Jump to content
genesis92x

[CTI-COOP] Dissension

Recommended Posts

This is probably my new favourite mission, I would like to say though theres a long delay in spawning for towns and many times me and my friends were able to walk in on foot without any resistance and then we would only reach the center of the town before the units would start spawning. Is there any way to influence the commanders decisions? Also for the defuse bomb mission you can try to defuse the bomb as many times as you want and it won't go off even though it says its armed my friend managed to brute force defuse it by cutting wires til it told him he did it right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wazza Ra Liyrka said:

How do I run a dedicated server with this? Do I need another copy of ArmA 3?

You can run this from inside of the multiplayer browser.  Select host server. Then you choose lan or Internet. Readng the info in link below to set up port forwarding will help you when hosting an mp server. Run this way the player hosting will kick everyone else if when they leave the game. 

 

One arma purchase comes with the arm3server.exe it takes a bit of doing but head over to the multiplayer forums for guides and assistance

BIS have info here....https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Dedicated_Server

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you can use the standalone dedi server exe that does NOT require any purchase.

 

EDIT:  Well I'm not having much luck with this mission so far.  I keep getting Recruitment Failed flash up and nothing is spawning anywhere on dedi server.  Also using the arsenal makes the UI disappear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kremator. Thanks for the hint

 I too lose the UI didn't realise what caused it though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tried it out with a buddy, not getting any cash or XP for killing people so you get stuck having to loot dead bodies after you spend up your cash.

Other than that I love it. It has amazing potential if it's further developed and would be a great competitor for zbug/Greuh's Liberation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big fan of your stuff Genesis. I dont know how i missed your work on dissension thus far. Congrats on the release.

CTI is my favorite gamemode, its nice to see a new take on it. I always wished for a more sophisticated AI commanders.


I have one thing that i would like to bring up for discussion and that is the style of the missions atm.

The foundation of CTI (just my opinion, others may disagree) is about trying to take controll over territory and holding it against the enemy, thus naturally creating large combined arms battles.Most Warfare missions thus far never seemed to capture this ideal. The only things you where told to do in arma 2 vanilla is "capture this town". End of story. It didnt support different playstyles, it didnt support situations other than "attacking a town", it didnt promote defending in any way. Even BECTI (which i liked a lot) was quite limited in this. Some missions in Dissension atm feel to me as if they go even one step further and kind of detract from what is actually happening between the two sides, as they are not really connected in any way. The way they work feels very gamey and contrived. Having some hostage or bomb defusal "drama" near the frontlines seems kinda out of place, and the mission can quickly break if the frontlines reach this place (imagine CSAT gunship showing up when Blufor is trying to rescue hostages from guerilla). If such missions are instead spawned in the "hinterlands", far behind frontlines, they draw away players or AI from the real action. In addition, the assetts for the missions need to be spawned in specific places and ways to function properly, which can pose additional issues, and will always make it seem contrived. Why does it matter that a bomb is somewhere in a forest?


From my point of view it would be much better to generate objectives/missions that relate to current situations on the battlefield. A good and integrated way (in my view anyway) would be to create a system that enables the commander to issue tasks to players and their group. And a system that allows players to request support task from commanders. With the request system AI commanders wouldnt have to be too "intelligent" to make usefull decisions, as playergroups can more or less shape the battle in their own way.

So here's the idea:

  • A commander can issue tasks based on their current plan and understanding of the battlefield situation.
  • Tasks are accepted by players, which enables them and their group to contribute to the completion of it.
  • For contribution towards a task, player/groups receive economical benfit to their actions (killing, damaging, capturing,etc). The commander also needs to receive some benefit for positive contribution by groups.
  • Tasks could be global (acceptably for any player) or direct (only acceptable by the adressed group or type of group). Players could for example choose a role/ specialisation for the group they controll and certain tasks could be given to specific roles only.
  • A player may suggest a task for himself to the commander. The commander accepts or declines.
  • A player may also request a specific type of support. Commander can permit or denie. If permitted, a task of the requested type will be issued and forwarded to other groups automatically.

