ACF

Not sure what's not working but I think it's only going to work once - the OnMapSingleClick {} disables the command according to the Biki. OnMapSingleClick "player SetPos _pos" works fine as a line in the player's init, though.

Magazine classnames aren't the same as weapon classnames now. Have a look at: http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA:_Weapons

... that is why the test was carried out on an airstrip with no OPFOR to try and get raw, repeatable results. Â The test conditions are stated so the results are what they are. It's also relevant that most missions involve group movements before contact - the patrol round the base etc. - and these are the times people notice 'odd', 'unrealistic' or 'out of context' behaviour. This isn't an 'Arma AI are crap' whinge, it's an observation and, for what it's worth, one for the wishlist rather than the buglist. We seem to agree on the key point: I am aware (from OFP) that there are combinations of anims used for each behaviour and, presumably, speed. I'm just suggesting that the combinations I've seen don't give either of us a lot of flexibility. As I implied in my first post, I personally think that AWARE should be less COMBAT-like: upright with weapons down while moving but crouched/prone and weapons up at halts/WP. What happens once they come under effective fire is not really relevant as then they'll go into COMBAT. The Behaviours aren't broken but, from my perspective, I do think they could be better.

I've had my first serious session in the editor today and I have also found the CombatModes a little perplexing. I ran a reasonably systematic test on the Ramadi airstrip with a BLUFOR infantry group doing a circuit at LIMITED, NORMAL then FULL speedmode in each of the Behaviours. Overhead fire was applied by me as a BLUFOR player to test reaction. The results were pretty consistent across the different CombatModes so I'll ignore those. In the following, WALK is walking at the low port, ALERT is walking with the weapon up in the shoulder, RTF = reaction/reacted to fire, L/N/F = Limited/Normal/Full speedmode. CARELESS: L=Walk  N=Walk     F=Walk    WP=Walk  Moves as single group, no RTF. SAFE:     L=Walk  N=Walk     F=Walk    WP=Walk  Moves as single group. RTF but no movement unless fire continued! AWARE:    L=Alert  N=Jog     F=Run/Jog  WP=Alert  Moves as single group. RTF then continued. COMBAT  At all speeds group moves in two teams Alert/Jog and covering Prone/Crouch. Leader gets too far ahead. No RTF. STEALTH:   L=Crawl  N=Crawl/Alert F=Crawl/Alert/Jog  WP=Prone/Crouch  Moves as single group. Leader gets too far ahead. No RTF. Interestingly, groups in CARELESS and not NEVER FIRE will react violently to the player's friendly kills. So, group speed only seems to be controllable in AWARE and STEALH modes. This seems to be a bit of a limitation. Whether or not these Behaviours are defined in the FSM files, any changes ought to be made to the 'engine' level to ensure that they are a standard. I am suggesting that they do need to be changed to give mission designers a few more options. My opening bid is: CARELESS: L=Walk  N=Jog     F=Run/Jog  WP=Walk/Sling wpn  Moves as single group SAFE:     L=Walk  N=Jog     F=Run/Jog  WP=Walk/Sling wpn  Moves as single group AWARE:    L=Walk   N=Walk/Jog   F=Run/Jog  WP=lert/Crouch    Moves as single group COMBAT:  L=Alert  N=Alert/Jog  F=Run/Jog  WP=Prone/Crouch   2x teams, covering/moving, non-leader team moves first STEALTH:   L=Crawl  N=Crawl/Alert F=Alert/Jog WP=Prone/Crouch   2x teams, covering/moving, non-leader team moves first Any other thoughts or opinions?

Oops but, no, that wasn't the actual code I've been running. Well spotted!

Thanks Ed & Mandoble - that is a solution. Planck at OFPEC had also suggested "Bomb" but that refused to work in the ForEach loop. Seems odd that it only works as linear code but at least it does most of the time. Ideally, I want some control over the power of the airburst without having to resort to an addon. I was worried that the use of class "Bomb" as a detonator would overpower anything else, but it seems OK. Cheers!

