Architeuthis

Ah, the new forums. Great job on the transition, everything seems to work just fine. Any plans on incorporating a few different forum skins? While the old board might have lacked the functionality, in terms of aesthetics, I found it to be top notch.

Best of luck to you! BIS has already proven being capable of producing great games. No doubt ArmA II will be a testament to this ability.

There is a time and a place for everything. Apparently ACE feels that now is not the right time to provide the community with information concerning the IMW mod. There are a multitude of possible reasons behind such a policy. One of these is preventing a buildup of an incorrectly timed hype. We all know what kind of disastrous effects those can have.

Whether that’s a bad development or not depends on the details of the cooperation between the two parties. If the IMWM agreed to become part of the ACE mod (thus agreeing to their terms ) then I don’t see a problem with ACE becoming the dominant party deciding on what needs to be done. From the information I’ve gathered this seems to be the case (not entirely sure though, so correct me if I’m wrong). Who’s to say they are losing public interest? Are you in the possession of quantitative data supporting such claims? I highly doubt that.

You two are simply being childish, spoiled brats. What you are saying basically boils down to this: "We want screens NOW! We want a release NOW!" Have patience, show some respect. They are doing this for free and mod making is not easy. And what would you know about mod making? We arnt being fuking childish mate but we are simply looking for the best interest for such a great mod, if you liked the mod as much as you fuking said so you'd stand up for it. So dont you dare ask use to show some respect, you should show respect for the people who are trying to help the mod. Hypocritical  twat. Kris  Because what you are doing is obviously extending them some much needed help. Certainly it’s not a textbook example of being a counterproductive factor.

Grow up. Well it's only true, IMWM was great until ACE or What ever they are called, now with them being tight arses, they will simply be loosing the publics interest. Its not you IMWM its your counter-parts. Seriously i think joining up with ACE was a bad decision. Hope you can see this soon before you loose complete public interest. IMWM your an excellent team dont other team's boss you around. Kris  It's so nice that people have inside information, really it is. Thumbs up for standing up for the community as well. Damn them for keeping their lips shut and denying us our god given right of periodic updates and other sorts of information. How dare they insult the community like that eh? The nerve of some people...

It will be interesting to see how the cross platform release will play out. How will it affect us pc gamers. Can we expect our desire for (a) realistic game(play) to clash with the inherent limitations that consoles pose on realistic gameplay. I certainly hope not. Evidently Codemasters has put a lot of resources into this project and from what that 6 minute presentation tells us, it seems like money well spend. I’ll be looking forward to see how the development on this game progresses. Some competition wouldn’t hurt this segment. Hopefully we as consumers of realistic wargames are in for some good times.

He just released an entire SF pack and already you bug him for more? Seriously, just enjoy this wonderful addon for now.

Did you not watch Holland - Italy? I hardly think that match qualifies as ‘a boring game’. Most of the other games are somewhat of a disappointment though. The worst being Sweden – Greece, with France – Romania just behind. Shameless display of anti football. Go Holland, make us proud once more! No didn't watch it, didn't have time to watch that game.. Shame, it was quite a spectacle. If you have the opportunity try to catch a replay of the match. It’ll be worth it. Congratulations on your victory against the Czechs. You’re basically in the quarterfinals now. Ironically one of Holland’s most distinguishable supporters, the angel girl, emigrated from Latvia.

Did you not watch Holland - Italy? I hardly think that match qualifies as ‘a boring game’. Most of the other games are somewhat of a disappointment though. The worst being Sweden – Greece, with France – Romania just behind. Shameless display of anti football. Go Holland, make us proud once more!

Let me start off by stating that I’ve enjoyed playing Armed Assault from its release to this very day. Nevertheless the game is not without flaws. Most of these have thankfully been addressed with the numerous patches that BIS has released. There are however a couple of issues that I feel should be addressed. While they are not gameplay breakers per se, they do drastically diminish my enjoyment of the game. These are the following: Formation order The first issue that needs some attention is formation order. When a squad is ordered to patrol in a column formation the highest ranking member of said squad will lead it with progressively lower ranked units behind it. The problem with this formation is that the squad leader also acts as the point man, or better said, the marked man. His fate is almost always certain in the case of an ambush. While I certainly do not claim to be an expert on modern day infantry tactics, I find it highly unlikely that a squad leader will literally head the patrol himself. Shouldn’t he be placed further down the (staggered) column? Figure 1a Arma column infantry formation places the squad leader up front. Figure 1b Clearly a much safer and more sensible placement of the squad leader within a column formation. I am not really sure if the above is applicable in vehicle/convoy scenarios or how difficult it would be to implement the (possible) differences. Formation discipline The second issue I want to address is also related to Arma’s AI. While I am not really sure whether or not the following is a feature or a genuine bug, I do believe that its existence is of great annoyance to myself (and hopefully others). For the purpose of clarity I shall address the issue as a bug. The bug is most prevalent in single player situations where the player is not in direct command of his squad. What happens is that an AI member of the squad often breaks formation and charges headfirst into the fray (and often certain death). As this bug is not present when the player is in command of the squad, we can infer that the order must be given by the AI squad leader. Figure 2a We clearly see the squad lined up in a ‘line formation’. Figure 2b During engagement one of the squad members breaks formation and charges forward. It should be noted that this bug is present with all formations. It’s especially annoying when a squad is supposed to be in a covered and easily defendable position. The sheer stupidity of watching one of your men leaving cover to ‘do a rambo’ is easily one the most frustrating sights to behold. While I cannot say this with absolute certainty, I do believe that this kind of suicidal behaviour was not present in the earlier Arma builds. So my question to BIS is as follows; is this AI behaviour intentional or is it merely a bug that (possibly) slipped in with one of the later patches? Are there any plans on changing the AI’s behaviour concerning this issue? Unnecessary disembarking BIS’ decision to include a cargo seat for the co-pilot is one I very much applaud. It’s a much more realistic sight to see two crewmembers piloting a helicopter. Even if one is just for show. However game mechanics somehow force the co-pilot to disembark when the pilot is engaged in a fight. This situation is true on the condition that the co-pilot has been added to the helicopter itself. Figure 4 The co-pilot has been attached to the helicopter with use of the f2 button. His rank is either equal or inferior to that of the pilot. If the co-pilots rank is superior to that of the pilot, the issue does not occur. This is especially annoying with the ah-6 littlebird, which upon engagement with hostile forces will land in close proximity with that enemy and force out the co-pilot. This is an extremely annoying occurrence which should be fixed. The situation also applies with Mateck’s m1a1 (HA) addon. Although BIS is obviously not responsible in this case, we can see the same mechanics that plague helicopters are also prevalent with the case of ground vehicles. What happens is that the loader (in terms of game mechanics nothing more than a cargo seat) sometimes ejects in the middle of combat. Not because the vehicle has received a critical amount of damage, but because the commander ordered him to do so. However, as stated earlier, BIS is not accountable for 3rd party addons. Disclaimer: The above have been tested and are all present in an unmodified version of Arma 1.14 As these issues are not exclusive to any specific patch I decided to open a separate thread.