Ideally, tasks should provide continual economic benefits to players (and commanders) while contributing to it. This means a group has to commit to a specific task for a while to maximize economical gains. It makes actions more persistent (e.g. fighting over a specific area for a while) and stabilizes the gameflow in the sense that people can get a picture of what is going on. One-off actions (capture this, then that) and frequent changes of tasks/locations lead to more chaos for everyone involved. Human and AI commanders can make better decisions if people follow the task system, as they know what each group is trying to achieve most of the time. This is also why the amount of active tasks at one time per group needs to be strictly limited to few tasks that are also not mutually exclusive (e.g. no defend position A and attack B at same time), in addition to limiting how often tasks can be switched. Due to the economic benefits that tasks provide, it should encourage players to make good use of the tasks and request system, which in turn automatically leads to more coordinated battles as well.

 

Here are some task types i can think of from top of my head:

Perimeter Tasks:

  • Defense - unit stays in perimeter of position to receive some points. When killing enemies outside of the perimeter from within perimeter, reward per kill is increased. Reward per enemy killed that was inside perimeter is increased even more.
  • Assault - unit needs to move into a designated perimeter. Unit receives extra points for killing enemies that are inside the perimeter. Unit receives extra points for capturing the position.
  • Fortify - units that build field fortifications in designated area get points .     
  • Fire/Bombing Mission - kill units around certain perimeter (via heavy ordonance). Only active for limited time period

Targeted tasks:

  • Destruction - issued on target enemy unit that needs to be destroyed. Destruction of enemy unit by e.g. 50% would give bonus reward for killing/damaging, destruction by 100% gives even bigger bonus to contributing units
  • Assassination "Bring it down"- destroy individual high value object with utmost priority (only on enemy vehicles and destructable fortifications/ weapon emplacements)
  • Close Fire Support for friendly target group - ( Target group commander is reference position). Supporting group receives extra points for killing enemy units inside the target groups proximity.
  • Direct Support for friendly target group - (Target group commander is reference position). Supporting group needs to stay in close proximity of target group. Supporting unit receives extra points for killing units
  • Resupply/Repair for Target Group - Reward for repairing/resupplying.
  • Reinforcement of Target Group - Load up infantry/ vehicles into a transport at a Base and transport them to friendly target group. When completed, the loaded units get transferred to the target group.
  • Transport Target Group - Transport a target group to specific destination

 

Handling of the tasks:

 

  • AI commanders only really need to issue Defense, Assault, Fortify and Fire Mission tasks. The others could be "spawned" by players themself via requesting support.
  • Human commanders generally could issue all tasks themself. However, requests and suggestions from groups are a key element and mechanics are required to make them important also to the commander. (e.g. impose cooldown on issuing tasks, but accepting requests/suggestions is free;  Give more economical benefit for commander towards tasks that originated from requests/suggestions, etc)
  • Depending on tasks, they may have an endstate, or not. They may be cancelled by the Commander after some timelimit, to account for no longer valid/usefull/desired actions.
  • Some tasks may be available for multiple players, but once a player accepted, will become unavailable for others to prevent 3 groups trying to do the same thing which only requires 1 group. Once accepted, cancelling such "1-group-only tasks" without contributing to it's fullfillment could result in penalty (abuse prevention for repeated "stealing" of tasks from others and then cancelling).
  • To make decisions more important on commander and player group side, issuing and requesting certain tasks should have cooldowns (also reduces frequent "hopping"), yet at the same time a unit should have at least one main task at any time available.
  • Directed tasks (commander issues task to one specific group) could have a higher reward for both parties. This makes it attractive to execute specific tasks with priority for a group. Perimeter tasks that are global (acceptable by anyone) could have a greater perimeter radius compared to direct orders, but lower reward.
  • Tasks could be "de-accepted" by players after accepting. No penalty, unless doing it repeatedly without contributing to any task.    
  • Not contributing to accepted tasks could have negative consequences (reduced "salary" income) -> encourage selecting a new task rather than leaving a wrong one active.
  • Not contributing or accepting any Tasks for prolonged time could have negative consequences (reduced "salary" income)


I know the implementation of such or similar thing would be quite a bit of work. I still hope this wall of text gave food for thought, inspires, or gives new ideas. Cheers.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey everyone! I apologize for the silence, been working non-stop (I have 6 days off in a row coming up next week :D )

I have had time to work on Dissension and fix many, many, many bugs and problems that were reported. Such a complex and far-reaching mission is bound to be full of issues and bugs. Fortunately, a significant chunk of them have been squashed and dealt with. Although, I am sure some of the reported bugs remain, there is just so much to do :>

 

So I want to push out another improved version. I have added a few extra features but it mostly focuses on bug fixing and smoothing out.