That could be the reason for me stop playing ArmA. It hurts my eyes, it's pure horror. Is there no way to get rid of this? I imagine it could be sorted quite easily. HDR response needs to be dependent on viewpoint, not aimpoint, i.e. HDR effects should only be seen as your head (or 3rd person camera) moves relative to the light source. Why not post it as a bug and link your very informative video clip?

this DisableAI "MOVE" is the solution - a CARELESS unit isn't going to do much in the battle. The other commands you want are: this SetUnitPos "UP" this SetUnitPos "DOWN" There is no command to crouch. I think General Barron has done a cover script that allows some finer control. If you're not using the BuildingPos command I'd advise you search on that on OFPEC as well...

You have a double negative, try: !Alive sniper1 or Not Alive sniper1 but not both. If it is going to directly activate an end trigger I would suggest putting in a timeout delay so the end is not too abrupt.

I haven't been a Terrier so treat this 'advice' with some suspicion but you might want to check out how your employer feels about the TA. Â Institutions like the Police, Health Service and, maybe, local government are probably quite supportive or tolerant of the TA, even to the extent of granting extra 'leave' in lieu of camps etc. because they are 'big' and see it as valid training that they don't have to give you. Â However, given that you could be mobilised in the current climate, it's a bit of risk for smaller companies, irrespective of whether they like the TA or not. Â You will have thought how it might affect your career and personal plans; those other parties may have a different view to you going over the hills and far away. A lot, I imagine, will depend on the local unit. Â My understanding is that the infantry side has been trimmed over the years with a shift towards logistic support roles. Â Handy if you want an HGV licence but perhaps less attractive if you want to run about in the ulu. Continuing the teach-in: technically, the TA aren't reservists. Â Reservists are ex-regulars who still have 'reserve' commitments, i.e they can be recalled to the colours, for a period of years after they come out. Â It's all part of what you sign up for. Â There seems to be a preference for using the TA before reservists these days, though, presumably because of the currency of the TA's training.

Except that a Saddam might have been the 'price' of a secular Islamic Iraq instead of a Talibanic or militant Islamic Iraq. Â That's why he was supported/tolerated by the West in the 80's. Worse - we may become more like him to deal with the same threat - the militants are hardly going to be swayed by western legal arguments. By the way, they keep saying it's a war for oil - when's it going to start get cheaper?

Will you lot stop typing so fast! Not really, sometimes they'd attack economic targets, frequently they'd plan to kill, maim and cripple. Â Both were acceptable tactics and it was probably US public opinion that was the main factor in which approach they used on a given occasion. Â Bear in mind the warning is as much a weapon as the bomb. There's no point getting too het up about it as we're still a democracy (at least when it comes to terrorist rights; as always it will be the substantially-law-abiding citizens that get disrupted more than the terrorists) and terrorists aren't actually guilty until after they've terrorised. Â Look at the backlash when the SAS dealt with 3 or 4 'International Terrorists ' in Gib before 'War on Terror ' was fashionable. The IRA did (nominally) but it wasn't really an option there. Â Whether we see the Al Queda Party in the Commons soon is anybody's guess. As long as they've paid their car tax and don't speed terrorists should be safe. /cynicism It's not British 'stiff upper lip', just the fact that the UK spent thirty years hamstrung by little details like the law in countering the IRA, having to accept that the terrorist has all the advantages in a 'free' society. Â What grates a little bit is that that disadvantage was the 'price' of our 'freedoms' were when it was the IRA, yet our security laws are forever being ramped-up against AQ and bugger Mr Man-in-the-street's liberty. Â The only functional difference between IRA and AQ is that the latter have no political clout in America?

Thinking aloud: could the apparent movement be a consequence of saving/resuming the game and ever-so-slight corruption of the saved files, rather than just time elapsed? (Not sure why I'm thinking this, I have to admit.) How many kosher saves would you expect in an hour of the mission? In the next version, if you have a radio slot spare, might it be worth setting one up to hint the coordinates of three or four 'fixed' objects across the island? I'm sure the crew would be happy to record them every hour or so to see what variations there are against time elapsed and saves. Same goes for any other data you might think worth acquiring.

