Warlords

[HazJ 1289]

It will also error. Look at the syntax for starters... Why move units only to delete? Makes no sense. Anyway, I'm sure @Jezuro will take your suggestion and code into consideration.

[Jezuro 452]

I will revise that partion of my code so it does not cause such problematic behaviour in some situations.

[HazJ 1289]

@Jezuro - Just looking over the new functions bundled with Warlords mission... The FSMs  are mind blowing!

Is it okay to use some stuff from Warlords in my project?

[Jezuro 452]

I guess so, yeah. If you can figure out a use for it.

[target_practice 163]

Just to check, will a paramsarray-less version of the params file be in the main branch release?

[Jezuro 452]

I think it should be there already on the dev-branch as described on the wiki page.

[target_practice 163]

Has there been some change to the logic determining the amount of indie squads spawned in sectors? In one of my WL missions a 1400m sector spawned several hundred AI, greatly lowering my FPS.

I'm fairly certain same sector didn't spawn this many on the mod version.

Edited November 24, 2018 by target_practice
Corrected size

[Jezuro 452]

1400m is quite extreme... I will add a limit for the amount of AI spawned.

[UNIT_normal 39]

I'm planning to make small PvE scenario for my small community.

Could I make Warlords PvE scenario with less AI?

And how could I change enemy unit for mods? (ex. place Takistani Rebels instead of AAF in Takistan map)

Edited November 26, 2018 by UNIT_normal

[target_practice 163]

The WL init module has fields to define the faction config class for each side.

As for making warlords PvE, I suppose you could give only one side an HQ? I haven't tried doing that so I don't know if it will work.

[Jezuro 452]

7 hours ago, UNIT_normal said:

I'm planning to make small PvE scenario for my small community.

Could I make Warlords PvE scenario with less AI?

And how could I change enemy unit for mods? (ex. place Takistani Rebels instead of AAF in Takistan map)

 

You can find all info here: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/MP_Warlords

 

If you want a more PvE experience, just leave the player slots occupied by AI. Or disable them all and fight only the Independent faction, it's up to you.

[UNIT_normal 39]

4 hours ago, Jezuro said:

 

You can find all info here: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/MP_Warlords

 

If you want a more PvE experience, just leave the player slots occupied by AI. Or disable them all and fight only the Independent faction, it's up to you.

Thanks for replying. But leaving player slot cannot prevent player joining as OPFOR..

[Jezuro 452]

So add a password to the server, set max players to 1 or host on LAN :)

[UNIT_normal 39]

7 hours ago, Jezuro said:

So add a password to the server, set max players to 1 or host on LAN :)

I think I can prevent random person joining OPFOR by script.

I have other questions. Does using custom asset lists replace default asset lists or add asset on default lists?

On wiki, to change garrison unit on sector,

Quote

If you want to use custom assets for the garrison units that get spawned in the scenario automatically, you'll need to change the individual faction class names in the same module window.

Could I get some example for this? Should I make class that contains unit what I want?

And enemy size(number) on sector(Independent or OPFOR) is determined automatically by sector size, isn't they? Is there any way to set enemy size(number) manually?

[target_practice 163]

1 hour ago, UNIT_normal said:

Does using custom asset lists replace default asset lists or add asset on default lists?

Depends how you define the available assets in the init module.

Since you can individually define each asset category as its own sublist

 

For example, I have for years been using my own asset list which adds most assets available to each side (with questionable balance, but that's beside the point.)

If I wanted to use only my custom assets for vehicles, and default assets for every other category, then in the "Asset List" of the init module I would put:

['A3DefaultInfantry','A3ExpandedVehicles','A3DefaultAircraft','A3DefaultNaval','A3DefaultGear','A3DefaultDefences']

The sublist is defined by doing this:

	class A3ExpandedVehicles: A3ExpandedAll
	{
		class WEST: WEST
		{
			class Infantry {};
			class Vehicles: Vehicles {};
			class Aircraft {};
			class Naval {};
			class Gear {};
			class Defences {};
		};
		class EAST: EAST
		{
			class Infantry {};
			class Vehicles: Vehicles {};
			class Aircraft {};
			class Naval {};
			class Gear {};
			class Defences {};
		};
	};

Within class CfgWLRequisitionPresets

[D_Donskoy 50]

  "On 23.11.2018 at 12:57 PM, Jezuro said:

 

Hello and thank you for your feedback. While I agree that having Warlords utilize all of Arma's feautres would definitely make for an awesome experience, currently the mode is not set up in a way that allows for it. Compared with Warfare it is much faster-paced and condensed. I have never claimed that Warlords is a copy of Warfare and it never will be, however it is possible that in the future the AI will get an overhaul and offer a bigger challenge."