 

Download New TEST Version Here

 

Changes

 

The feedback I got from several groups was that it would be a good idea to more clearly show player/AI squads on the map and find a way to have more of a connection to them. Simply naming AI squads makes players more likely to support them/care about their progress. Keeping a squad alive longer could also have benefits in the future. In addition, letting players name their squads (and displaying their squad on the map), lets other players know where each group is and what they are doing. Making it easier to decide what group to join. The goal is to make players WANT to be in the same group and work together.

CHANGELOG

NEW: AI Groups are now assigned group names. These groups are persistent throughout the game, and maintain their group knowledge through respawn.
NEW: Player groups are now displayed on the map. Players can now press U to make/join other groups.  Players can name their group and invite others in. This will allow freshly joined players to see what each group is doing and join/ask to join that group instead of going in alone.
NEW: Squad vs Squad report system. Players are now informed of which nearby squads are fighting (EX: “EAGLE is engaging PASTA”.  This allows players to build rivalries or spread fear into opposing player groups.  When your squad is engaged by an enemy squad a more obvious message is displayed on screen (EX: PASTA vs RAWRZOR). The color of the message dictates the enemy squad’s side.
NEW: Nearby players all receive cash for one another’s kills. This will encourage players to group up and work together.
NEW: All players in vehicles are now rewarded with cash for kills.
NEW: POI’s (Points of Interest) are now capturable. POI’s are map specific locations (EX: COCOA PLANTATIONS, LUMBERMILL, SMALL PIER, RUINS, etc). These POI’s calculate their provided resources by what the POI includes inside its borders. 
NEW: Opfor Commander is fully implemented!
NEW: Side specific markers. West/East can no longer see ANY of the territory owned by the other side. The only exception to this rule is when either side takes a territory owned by the other.
NEW: Supply points will now spawn Aircraft that will attempt to retrieve supplies from supply points. However, AI piloting still seems very sketchy, so there is a good chance these will be replaced with Infantry squads that “carry” the supplies from point A to point B. Not happy about the frustration with AI doing supply runs… The other option would be forcing the players to deliver full supply points.
NEW: Private Military Contractor Militia units are now uniquely kitted out. Works for Vanilla or RHS.
NEW: Parameter for selecting wanted mod. Supported modes are Vanilla, RHS, and Iron Front
NEW: Resistance towns now have the chance to spawn light vehicles.
CHANGE: When playing with Iron Front, ARSENAL will only let you take weapons/most equipment from that ERA. (No A3 or RHS weapons when playing with Iron Front).
CHANGE: Boat transports now completely cache the group and virtualize the transportation. If the boat is destroyed while transporting the squad, the whole squad is killed. This was done to support mixed AI groups with several vehicles and AI on foot.
CHANGE: Supply points are currently using helicopters instead of trucks. The AI are not smart when it comes to picking up supplies…. This might be changed later to the commander requesting players to pick up the supplies and bring them back.
FIX: Many, many, many RPT spamming bugs
FIX: Many of the missions now respect the currently selected mod.
FIX: Iron Front forces forced to appropriate sides when spawning in….Americans are Blufor. Germans are Opfor. Russians are Resistance.
FIX: Vehicles are appropriately filtered when playing with Iron Front.
FIX: Capturing certain locations did not work properly.
FIX: Re-wrote part of the defense spawning for AI. They groups are now larger.
FIX: Arsenal bugs out on Dedicated Server
FIX: Joining in Dedicated environment would break the game :<
FIX: JIP for the server is now working. The only exception seems to a few markers not populating correctly.

