ACF

Try OFPEC for tutorials and I thought this sounded familiar!

It's a pity there's not some consensus over this. One of the reasons I'm wary of addons is that a lot of them have been enhanced (relative to the default configs) so you can't just drop them into a proven mission structure and expect the balance to remain.

Once it's all done and dusted, will the judges forum be published so us also-rans can review the comments on our efforts? Or will such information be made available in some other format if it's a bit contentious in it's raw form? I would imagine there's a lot of valuable information in there on mission execution and player expectations so it would be a pity if it just disappeared.

I'm afraid it's controlled by the ammo config - have a look in the commented cfgWeapons and you will see. Effectively you need an create an addon to change it (or a substitute config file).

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">DeleteVehicle Commander yourvehicle DeleteVehicle Driver yourvehicle DeleteVehicle Gunner yourvehicle DeleteVehicle yourvehicle There's a bit of redundancy in there . . .

This is the bit I was talking about from cfgWeapons.hpp: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">class CfgAmmo { // irrelevant bit deleted class BulletSingle : Default { // irrelevant bit deleted minRange=10;minRangeProbab=0.10; midRange=50;midRangeProbab=0.38; maxRange=200;maxRangeProbab=0.04; // irrelevant bit deleted }; class BulletBurst: BulletSingle { // changed // parametes to make AI decide what mode should be used minRange=0.5;minRangeProbab=0.25; midRange=70;midRangeProbab=0.50; maxRange=250;maxRangeProbab=0.08; // irrelevant bit deleted // we use indirect hit to simulate burst effect class Bullet7_6: BulletSingle // machine gun bullet { airLock=true; hit=8;indirectHit=2;indirectHitRange=0.1; minRange=1;minRangeProbab=0.90; midRange=100;midRangeProbab=0.50; maxRange=450;maxRangeProbab=0.05; cost=4; }; class Bullet12_7: Bullet7_6 // machine gun bullet { hit=13;indirectHit=4;indirectHitRange=0.2; minRange=4;minRangeProbab=0.90; midRange=200;midRangeProbab=0.50; maxRange=500;maxRangeProbab=0.05; cost=6; }; // irrelevant bit deleted So it seems that which mode the AI chooses is defined by the ammo config rather than the weapon. Â I assume they could be redefined for specific weapons, but I haven't tried.

In the ammo configs there are values something like minrange, minrangeprob, midrange, midrangeprob, maxrange and maxrangeprob that define some sort of engagement envelope. If you look for ammo for a weapon that has more than one fire mode, you'll see that there's a different envelope for the different modes. Of course, all the other AI variables will affect whether and how the AI actually fires but it gives you a degree of control.

The article teleports modern media, not military, techniques and technology back to WWII. I’m open to enlightenment on how much technology eased the clearing of Afghan caves or Vietnamese tunnels compared to winkling Japs out of tunnels on Iwo Jima. It’s probably a little OTT to suggest America was fighting for it’s own survival in WWII.  You can even dispute whether it was fighting for a great cause – the cause hadn't been great enough up to that point.  The chances of Japan conquering America were pretty negligible (not much better than those of the Afghans!) - they could have said ‘we take the hint, Japan, you can have the Pacific’.  Unfortunately for the Japanese, the Americans appeared to be enough of a threat to need pre-empting. True, but much less applicable to America than Europe. And don't forget that many sons never had fathers to tell them the stories; nor fathers, sons. And many sons were never fathered.  I digress . . . ?  Didn't the media push the comparison that WTC = Pearl Harbour, Afghanistan = Japan, the national conscience deems the war against Japan as just therefore the war on Afghanistan mut be just too. Also, a fair bit of the dirty work in Afghanistan was left to locals with anti-Taliban tendencies. For America's WWII Pacific campaign to be considered 'very much the same as' Afghanistan, the Yank response to Pearl Harbour would have been to invade China on the basis of 'there are some Japanese there, allegedly; if not, they look a bit like the Japanese.' Pearl Harbour was a military installation attacked by conventional military force.  The WTC wasn't.  Both were a surprise but one was much more ungentlemanly. Pearl Harbour happened halfway through a global war (the Japanese had been at the Chinese for many a year already) and caused America to finally join in instead of selling hot dogs at the game (OK, a little harsh given that they were rather useful overall.)  Point was they had had time to think about things. 11/9 precipitated America’s overnight creation of a 'global war on terror', and expecting  everyone else to be dragged in.  Of course, economic considerations might still be there too . . . Pearl Harbour was an act of a state against a state (many actually: Siam, Malaya, Dutch East Indies, Burma, Philippines etc. were attacked as part of the same overall strategy); 11/9 was individuals against a culture (though they'd dearly love it to escalate to or be interpreted as culture against culture) The perpetrators of Pearl Harbour planned to sail home on big ships on an empty ocean to fight and risk their lives again another day.  The perpetrators of 11/9 planned to kill themselves. Imperial Japan was a state that fitted nicely into the common concept of 'war', so could be punished as such without too much soul-searching.  Terrorists aren't and don't by design.  There is no convenient entity for the terrorised state to hit back at, it's basically individuals who hide amongst people who look the same.  Suicide attacks even deny democracies justice/vengeance/closure by denying them the fodder needed for their legal or military institutions.  Indeed, terrorists will often try to exploit that need for vengeance for their own ends and, whoops, guess who chased round the world for a suitable arse to spank?