This is more suggestion than solution but I've experienced partial loss of built-in actions after setpossing the player out of a vehicle (while testing in the mission editor). Have you used any player setposses to set up cutscene shots?

walker, old son, you've proved the point - anyone who displays the English flag is obviously a 'Nazi'. Â So, is the original red cross (now I'm waiting to be sued for trademark infringement) now a symbol of Nazism. Â Sounds like prejudice to me. Now, Nazis were fundamentally Austro-Germanic in origin - why would any self-respecting British/English Nationalist want to pretend to be a foreigner? Â The logic doesn't add up. How much offence are you causing by implying that you have to be Christian to be English? Â The Anglo-Saxons weren't christian when they/we immigrated. Â (Yes, don't forget that, like the Highland Scots and the Vikings, we're immigrants too. Â The Normans don't count as they just ruled.) And what is your definition of 'Englishness'? Â Why is the VC 'English'? Â Queen Victoria was of German descent and it's been awarded to men of many different ethnic backgrounds across the Empire and Commonwealth over the years. Â Of course, there's probably a CRE-monitored quota that has to be achieved these days, but that's progress. Â Bet Tony'll have the first female VC to justify his next war. Historically, St George's Day has not been a 'big thing', the English are generally too apathetic for anything like that. Â There 'must' be a conspiracy against St. George's Day, otherwise it would instantly be another excuse to flog greetings cards - they don't miss Eid, Hanukkah or St Valentine's. Â And don't get me started on Americanised 'Mother's Day' and bloody trick-or-treating versus the traditional, English 'Mothering Sunday' and apple-bobbing!! Back to the point: the difference now is that our 'sense of fair play' is being offended by things which do not appear to be fair. Â They might be, but they are not seen as fair by a growing number of people. Â The problem has been exacerbated by that old English fault of being 'slow to anger' - by the time we do get p'd off with something, the situation is far worse than it would have been before (I shall cite Nazi Germany as an example). I am now concerned that the very use of the word 'fair' is racist as dark-skinned people are clearly not 'fair' in another sense. Isn't it unfair that Scottish and Welsh Nationalists aren't labelled as Nazis like British or English ones? Â Of course, they are representing themselves as the 'oppressees' of the English 'oppressors' so that's OK. Â I smile at the memory of the BNP getting those two seats in Burnley - there was a beautiful bit of hypocrisy on the subsequent 'Question Time'. A Plaid Cymru panellist harping on about the BNP being 'racist' when, by definition, a British nationalist would be representing not only the Welsh but the English, Scots and Ulstermen too. The Welsh and Scots 'governments' (and where's the English one - no, not the UK government - anyone know?) have or are considering reviving/developing archaic languages as their national tongues. Â Having seen a sign for a 'gwllf cwrs', it does make you wonder. Â More seriously, I know a teacher who is English and lives in Wales who has to work in England because she cannot speak Welsh. Â I have met a legally-bilingual Canadian who couldn't speak French but could, presumably, find work in French Canada that a Canadian Canadian can't; why create that unfairness here? Â What happens when a non-UK English-speaking but non-Welsh-speaking applicant applies? Â What would happen if England stopped printing official literature in multiple languages (reducing my tax and tree-usage) and expected everyone to speak English? The worst aspect of all of this is that the traditional culture of 'free speech' is dead. Â Certain subjects cannot be discussed or debated because entire arguments are diminished or negated by the argument or the arguer simply being labelled 'racist'; and that is a real crime these days. Â I feel as though the burden of proof is on me, as an Englishman (predominantly) to constantly prove I'm not a racist; I should be listing all my non-English friends, especially the Jewish and dusky ones, to substantiate my case. Â If this is a free country with free speech, surely I should have the right to dislike or disagree with whoever I like, irrespective of whether I'm right or wrong, whatever flavour they are. Â If I confront, rather than ignore, them or hit them with a cricket bat, that's different. A while back there a crime of 'racist murder' was seriously discussed to appease real or imagined concerns from ethnic minorities. Â [sarcasm]Obviously, killing someone for a racist motive is way more evil than killing somebody for any other reason, or just no reason at all.[/sarcasm] Â Or does life have a different value depending on the ethnicity of the killer? It may all be middle-class-inspired crap but it is real. Â The mindset of the 'worried minority', let's say the lawyers and accountants, is now enshrined in law because they're the ruling class these days. Â Do we really want to get to the stage where it can't be laughed off? Â What happened in India when they were given independence? Â What happens if devolution descends into partition here - 'Bhowani Junction' in Shrewsbury? Â Over-reaction? Â Maybe, but once people would have laughed if it had been 'Bhowani Junction' in Sarajevo. No apologies for using the Welsh and Scots as examples. Â If things are that weird between those of the same colour and 1500 years-worth of shared history and genes, imagine how big a stick we give to 'more-different' people to hit us with. Â We keep being told we're all equal; that's not how it looks. My definition of racist (using a fairly PC example): - I submit that is not racist to hold an opinion that 'Hitler was an Austrian bastard'. Â He was clearly a bastard and clearly Austrian. - However, I would consider it 'racist' to claim that Hitler was a bastard because he was an Austrian. And there will be an Austrian somewhere to disprove the rule and run you through the European Court of Human Rights. - If you have knowledge or experience of Mr Hitler, it seems reasonable (though arguably extreme in this instance) human behaviour to pre-judge an Austrian as a potential bastard until you know otherwise. Â i.e. prejudice is not an evil in itself. To not want to find out that a particular Austrian is a nice chap, or to ignore the fact that he is, and still think he's a bastard - that's somewhere between plain ignorance and racism. A digger running a Scottishly-named pub in England - how inclusive is that?Finally (@walker), any cheap houses for sale where you are; it sounds such a nice place to live? Â I wouldn't want to go back where my family come from even if I could afford it. Â If I could afford it, I'd probably be considering emigration...