KNOWN BUGS
-When playing on a dedicated server from the very beginning, it may take a while to be moved to the correct position at the commander. This is due to the server still marking all the appropriate locations and spawning in the appropriate units. For now, the players can either wait for the Barracks to be created before spawning in, or simply waiting at spawn to be correctly teleported.
-Still, sometimes the UI will randomly disappear. Respawning should now resolve this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 5/20/2017 at 8:03 PM, x3kj said:

Big fan of your stuff Genesis. I dont know how i missed your work on dissension thus far. Congrats on the release.

CTI is my favorite gamemode, its nice to see a new take on it. I always wished for a more sophisticated AI commanders.


I have one thing that i would like to bring up for discussion and that is the style of the missions atm.

The foundation of CTI (just my opinion, others may disagree) is about trying to take controll over territory and holding it against the enemy, thus naturally creating large combined arms battles.Most Warfare missions thus far never seemed to capture this ideal. The only things you where told to do in arma 2 vanilla is "capture this town". End of story. It didnt support different playstyles, it didnt support situations other than "attacking a town", it didnt promote defending in any way. Even BECTI (which i liked a lot) was quite limited in this. Some missions in Dissension atm feel to me as if they go even one step further and kind of detract from what is actually happening between the two sides, as they are not really connected in any way. The way they work feels very gamey and contrived. Having some hostage or bomb defusal "drama" near the frontlines seems kinda out of place, and the mission can quickly break if the frontlines reach this place (imagine CSAT gunship showing up when Blufor is trying to rescue hostages from guerilla). If such missions are instead spawned in the "hinterlands", far behind frontlines, they draw away players or AI from the real action. In addition, the assetts for the missions need to be spawned in specific places and ways to function properly, which can pose additional issues, and will always make it seem contrived. Why does it matter that a bomb is somewhere in a forest?


From my point of view it would be much better to generate objectives/missions that relate to current situations on the battlefield. A good and integrated way (in my view anyway) would be to create a system that enables the commander to issue tasks to players and their group. And a system that allows players to request support task from commanders. With the request system AI commanders wouldnt have to be too "intelligent" to make usefull decisions, as playergroups can more or less shape the battle in their own way.

So here's the idea:

  • A commander can issue tasks based on their current plan and understanding of the battlefield situation.
  • Tasks are accepted by players, which enables them and their group to contribute to the completion of it.
  • For contribution towards a task, player/groups receive economical benfit to their actions (killing, damaging, capturing,etc). The commander also needs to receive some benefit for positive contribution by groups.
  • Tasks could be global (acceptably for any player) or direct (only acceptable by the adressed group or type of group). Players could for example choose a role/ specialisation for the group they controll and certain tasks could be given to specific roles only.
  • A player may suggest a task for himself to the commander. The commander accepts or declines.
  • A player may also request a specific type of support. Commander can permit or denie. If permitted, a task of the requested type will be issued and forwarded to other groups automatically.

Ideally, tasks should provide continual economic benefits to players (and commanders) while contributing to it. This means a group has to commit to a specific task for a while to maximize economical gains. It makes actions more persistent (e.g. fighting over a specific area for a while) and stabilizes the gameflow in the sense that people can get a picture of what is going on. One-off actions (capture this, then that) and frequent changes of tasks/locations lead to more chaos for everyone involved. Human and AI commanders can make better decisions if people follow the task system, as they know what each group is trying to achieve most of the time. This is also why the amount of active tasks at one time per group needs to be strictly limited to few tasks that are also not mutually exclusive (e.g. no defend position A and attack B at same time), in addition to limiting how often tasks can be switched. Due to the economic benefits that tasks provide, it should encourage players to make good use of the tasks and request system, which in turn automatically leads to more coordinated battles as well.