Try: _new addeventhandler ["killed",{_this exec "grave.sqs"}] Rationale: "" can work for a code string but maybe {} doesn't work on a string. [_new] is using a local variable tht won't exist outside the respawn script - use the _this as before.

Yes - too much randomisation and the lesson of the TDG can get lost. Â Agree about the absence of player WPs, though. I say lesson because a 'professional' TDG/TEWT/sandtable-exercise/wargame/vignette/whatever will be teaching, testing or trying real tactics and concepts (or it should be if it's seriously intended as a training aid). Â Moving away from those must therefore move the mission closer to unreality. Â The trick is to get or work out the 'school solution' (the vignettes link at the top has these as well as the scenarios IIRC). I'd expect a lot of the discussion for this TDG would be around the likely-enemy's counter-ambush, platoon attack and meeting engagement SOPs/drills etc. Â A competent enemy are likely to respond differently to different tactics that are used against them. Â By whittling away the 'unsafe' ideas you'll supposedly get to the best (in the sense of least suicidal) solution. For me, it's those enemy counter-tactics that can make the biggest difference between less-realistic missions and more-realistic ones. Â As for Flashpointing this TDG, as a taster, I'd expect the enemy to react very differently depending on the range at which they are engaged. Â This would be harder to achieve than 'simple' reinforcement randomisation, but isn't impossible (sometimes I wish it was simply impossible - then I wouldn't have to worry about it as much!) Looking at it another way: list what is done in the school solution, give the player the option to do those things, apply realistic penalties if he doesn't. Â e.g. if he doesn't send a contact report, why not lower the skill of 2nd and 3rd squads so the enemy could get to the LZ and he has to fight better to win? Of course, this TDG as it stands is probably only a 5-10 minute game once you've cracked it. Â Extending the scope of the mission is one fix, but the original scenario could get lost within it. Â Instead, varied and randomised realistic enemy responses may not lengthen the mission but could improve replayability and encourage experimentation to find other valid solutions. Â How much of a market is there for short, sharp standalone missions? Â Would players go back to them to see if they can beat it better another way? Reverting to the other aspect of the thread, relevant resources for this would be examples of Warsaw Pact counter-ambush and platoon attack tactics for inspiration. Any offers? The best resource, I suppose, is imagination - play the TDG from both sides in your head as many ways as you can to get a feel for what could happen and the consequences.