Probably mainly because St. George was a foreigner. Â If he'd have been English no-one would've wanted to associate with him. Strange how us institutionally- and instinctively-racist English chose a foreign martyr as our Patron Saint. Â You'd have thought that was a wonderful example of multicultural inclusivity, fair play and respect for those unfortunate enough not to be English; but try telling that to the Commission for Racial [in]Equality. The historical St. George is supposed to have been a Roman general of middle-eastern extraction who converted to Christianity. Â This upset the current emperor of the time who had him killed in a manner which escapes me now. Â I would say Google it, but I notice that whilst they were covered in shamrocks and leprechauns on St. Paddy's Day, roses are conspicuously absent today (and that's the UK Google!). Â I can't complain about the absence of St George's Cross because St Patrick's Cross never seems to be associated with St Patrick's Day, but I suppose that's our fault as well. I just hope there are lots of blacked-up Morris dancers out celebrating our national (or should that be 'multi-regional' now?) day to throw the thought police into a quandary... St. George for England! Â (but he's the only bugger who is.)

This is NOT generic, but it is a working script/concept. At it's simplest, it's an array of sound sample names, an array of units and a loop that randomly picks a unit and a sample then gets the former to 'Say' the latter. At it's most complex, it changes the array of samples from the default 'advancing' ones if the unit is injured, in town or under artillery fire.  There's also a reasonably neat 'array shuffling' routine. The trick is not so much getting the units to say things, it's getting them to say context-sensible things (hmm, might trademark that bit of English...) and stopping them from saying things.  For a 'generic' script, my first thought is 'Behaviour' would be the main modifier, but that's off the top of my head. <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">; voices.sqs ; define unit arrays _sourcearray = ACF_allunitsEast _workingarray = ACF_allunitsEast ; randomly scramble the array to reduce chance of adjacent units speaking _scrambledarray = [] {_arraycount = Count _workingarray; _temp = random _arraycount; _index = _temp - (_temp Mod 1); _scrambledarray  = _scrambledarray + [_workingarray Select _index]; _workingarray = _workingarray - [_workingarray Select _index]} ForEach _sourcearray ; define samples _advancesamples = ["EOTS_comeon1","EOTS_comeon2","EOTS_followme1","EOTS_followme2", "EOTS_followme3","EOTS_followme4","EOTS_forwards1","EOTS_forwards2","EOTS_getup1", "EOTS_getup2","EOTS_getup3","EOTS_keepgoing1","EOTS_keepgoing2","EOTS_keepgoing3", "EOTS_keepmoving1","EOTS_move1"] _medicsamples = ["EOTS_helpme1","EOTS_helpme2","EOTS_helpme3","EOTS_helpme4","EOTS_imhit1" ,"EOTS_medic1","EOTS_medic2","EOTS_medic3","EOTS_medic4","EOTS_medic5","EOTS_medic6"] _assaultsamples = ["EOTS_comeon1","EOTS_comeon2","EOTS_coverme1","EOTS_coverme2", "EOTS_followme1","EOTS_followme4","EOTS_getup1","EOTS_getup2","EOTS_gonow1","EOTS_lookout1", "EOTS_move1","EOTS_takecover3","EOTS_urra1","EOTS_urra2","EOTS_urra3","EOTS_urra4","EOTS_urra5", "EOTS_urra6","EOTS_urra7","EOTS_urra8","EOTS_usegrenades1","EOTS_watchout1"] _artysamples = ["EOTS_getdown1","EOTS_incoming1","EOTS_incoming2","EOTS_incoming3", "EOTS_keepgoing1","EOTS_keepgoing2","EOTS_keepgoing3","EOTS_keepmoving1","EOTS_lookout1", "EOTS_takecover1","EOTS_takecover2","EOTS_takecover3"] #checkall _totalunits = 1 + Count _scrambledarray _delay = 30/_totalunits _i = -1 #nextunit _i = _i + 1 ?(_i >= _totalunits): Goto "checkall" ~_delay _unit = _scrambledarray select _i ; don't say anything if vehicle crew or dead ?((Vehicle _unit != _unit) OR !Alive _unit): Goto "nextunit" ; define default chance of not saying something _chance = 0.85 ; reduce chance of not saying something if injured or under artillery fire ?((!Canstand _unit) OR (Damage _unit > 0.5) OR (_unit In (List ACF_artyclose))): _chance = 0.45 ?(random 1 < _chance): goto "nextunit" ; define default sounds then modify if conditions are met _voicearray = _advancesamples ?(_unit Distance (Object 3047) < 375): _voicearray = _assaultsamples ?({Alive _x} Count ACF_allunitsWest < 10): _voicearray = ["nullsound"] ?(_unit In (List ACF_artyclose)): _voicearray = _artysamples ?((!Canstand _unit) OR (Damage _unit > 0.5)): _voicearray = _medicsamples ; randomly pick what to say from chosen sample array _rnd = random (Count _voicearray) _index = _rnd - _rnd Mod 1 ?(_unit != player): _unit Say (_voicearray Select _index) Goto "nextunit" exit

Not sure about during WWII, but post-war Russian tanks were designed around the shorter soldier. Â 5'8" maximum sticks in my mind, but it may have been a bit less. Â Although it seems extreme, you end up with a lower vehicle which presents a smaller target. Even more critically: because it's basically a cubic 'height to tank volume or weight' relationship, the smaller vehicle means less weight for a given thickness of armour or more armour for a given weight. Â See also the reclining driver's seat in Chieftain/Challenger. I believe the design of the post-war Japanese tank(s) took advantage of their smaller mean stature.

The stand-out one is 'The Bear Went Over The Mountain' - I'd recommend grabbing it. I shall now go and mourn the good money I paid for it.

Try: {!Alive} Count [t1,t2,t3,t4] >= 2 as the condition. The command [should] count the number of units in the arraythat are not alive; if it's 2 or more the condition is true.