 

Here are some task types i can think of from top of my head:

Perimeter Tasks:

  • Defense - unit stays in perimeter of position to receive some points. When killing enemies outside of the perimeter from within perimeter, reward per kill is increased. Reward per enemy killed that was inside perimeter is increased even more.
  • Assault - unit needs to move into a designated perimeter. Unit receives extra points for killing enemies that are inside the perimeter. Unit receives extra points for capturing the position.
  • Fortify - units that build field fortifications in designated area get points .     
  • Fire/Bombing Mission - kill units around certain perimeter (via heavy ordonance). Only active for limited time period

Targeted tasks:

  • Destruction - issued on target enemy unit that needs to be destroyed. Destruction of enemy unit by e.g. 50% would give bonus reward for killing/damaging, destruction by 100% gives even bigger bonus to contributing units
  • Assassination "Bring it down"- destroy individual high value object with utmost priority (only on enemy vehicles and destructable fortifications/ weapon emplacements)
  • Close Fire Support for friendly target group - ( Target group commander is reference position). Supporting group receives extra points for killing enemy units inside the target groups proximity.
  • Direct Support for friendly target group - (Target group commander is reference position). Supporting group needs to stay in close proximity of target group. Supporting unit receives extra points for killing units
  • Resupply/Repair for Target Group - Reward for repairing/resupplying.
  • Reinforcement of Target Group - Load up infantry/ vehicles into a transport at a Base and transport them to friendly target group. When completed, the loaded units get transferred to the target group.
  • Transport Target Group - Transport a target group to specific destination

 

Handling of the tasks:

 

  • AI commanders only really need to issue Defense, Assault, Fortify and Fire Mission tasks. The others could be "spawned" by players themself via requesting support.
  • Human commanders generally could issue all tasks themself. However, requests and suggestions from groups are a key element and mechanics are required to make them important also to the commander. (e.g. impose cooldown on issuing tasks, but accepting requests/suggestions is free;  Give more economical benefit for commander towards tasks that originated from requests/suggestions, etc)
  • Depending on tasks, they may have an endstate, or not. They may be cancelled by the Commander after some timelimit, to account for no longer valid/usefull/desired actions.
  • Some tasks may be available for multiple players, but once a player accepted, will become unavailable for others to prevent 3 groups trying to do the same thing which only requires 1 group. Once accepted, cancelling such "1-group-only tasks" without contributing to it's fullfillment could result in penalty (abuse prevention for repeated "stealing" of tasks from others and then cancelling).
  • To make decisions more important on commander and player group side, issuing and requesting certain tasks should have cooldowns (also reduces frequent "hopping"), yet at the same time a unit should have at least one main task at any time available.
  • Directed tasks (commander issues task to one specific group) could have a higher reward for both parties. This makes it attractive to execute specific tasks with priority for a group. Perimeter tasks that are global (acceptable by anyone) could have a greater perimeter radius compared to direct orders, but lower reward.
  • Tasks could be "de-accepted" by players after accepting. No penalty, unless doing it repeatedly without contributing to any task.    
  • Not contributing to accepted tasks could have negative consequences (reduced "salary" income) -> encourage selecting a new task rather than leaving a wrong one active.
  • Not contributing or accepting any Tasks for prolonged time could have negative consequences (reduced "salary" income)


I know the implementation of such or similar thing would be quite a bit of work. I still hope this wall of text gave food for thought, inspires, or gives new ideas. Cheers.

 

This is a very thoughtful suggestion. I fully agree about the mission system at the moment. In its current state it does not contribute to the general flow of the field as I'd like and the players lack much interaction with the AI commander. I really like your idea but I might tweak it to make it more manageable... I am thinking of adding 2 tabs to the Tablet. One tab will be the "Request Support" tab, which will pop up a new menu that will display various options like you mentioned. The other tab will be the "Current Tasks" tab. This tab will be a list of tasks the commander would like accomplished. It will list the task, the completion criteria, and the rewards for doing so. 

Tasks might even create markers on the map for their current location. These markers will simply state the needed task, and the squads assigned to the current task.

 

A system like you mentioned will allow for players to interact more with the AI commander, and more importantly, with each other. Not to mention keeping the battlefield feeling alive and well.

 

I currently need to head to bed so I can not type out everything I would like...but I think making this my next priority is very important. I want more interaction with AI commands are groups. This may also be a great way to solve the whole Supply Point AI convoy problem...just let players do it for a nice heap of cash reward

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tried opening the mission in editor and got an error message about "WW2_Core_c_Gui_c" missing. Googling pointed me towards IFA3_Lite (which comes with a bunch of other dependencies). Loading the IFA mod fixed the error message for me. Prior to that I had already activated all of the RHS mods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice update!!!! My small group has been having a blast!!!!