Q1: Â What's FDFMod got that isn't anywhere else? Â What makes it the only example of realism? What 'things' are we to base our realism on? OK, so that's three questions . . . AI have an adequate basic reactive intelligence 'out of the box'. Â I don't know why some people seem to think you should be able to drop SoldierE on an island and he'll display the skills of whoever-they-believe-to-be-the-best-tactical-and-strategic-genius-ever (not going to start an argument there!). Â But I suggest that AI will only be as intelligent as the mission designer can (or can be bothered to) make them . . . In real life, if you sit on a reverse slope with enough ammunition it's not impossible you could defeat an army if it comes over the crest one at a time (aka defeat in detail). Â But a real army is unlikely to give you that opportunity - it isn't realistic as a tactic or as an expectation of the poor squaddies. I suspect if the 1000 came over in one go (not much more elegant, but much less unrealistic) it would be a slightly different outcome. OK, now apply that most basic realistic tactical concept of fire and movement: 500 swarm over the hill, get down and start shooting at you, then their 500 mates come over and kept coming; well, pop quiz: whatcha gonna do? Clue: rhymes with 'dye'. Point is, a couple of semi-intelligent waypoints per group and the mission ceases to be fun because you're going to spend a lot of time dying; survival becomes a matter of luck, not skill. Â My (limited) experience is that you actually need to build in a bit of unreality to give you a reasonable chance of surviving a 'realistic' mission. Again, it's an unsubstantiated opinion, but I 'feel' that there are a lot of designers who spend far more time tittivating friendly forces rather than the enemy, but it's the enemy that make the game. At the risk of flogging the dead horse, my belief is that a mission maker trying to implement the TDG that started all this shouldn't be thinking about the best tactic the player could use against the enemy. Â He's far better off wondering how the enemy would best react to the various things the friendlies might do and spend time programming an approximation to those reactions. Â Then just drop in the player with his 11 mates, sit back and see what happens . . . (I'd love to put my money where my mouth is, but other things to finish first . . .)

Not really. There aren’t any shortcuts if that’s what you need. On the plus side, as OFP scripting goes it’s not particularly hard. It’s AddAction in action: an action’s been added to the player (presumably a by a trigger around the tent) which, when actioned, executes the script defined in the AddAction command.  I imagine the script either sets a variable and/or an objective that symbolises “Yay, I’ve got the dataâ€. Resist inaction, your next action should be to check the Command Reference first, then Sanctuary’s link for the real detail.  Probably a lot less confusing than this . . .

The presence/absence of a resistance unit is a condition in both triggers but doesn’t seem to relate to what you say you want to do, so I’ve stripped it (the ‘this’ in Condition) out: 1) Activation: None; Type: Loose; Condition: !Alive officername Should go to the loose ending.  I’d add a Countdown/Timeout delay in to make it a little less harsh. 2) Activation: None; Type: Switch; Condition: Count Group officername == 1 The trigger will activate when there’s only one bloke left in the group; if the mission doesn’t end it must be the officer who’s left (lazy logic).  ‘Switch’ allows you to skip WPs so synch the trigger to the WP before the one you want the officer to flee to. If you just want him to run to his next WP (as you say), forget the ‘Switch’ and add to the trigger: On Activation: officername SetUnitPos “UPâ€; officername SetSpeedMode “FULLâ€; officername SetCombatMode “BLUEâ€; officername SetBehaviour “AWARE†You may need to play around with these values to get the effect you want, or the closest approximation . . .

Korax's way is the easiest way to handle the dead. Regarding the grave placement, if you can put up with a line that goes N-S or E-W it's not too tricky: Get the coordinates of your starting point (e.g. _gravepos) by whatever means you prefer. Create GLOBAL variables, say: gravex = _gravepos Select 0 gravey = _gravepos Select 0 Your cemetery script becomes: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> _man = _this select 0 ; shift next grave 1m East gravex = gravex + 1 ; or shift next grave 1m West ; gravex = gravex - 1 ; or shift next grave 1m North ; gravey = gravey + 1 ; or shift next grave 1m South ; gravey = gravey - 1 ~10 _grave = "Grave" CamCreate [gravex,gravey,0] _grave Setdir whateveranglelooksright deletevehicle _man exit Because gravex and gravey are global, each execution of the script should produce a unique position.  The lines can be run at other angles with a bit of trig.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> Â Â tracks[] = {"Soad"}; Any better?

Easy trap this one: Units grpsecond is already an array of units, [units grpsecond] is an array in with one element that is an array of units. That's what's giving rise to the error. Whatever, just use: Units grpsecond Join grpfirst Or to be really, really safe, force the Units command to run first: (Units grpsecond) Join grpfirst

Don't think you can change the time display to anything other than the mission start time (before it's skiptimed). However, you can: OnLoadMissionTime = false In the desc.ext file and that should hide it.