 

EDIT: I mean specifically the Warlords AI, like purchasing procedures etc.

I didn't mean to need a copy of the WARFARE.
I meant that the goal should be similar-the search and destruction of the enemy.
Now playing in WARLORDS, I know exactly where the main enemy (I show it on the map and I do not need to look for it), I just can not go there because I did not perform secondary tasks. In my opinion more realistic and more exciting would be to hide the position of the main enemy-in this case it would be interesting to look for it with the help of intelligence, drones and everything else that is in the game-again, it would be more interesting, more exciting and realistic. The movement of reconnaissance drones and aviation needs to be limited not by the size of the sector, but by air defense Forces across the island (the island's side belongs to)-interesting, exciting, realistic.
Further purchase of units. Now I buy them and they just appear over my head-great, but it's Arma! Why not deliver them by transport? If it is parachutists-let them dump the black fish or let them deliver a helicopter or let them ride on a truck or else there on what. What for? So there will be a danger to lose reinforcements still on approach and in such situation it will be more interesting to step and plan, there will be additional tasks on elimination of air defense Forces in sectors etc. (i.e. tactics!:)) and let there be a delay in calling reinforcements-buying Units, not so bought and here they are-hallelujah!
So why don't the Greens have a headquarters? Let them have the same headquarters from where they will send reinforcements and it can also be destroyed and let it be hidden on the map:)
Again returning to artillery-an easy way to limit the use of art strikes, is the civilian population (sorry:)) if the sector has civilian (or friendly forces) artillery will not be there to shoot or if its strikes suffer civil, Side loses a huge amount of money (the whole party and each player). This method can be used air strikes and support by helicopter and drone, etc.-Interestingly, recklessly, risky, realistic! :)
It would also be desirable that the AI again began to strengthen and build the base. Not as in the second part, but more neat and practical (air defense, strengthening stationary weapons, etc.)-it is in the game, let it be there.
And at the end, I hope AI stopped running around the island on foot-I play the capture of the whole island, poor AI units run from one end of the island to another! Having in the game such an abundance of military equipment! Of course I wanted to add a lot, but...
Can all do this optionally and everyone will be happy-and those who love realism and those who love the arcade?
I really hope that realism will win! :)

[HazJ 1289]

Quote

however it is possible that in the future the AI will get an overhaul and offer a bigger challenge.

Are you hinting at something @Jezuro hehe! AI in ArmA series, even OFP has been awful. The day AI gets a proper overhaul will be one awesome day.

I will upload the video recording in next few days from earlier play session. Only 40 minutes, nothing special really. Me reviving everyone and shooting enemy in parachutes lol.

[Kanas Kanas 2]

Save progress?

[target_practice 163]

Not possible, that capability isn't present in the official version currently.

[Kanas Kanas 2]

.......

 

[bigshot 64]

1 hour ago, target_practice said:

Not possible, that capability isn't present in the official version currently.

seriously?..how long would it take on average for 1 player to play through to the end of the mission then?

[Kanas Kanas 2]

play more!

 

[target_practice 163]

21 minutes ago, bigshot said:

seriously?..how long would it take on average for 1 player to play through to the end of the mission then?

Depends how many sectors there are. But given how prone the AI is to getting bogged down over time, it could easily extend into several hours.

[HazJ 1289]

1 hour ago, bigshot said:

seriously?..how long would it take on average for 1 player to play through to the end of the mission then?

I have completed it solo on Stratis in around 45 minutes, taking my time. Using all available assets. Bigger terrains like Altis may take considerably more, depending on number sectors - as @target_practice stated.

[Asmodeuz 54]

On 19/11/2018 at 5:07 AM, Asmodeuz said:

Warlords seems to incorporate a functionality that forces a player to use a uniform. Could it considered to make this functionality optional? If making this functionality optional is out of the question then might there be somekind of way to circumvent the behaviour?

Just to double-check if the above inquiry could get an answer.
If I'm not mistaken this is the one I'm talking about:

Spoiler

[] spawn {
	scriptName "WLClientInit (uniform)";
	_uniform = uniform player;
	while {TRUE} do {
		sleep 1;
		if (uniform player != _uniform && isNull (uiNamespace getVariable ["BIS_fnc_arsenal_cam", objNull])) then {
			player forceAddUniform _uniform;
		};
	};
};

 

Should it somehow be possible to terminate the above script after its initialization?
If not could this feature become toggleable for example from the Warlords Init module?