Didn’t I see a thread somewhere asking for opinion? I’m surprised that the Dunnigan article hasn’t attracted more comment. Whilst it holds many truths, it strikes me that there are some holes in it that are big enough to drive a tank through… As a starter: if there were ‘successful American urban warfare tactics that go back to World War II’ involving armour, how come there ‘have been several surprises in this Israeli and American experience . . . that tanks can effectively work in urban areas’ despite ‘the conventional wisdom was that armor was too vulnerable in cities, and that infantry alone was able to clear out enemy resistance’? Even more worryingly, in the context of a security problem with ‘bad guys [who] are rarely good shots’ ‘hiding in a building’, we are quite happily proposing a solution based on MBT main gun ‘firepower (especially new tank shells designed for street fighting)’. The word ‘overkill’ seems made for this situation. The words ‘reasonable force’ don’t. There is, I submit, a distinction between clearing a house and clearing the land on which it stands. This article isn't making it(and just what are these ‘new tank shells’?) I'm not disputing it's dangerous and unpleasant, but driving Abrams through Baghdad and Merkavas through Palestinian shanties is not 'urban warfare' in the same vein as Berlin 1945 or, for what I know of it, Chechnya. This article seems too ready to apply ‘lessons’ from one to the other without acknowledging, or seeing, the differences. The effectiveness of tanks in built-up areas is largely dependent on the ability and armoury of the opposition more than the tanks themselves. I will stick my neck out and suggest that ‘armoured firepower’ is never going to be anything other than useful. The variables are how vulnerable the ‘armour’ is to whatever the enemy has got and how relevant the ‘firepower’ is to the task in hand. These variables will themselves vary depending on what we and the enemy are each trying to do: are we talking internal security actions, where zero casualties is a realistic aim, or old-fashioned all-out war where the objective comes first. We like to think it won’t happen again, but one day the bottom line might be that 100% casualties in tanks (not forgetting the crews) may still be preferred to 50% casualties in infantry for equivalent results; battles have been fought on that basis before (Goodwood). If we have an internal security (IS) situation and we are trying to minimise our own casualties it makes sense to give the 'security force' the best protection possible. That happens to be MBTs. What use they actually are is another matter. As was found with armoured cars in Iraq c. 1920 – if you have to put a man on the street for any reason, you hamstring a fighting vehicle by robbing it of at least one of its fighting crew. So you take infantry and end up with the majority of your potential casualties in lesser-armoured vehicles; at what point is it not worth risking the tanks? There are, of course, other considerations. It’s not unreasonable to expect to have to minimise non-security force casualties as well; better not use that big gun, then. If you’re out to win hearts and minds, rumbling round in an MBT is literally putting something between you and your target audience. From the other side of the hill, live tanks are nice propaganda coup for your average irregular (‘Look! I’m being oppressed!’) Better yet, dead tanks are a newsworthy achievement and dead ‘things’ don’t attract quite the same negative publicity as dead soldiers – people see the wreck, not what’s stuck to the inside. What about what everybody else will think of you? It would have made sense to drive Chieftains around Ulster (or through Hyde Park, for that matter) for protection but, not being everybody’s idea of a war on terror, it would have been media and political suicide to do so; out came the Saracens, Shorlands and Pigs instead. Using MBTs has to be politically, as well as militarily, acceptable. The article doesn’t fare much better with the techno-talk (or possibly I’m just a Luddite): Tanks have blind spots all round, and they are significant at the ranges encountered in street fighting. The dead zones for the guns are even worse – there are potentially many situations where you can’t even traverse the turret because of the length and swept radius of the main gun. Again, dominating a city from the airy isolation of its multi-lane, ring-road is not quite the same as clearing a labyrinth downtown. Tank guns have limited elevation, too, so the bad guys will counter with cunning tactics like going upstairs. Built-up areas scream ‘top-attack’ – the classic ambush in the canyon. Yes, you’d need balls of steel to hang out of a window with an RPG or a demo charge (not sure what the antonym for ‘kosher’ is, but presumably Gammon bombs are that and haram in the Middle East…) but a hit on a turret roof or engine deck is surely going to cause more upset than a hit on the frontal arc? Video technology? Nice, but there’s still only eight eyes* maximum in the typical tank crew irrespective of how many monitors they’ve got. The better the field of view and the smaller the blind spots just means a bigger area to fret about. Let’s add another choice: do you use thermal or visible-spectrum opto-electronics, optical periscopes and episcopes or open the lid and have a quick dekko just to make sure? Information overload beckons. Give commanders too much information and micro-management is a risk. I do concede it will be more manageable in an IS situation than ‘war’. * Earlier comments about the endurance of tanks also have relevance here: though tanks can stay ‘on station’ and be maintained in situ, remember there’s only a four-man crew to ‘fight’ it 24hrs a day. Robots that can be thrown through windows! So they can be chucked out again? I’d like to see a robot negotiate the room I’m typing this in; and I wouldn’t be trying to shoot it! If you’re exposing yourself to do the throwing, why not just start with a grenade or satchel charge and avoid the revisit? (We’re cleared to use 120mm guns, remember.) What happens while our ‘windows’ system boots – everyone huddling expectantly round the monitor? I don’t doubt there will be situations where it works and saves lives, but surely not that often? OK, so I may be a little sceptical of new wonder technologies, but sniper location is in the same vein as long-accepted artillery and mortar locating systems. It certainly seems practical, though perhaps only in low-intensity scenarios and, as ever, a lot will depend on the interface. Even if it’s not 100% accurate, having a definite drill as a response to a response would galvanise and focus the snipees and reduce the paralysis/panic that might otherwise ensue. Let’s slave a turret to it and have an anti-sniper point defence system! Though perhaps with manual firing as a safety feature rather than automatic engagement in our urban IS environment. Or maybe a civvy-friendly visible laser pointer – ‘X’ marks the spot. I do like this one: ‘Even the armor piercing shells from the tanks main gun can be useful in street fighting’. Perhaps if you’re using field telephones and need to lay a line through Fallujah? How many buildings will a DU long-rod penetrator penetrate before it gets bored with boring? (I don’t think there are tank ranges in the UK that can handle modern service APFSDS shoots) Accounts from Arnhem (1944) referred to AP punching three-foot holes right through buildings. These are the accounts of those inside the buildings. A reasonable conclusion is that as long as you’re not actually on the trajectory, incoming shot was far preferable to incoming shell. The shot in question were almost certainly 50/75/88mm full-bore AP (only the British and Canadians had sub-calibre shot (APDS) in any quantity). Extrapolating down, I’d guess that modern sub-calibre penetrators would have much less, er, impact on the structure; but I wait to be corrected. The HE in HEAT would be far more useful but I’d venture that the best nature for urban fighting would be good old HESH (high explosive squash head). A couple of kilogrammes (4kg at 120mm) of plastic explosive applied to a building is going to upset it and its occupants. Admittedly, modern ‘chemical energy’ (CE) natures like HESH and HEAT are designed as tankbusters and pure HE performance is a secondary consideration, but Chieftain was designed around (IIRC) a 60/40 HE/AT mix, underlining the importance of having an HE capability even in the days of the Soviet hordes. When modern-format tanks were in their nappies before WWII, most countries made the considerable effort to get 75mm-ish low- to medium-velocity guns on a proportion of tanks (designing specific vehicles if we consider the PzKpfw IV or bodging horrible compromises. e.g. Char B, early Churchills, Medium M3 Lee/Grant). These were needed for general support tasks because the contemporary AT guns were small calibre and largely confined to firing solid shot. Shells smaller than 75mm were considered to lack HE punch; anything bigger encroached upon the realm of the gunners (artillerymen). There was a happy convergence mid-war when circa-75mm was also the cutting edge AT calibre but as the effective AT calibre continued to increase, the HE capability exceeded what was really necessary. Men, houses, trucks and other soft targets haven’t changed that much since WWII yet modern MBT main guns are comparable to WWII medium artillery. Thus, today, the useful general support calibre is merely half, not twice, the AT calibre. A big bang may not always be best though. Round weight and volume are roughly proportional to calibre cubed; halve the calibre and carry eight times as much ammo or dramatically reduce the under-armour volume and thus the size and weight (airportability’s a goal!) of your tank (or squeeze a couple of less-fashionable infantrymen in!). So where does all my ranting leave us? Well, to me, the Dunnigan article is not doing much more than [re-]stating the bleeding obvious that mutually supporting combined arms are better than either agile, adaptable but soft infantry or big, blind but hard tanks on their own in built-up areas (specifically) or close country (generally). As a sensible lesson, that can’t be restated enough, but here it's undermined a bit. If there is a point to this, maybe it’s that if someone’s decided that future ‘wars’ are going to see a lot of urban pacification on the Iraq model and not very much tank-killing then MBTs are not the ideal solution. While MBTs may be versatile enough to be usable, what you might actually want is something with MBT levels of protection for its crew and a dismountable element (i.e. infantry). Weapon-wise, a restrained armoury of a couple of rifle-calibre machine guns and, playing safe because it’s still a big beast, let’s add a 75mm-ish medium velocity gun with all-round traverse and decent elevation, compact ammo and lots of useful natures. Then we can deal with the occasional bad guy who can shoot, without levelling the neighbourhood and manufacturing more martyrs. Essentially it's a heavy IFV/MICV with something more versatile than a trendy cannon (e.g. Rarden or a chain gun) as main armament. Merkava with a Scorpion-style turret, anyone?