Will get the new version up tonight!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, missverstanden said:

tried opening the mission in editor and got an error message about "WW2_Core_c_Gui_c" missing. Googling pointed me towards IFA3_Lite (which comes with a bunch of other dependencies). Loading the IFA mod fixed the error message for me. Prior to that I had already activated all of the RHS mods.

 

Uh oh. I can fix this real quick. Looks like IFA is required when it shouldn't be.

Okay. I just removed the IFA dependency from the mission. It should work now without IFA 

 

8 hours ago, kremator said:

Brilliant update!  Will test this tonight on my dedi.

 

Thanks for all your hard work @genesis92x

Thank you :)! Let me know if you can actually play it.

 

1 hour ago, eric963 said:

Nice update!!!! My small group has been having a blast!!!!

Will get the new version up tonight!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks! I look forward to the stream of bug reports!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just tested out the recent candidate on my dedi server.  Plays very well.  Defused one bomb successfully (although had to guess the correct wire - PHEW!)  Server FPS sat at a constant 49 UNTIL the enemy paradropped on my base.  Then it dropped to ZERO !  The paratroopers were rubberbanding (obviously) while they were falling.  Once on the ground, the FPS returned to 49 again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mission crashed with 'Too many virtual blocks requested' after 2 hours.  Running the latest server binaries (v03) and client.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Previous version RHS was autodetected and used the correct units, with this most recent test version RHS are no longer being auto detected.  Can anyone else verify?

 

Thanks

Eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, eric963 said:

Previous version RHS was autodetected and used the correct units, with this most recent test version RHS are no longer being auto detected.  Can anyone else verify?

 

Thanks

Eric

Look at the mission params. You have to tell it to use RHS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must've missed it but I swear there were only three options and that was not one of them. I'll look again when I get home later.

thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, just played for about 15 min before getting killed. only these errors popped.  Another thought is IF i want to play morning or night I need NVGs or I cant see shit. I went to buy some and don't have any cash. May be add those to HQ.  I will do more testing later. i like how its setting up so far. awesome job. those dang AI... The dome angle is off so on hills and rough terrain it sets in the terrain approx 3 m. is that for protection? I assume it is.


 

16:31:44 Error in expression < [_positions, resistance, (selectrandom DIS_GIndieA)] call BIS_fnc_spawnGroup;

>
16:31:44   Error position: <DIS_GIndieA)] call BIS_fnc_spawnGroup;

>
16:31:44   Error Undefined variable in expression: dis_gindiea
16:31:44 File mpmissions\__cur_mp.Tanoa\Missions\Dis_Ambush.sqf, line 37
16:31:52 soldier[I_G_Soldier_LAT_F]:Some of magazines weren't stored in soldier Vest or Uniform?
16:31:52 soldier[I_G_Soldier_LAT_F]:Some of magazines weren't stored in soldier Vest or Uniform?
16:32:08 soldier[I_G_Soldier_AR_F]:Some of magazines weren't stored in soldier Vest or Uniform?
16:32:08 soldier[I_G_Soldier_AR_F]:Some of magazines weren't stored in soldier Vest or Uniform?
16:32:25 Error in expression <oy our enemies!<br/>
"

,"Hai"
]
];
if (_WestRun) then {dis_WNewsArray pushback >
16:32:25   Error position: <_WestRun) then {dis_WNewsArray pushback >
16:32:25   Error Undefined variable in expression: _westrun
16:32:25 File Commander\specialmission\fn_SECrate.sqf [DIS_fnc_SECrate], line 46

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HQ relocation is troublesome. The HQ drives to a neutral town and get destroyed.

 

Also, I played with IFA3 and the boat and command center are still modern units, same with buildings. I'm not talking about the choppers for the supply as there is no other choices for now.