The problem with the ‘V formation’ is its wide shape. Especially in urban patrol scenario’s there is often little room for this formation. But for the moment it’s probably the only formation that offers some form of protection to the squad leader. A very logical and plausible explanation. It’s a damn shame we’re forced to use editing commands to somehow circumvent this particular problem with the AI. That’s exactly what I do right now. His function is not much more than a simple prop. But for realisms sake, a complete helicopter crew would be desirable.

This is something I usually do too. However this is only of use if the player is in command of the squad. It would be awesome if BIS could implement that as standard AI behaviour. But right now, I’d settle for just changing the formation structure by rank.

It’s not so much a matter of performance loss (or better said; combat ability), it’s the fact that the squad leader always dies when patrolling on foot. Perhaps NCO’s lead a squad of infantry from the very front, but this would hardly be the task of an officer. It’s extremely annoying to see my lieutenant getting blasted every time when I play a patrol scenario. Other than that, it would be great if BIS could somehow model in the loss of a leader (and the breakdown of the chain of command). Something tells me that is reserved for Arma2 or one of the TC mods (ACE, SLX, etc.) for Arma though. Breaking formation is absolutely horrid in both defend and attack scenario’s. In a situation where the squad has been ordered to hold a certain position (say a ridge), it makes absolutely no sense to leave that position defended by machineguns and other support weapons to charge into an open field. There is no logic in that action whatsoever. Sure in attack scenario’s it might be less annoying, but I would like the squad to advance with caution and care. Not with suicidal tendencies. I can see absolutely nothing good about this bug/feature. The illustration might be a bit misleading, but the point is he shouldn’t be directly up front, which is probably the most vulnerable position. Passengers, maybe. ‘Essential’ crewmembers, nowhere near useful. Like I stated in my opening post, I don’t directly blame them for this particular issue with regards to ground vehicles. The addon that suffers from this problem is after all 3rd party software. I cannot for the life of me, see the use of ordering out a co-pilot. Granted, as you said, it probably has to do with the way the co-pilot is defined, which is nothing more than a glorified extra cargo seat. This does not change the fact that the current situation is highly irritating and somehow needs to be dealt with. Hopefully this does not lead to the decision to exclude the co-pilot altogether. Although the co-pilot only serves an aesthetic purpose at the moment, I sincerely hope that his role gets expanded.

I have 12 hours of school each day dumbshit so don't talk! I'm guessing that's warning level number three. OT: Good job on the marines Jonny. Really enjoying them. Arch.

I'm disturbed by the amount of errors in that once sentence. Fascinating.. Arch.

Well, then it's a good thing you don't have to download those addons. Don't you love the whole concept of 'choice'? Quite fascinating, isn't it? Arch.

Well, then it's a good thing you don't have to download those addons. Don't you love the whole concept of 'choice'? Quite fascinating, isn't it? Arch.

Love the colour of the seats GrandQ, very.... erm... fashionable Arch.

Just an observation as a bystander, but you really seem fixated on this ‘I am right all the time’ concept. Might want to consider dropping that. To save face and all. Just a suggestion. Arch.

Ah, another well contributing addition to the BIS forum. On behalf of everyone who cares I extend our welcome to you. Arch.

Happy 2007 to the lot of you. May it be a prosperous year for all of us. Arch.

What? OT: looking good wilco Arch.

Personally I liked this colour scheme for the IBA (and pouches). Looks more 'worn' that way. Perhaps change the camelbak texture into DCU or marpat. I could be wrong here, but perhaps it’s possible to include several (texture)versions of certain items (e.g. the camelback). Although I did hear HePCaT talking about all the textures being shared between the models. In any case, nice work. To both of you. Arch.

Personally I liked this colour scheme for the IBA (and pouches). Looks more 'worn' that way. Perhaps change the camelbak texture into DCU or marpat. I could be wrong here, but perhaps it’s possible to include several (texture)versions of certain items (e.g. the camelback). Although I did hear HePCaT talking about all the textures being shared between the models. In any case, nice work. To both of you. Arch.