And we've gone back full circle to the Priest/Ram Kangaroos of WWII! Â With all their disadvantages. Is this an infantry 'support' vehicle or an infantry 'carrying' vehicle - it's still rear-engined so access is 'over the top' and it doesn't look like it could carry more than a couple of dismountable troops. Speed isn't a major issue as long as it's no slower than the tanks it's supporting; though that's probably the case with an old hull.

As I type this, your post is sandwiched between 'Mission Editor User Guide' and 'Covering Fire Script' - sometimes it's better to dispense with the targeting computer and use the force! For mission editing at all levels: www.ofpec.com Specifically the Editors' Depot - have a look at the first thread above. Covering fire is not at the novice end of the scripting scale. Basically, the engine's not designed for it so you're writing scripts to try and override the AI. As FX it's fairly feasible but as an interactive, functional thing it's going to be a compromise somewhere. You can certainly place units on flat roof buildings on Nogova in the Editor just by placing the unit over the building on the map. It's not exact because the buildings aren't to scale on the map so you need a bit of trial and error. AI like to wander off the edge as well; you will learn ways to counteract this... Desert buildings suggests addons so it might not be the same - it will depend how they've modelled/configured them. Basically try it. Option 2 is to SetPos the unit just above the roof and it should land where you want without breaking anything. SetPos? you ask! Well my first recommendation is OFPEC Editors' Depot, grab some beginner tutorials. Get a downloadable copy of the Command Reference (can't remember where I got mine from) and just read through it. It will make your brain hurt so don't try to take it all in, just get a feel for the sort of things you can do. The learning curve is quite steep, and I don't think anyone's ever reached the summit yet, but it is an interesting climb.

Well, end1 will end the mission, not set an objective . . . Some other ideas: Trigger 1: East present Countdown 1s On activation: var = Count thisList trigger 2 East present condition: Count thisList < (var - 10) On activation: "1" SetObjStatus "DONE" Check that last one especially - working from memory on a Friday afternoon.

Do AI not target the units in the chute then? Â Can't honestly remember. If not, that would be a worthy fix. Why would anyone want to engage the chute rather than its cargo? My gut feeling is that a few rounds of small arms fire is unlikely to seriously knacker the chute itself - they already have a big vent hole so a few 5.56mm diameter ones shouldn't be an issue. Â But I wait to be corrected . . . My understanding of the Geneva Convention is that it is quite right and proper to engage descending paratroopers - they are, after all, Â combatants on their way to kill you. Â What ought not to be engaged is aircrew who have bailed out of their stricken aircraft - presumably they are not deemed combatant at that point and gives them a chance to give up. In practice, of course, it may be different.