 

here the errors I got in 1 hour :

 

Error in expression <_index = currentWaypoint _Group;
_index setWaypointBehaviour "SAFE";   
_Positio>
 9:38:39   Error position: <setWaypointBehaviour "SAFE";   
_Positio>
 9:38:39   Error setwaypointbehaviour: Type Number, expected Array
\Dissension.Tanoa\Functions\dis_VehicleManage.sqf, line 20

 

Error in expression <nFIN = _CRoad findEmptyPosition [0,150,(_ActualSpawnHeavy select 0)]; 
if (_posi>
 9:51:09   Error position: <_ActualSpawnHeavy select 0)]; 
if (_posi>
 9:51:09   Error Undefined variable in expression: _actualspawnheavy
\Dissension.Tanoa\Commander\threatresp\dis_Guerrilla.sqf, line 582

 

9:51:12 Error in expression <Dis_OpforTickets - 1;};
};
};

[_grp2,((_rndU select 0) select 0)] spawn dis_Veh>
 9:51:12   Error position: <_rndU select 0) select 0)] spawn dis_Veh>
 9:51:12   Error Undefined variable in expression: _rndu
Dissension.Tanoa\Commander\threatresp\dis_Guerrilla.sqf, line 605

 

10:01:39 Error in expression <
_NewObjectDistance = _CompareObjectPos distance _position;
_DistanceArray pushb>
10:01:39   Error position: <distance _position;
_DistanceArray pushb>
10:01:39   Error Type Object, expected Number
\Dissension.Tanoa\Functions\dis_closestobj.sqf, line 25

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Erendil said:

HQ relocation is troublesome. The HQ drives to a neutral town and get destroyed.

 

Also, I played with IFA3 and the boat and command center are still modern units, same with buildings. I'm not talking about the choppers for the supply as there is no other choices for now.

 

here the errors I got in 1 hour :

 

Error in expression <_index = currentWaypoint _Group;
_index setWaypointBehaviour "SAFE";   
_Positio>
 9:38:39   Error position: <setWaypointBehaviour "SAFE";   
_Positio>
 9:38:39   Error setwaypointbehaviour: Type Number, expected Array
\Dissension.Tanoa\Functions\dis_VehicleManage.sqf, line 20

 

Error in expression <nFIN = _CRoad findEmptyPosition [0,150,(_ActualSpawnHeavy select 0)]; 
if (_posi>
 9:51:09   Error position: <_ActualSpawnHeavy select 0)]; 
if (_posi>
 9:51:09   Error Undefined variable in expression: _actualspawnheavy
\Dissension.Tanoa\Commander\threatresp\dis_Guerrilla.sqf, line 582

 

9:51:12 Error in expression <Dis_OpforTickets - 1;};
};
};

[_grp2,((_rndU select 0) select 0)] spawn dis_Veh>
 9:51:12   Error position: <_rndU select 0) select 0)] spawn dis_Veh>
 9:51:12   Error Undefined variable in expression: _rndu
Dissension.Tanoa\Commander\threatresp\dis_Guerrilla.sqf, line 605

 

10:01:39 Error in expression <
_NewObjectDistance = _CompareObjectPos distance _position;
_DistanceArray pushb>
10:01:39   Error position: <distance _position;
_DistanceArray pushb>
10:01:39   Error Type Object, expected Number
\Dissension.Tanoa\Functions\dis_closestobj.sqf, line 25

 

 

Thanks for the reports! Make sure to select the mods in the params. Is working for many players so just double check that first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, genesis92x said:

Thanks for the reports! Make sure to select the mods in the params. Is working for many players so just double check that first.

 

The mod is selected in the parameters and the units and armors are WWII. It's the transport boat and the command center unit which are vanilla.

 

an other error I got with vanilla, after the commander move around the map.

 

12:59:08 Error in expression <s_closestobj;
_CLTCheck = [_SummedOwned,_CLT,true] call dis_closestobj;
if (Type>
12:59:08   Error position: <_CLT,true] call dis_closestobj;
if (Type>
12:59:08   Error Undefined variable in expression: _clt


12:59:08 Error in expression <_CLTCheck distance _CLT < 2000 && (count W_ActiveUnits) > 1>
12:59:08   Error position: <_CLT < 2000 && (count W_ActiveUnits) > 1>
12:59:08   Error Undefined variable in expression: _clt

 

Also, there is only the barrack and the supplie post build. Resource are low and no ressource territory around.

Could you add a fonction to the commander, like the market in some games (He exchange some resources for other ressources) ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×