the engine sees FFV seats as). Do you have any insight on why this could be happening?

[Atlas01Actual 1]

What I would give for you to work on this again. It is the single best scenario for a believable war experience.

[delta99 34]

On 9/3/2024 at 4:24 PM, Atlas01Actual said:

What I would give for you to work on this again. It is the single best scenario for a believable war experience.

Have to agree with this

[Rydygier 1309]

On 8/9/2024 at 10:56 PM, osterizer8 said:

Rydygier- I'm currently using a group of factions I made in the Alive Orbat Creator for HWS. I've noticed for some reason that motorized groups mounted in soft-skinned, unarmed vehicles with FFV capability tend to immediately be classed as "understrength" or something by the commander and given rest waypoints at the beginning of the mission. So for example, a motorized team mounted in an Offroad will be immediately sent to the rear to sit around for the entire battle. The odd thing is that the vanilla FIA has motorized groups in Offroads and they work fine. Additionally, groups consisting of just the vehicles with crew seem to work fine, the addition of mounted infantry beyond just the vehicle crew seems to be the problem.

 

I'm wondering if the problem is the way the Orbat Creator codes the factions versus the way the vanilla factions are coded, causing HAL potentially to think the unit is understrength when a bunch of the unit that's supposed to be infantry ends up sitting in "turrets" (since that's what the engine sees FFV seats as). Do you have any insight on why this could be happening?

I didn't review HAL code long enough to lose confidence what's what and where, but keeping that in mind:

Rest orders can be issued due to several causes including:

1. Group's vehicle: no fuel, armed but no magazines, damage > 0.5, immobilized; 
2. group members: total value of wounds and losses too high (threshold depends on commander's personality - recklesness), note, KIAs are counted by comparing the "initial count" (measured once, somewhere at init) with current units count. So any despawns/caching based on despawns are counted as losses too, which affects both group readiness check and the morale;
3. group's ammo reserve considered too low (complex calculation); 

4. If HAL decides, the group is overwhelmed by near enemies (complex calculation), rest order may be issued as well as form of "tactical retreat". 

So, whatever is going on due to Alive or something else, it most likely triggers one of the above. Mods in type of Alive can mess with stuff sensitive for HAL, sadly. 
 

 

On 9/3/2024 at 10:24 PM, Atlas01Actual said:

work on this again

Personally I've no further plans for HWS (empty personal "todo"). To be honest - same applies to Arma scripting in general (no any personal projects planned, probably I'm just burned out/out of appealing ideas, or just (re)tired). But always feel free to write any particular wishes/requests or bug reports. Nothing can be promised, there may be nothing done about them easily, but who knows, maybe I'll be willing and able to do something, if easy/quick enough, depends on my RL situation and overall motivation, both are changing often these years. In any case at least I'll be informed, people would like to have something implemented. 

Oh, I see, HWS has already 10 years... How this even happened?

[osterizer8 7]

10 hours ago, Rydygier said:

1. Group's vehicle: no fuel, armed but no magazines, damage > 0.5, immobilized; 
2. group members: total value of wounds and losses too high (threshold depends on commander's personality - recklesness), note, KIAs are counted by comparing the "initial count" (measured once, somewhere at init) with current units count. So any despawns/caching based on despawns are counted as losses too, which affects both group readiness check and the morale;
3. group's ammo reserve considered too low (complex calculation); 

4. If HAL decides, the group is overwhelmed by near enemies (complex calculation), rest order may be issued as well as form of "tactical retreat".

Interesting, I wonder if it's options 1 or 3 relating to the FFV "turrets" not having magazines or something. I'll have to experiment. Thanks for the help!

[Atlas01Actual 1]

13 hours ago, Rydygier said:

In any case at least I'll be informed, people would like to have something implemented.

 

I have been playing a lot recently, I'll gather a consolidated list of ideas and I'll send it over.

[delta99 34]

On 9/5/2024 at 5:46 AM, Rydygier said:

I didn't review HAL code long enough to lose confidence what's what and where, but keeping that in mind:

Rest orders can be issued due to several causes including:

1. Group's vehicle: no fuel, armed but no magazines, damage > 0.5, immobilized; 
2. group members: total value of wounds and losses too high (threshold depends on commander's personality - recklesness), note, KIAs are counted by comparing the "initial count" (measured once, somewhere at init) with current units count. So any despawns/caching based on despawns are counted as losses too, which affects both group readiness check and the morale;
3. group's ammo reserve considered too low (complex calculation); 

4. If HAL decides, the group is overwhelmed by near enemies (complex calculation), rest order may be issued as well as form of "tactical retreat". 

So, whatever is going on due to Alive or something else, it most likely triggers one of the above. Mods in type of Alive can mess with stuff sensitive for HAL, sadly. 
 

 

Personally I've no further plans for HWS (empty personal "todo"). To be honest - same applies to Arma scripting in general (no any personal projects planned, probably I'm just burned out/out of appealing ideas, or just (re)tired). But always feel free to write any particular wishes/requests or bug reports. Nothing can be promised, there may be nothing done about them easily, but who knows, maybe I'll be willing and able to do something, if easy/quick enough, depends on my RL situation and overall motivation, both are changing often these years. In any case at least I'll be informed, people would like to have something implemented. 

Oh, I see, HWS has already 10 years... How this even happened?

Time flies doesn't it!!

Understandable as I've been out of scripting for Arma for a long time. Don't even find time to play much anymore unfortunately.

 

Any thoughts on open sourcing it @Rydygier

[Rydygier 1309]

In general I keep my Arma projects, HWS included, open source to anybody wanting to make any fair use of it, with "share alike" as the restriction and being thruthful about the original authorship as strong recommendation (APL-SA). Hence we have NR6 HAL Evolved for example.