Well, the concept of trying to impose rules on war has an inherent craziness. But no - you're not supposed to purposely fire on things or people displaying the Red Cross be they medics, doctors, stretcher bearers or local nuns. If they're medics and not displaying the RC then that's a choice they've made with knowledge of the consequences. Can't help thinking what the legal implications of displaying a red cross are in these days of trademarking and the like - "nuns sued for illegally displaying red crosses while helping wounded". I think it's part, if not all, of the reason pharmacies and first aid things now sport the green cross. Anyway, OFP medics carry rifles and wear a white cross on a red field so technically are fair game - unless of course they're Swiss and deemed neutral . . . Unless someone's going to quote chunks of the Geneva Convention to nail it for good shall we put this one aside?

Central heating installation - but still finding time to tinker with 'Eye of the Storm'. I hope it will satisfy SPs who like sniping, loads of Russians and conventional warfare; though it may not be an overly-long mission. It's definitely a change of atmosphere from my last (and first): 'A Touch of Frost'. EotS will use nearly no addons. The scale of the action presents a lag danger, but it's OK so far on my machine and that's not exactly cutting-edge. Simple info-bearing intro and probably no outros. There will be a briefing, of course, but it will be appropriate to the character so they player has to think a little. There will be a couple of levels of success so you can complete the mission or complete it well; I don't want it to be just a survival exercise. Current status is: the basic mission is plotted, reinforcements are WPd but need to be merged in and objectives/endings finalised. There are also the intro and briefing to polish. There is an intention to use essentially the same structure for a second SP mission with the player on the other side. The bad news is: no promises when it's coming out - rather a lot on my plate at the moment.

Maybe - but I doubt the RLC would find it against that description! But I confess I don't know what its actual ordnance designation is. Recent developments have passed me by a bit but Soldier '95 was the whole personal clothing system and DPM is just the cam. Seems we went in for the Americanised (or should that be Americanized) with LAW80, SA80 etc. How long before we go the whole hog with Challenger 2010 SP2? Assuming we don't just buy Abrams . . .

A quick bit of digging suggests the US Army have doone something like this: <193? Models defined by years 193?-194? (end of WWII-ish) sequentially from M1 194?-late 80s - seem to be year based Then started with the sequential numbers again So for 'squad' automatics we could consider: M1918 & M1922 BAR M1919A6 .30 cal M60 GPMG Test models used to be T (at least for tanks) then became XM for experimental models. However, the basic rule seems to be that there isn't one! 'Marks' are more of a British and Commonwealth thing, but again the system has changed often and inconsistently - you could have a Tank, Cruiser, Mark VI, Crusader MkI, MkICS, MkII, MkIICS or MkIII! Webbing was always Pattern 1908/1937/1944/1958 until we sold out to acronyms with PLCE. You get the gist . . . The key to it all is the ordnance classification/categorisation of the kit. As an example, rifles and carbines are different beasts so you can have an Rifle M1 (Garand) and a Carbine M1, ditto the Medium Tank M60 and a Machine Gun M60.

My mind had nothing to do this lunchtime so I've let it out for a ramble . . . psychiatrists, look away now: Recognise what you can do easily in OFP and what OFP will never do, then go with the former, not against the latter. As the military would say: reinforce success, not failure. Use scripting and functional addons to reduce the gap between the extremes. An example: if I want to watch a Blackhawk go down, I'll get the DVD out. If I want to be a Delta operative clearing buildings, I'll find some game that does that. But if I want to experience fire and movement in built-up areas against hostile forces that's a job for OFP. Use anything as inspiration but don't get too tied to it. History may need spicing up, nationalities can be swapped. Replace Agincourt's French knights, English archers and wooden stakes for Russian motor rifle units, US artillery and minefields and see where that gets you. OFP is a tactical simulator - find examples of real small unit tactics and engagements; not easy but far from impossible. At any cost get and read 'Dragons at War' by D Bolger (now there's an OFP2 campaign idea for you). Look at 'low-intensity', 'counter-insurgency' and 'peacekeeping' operations (e.g. Malayan Emergency, Confrontation; I've even found the operational report for Limbang on line!!) - small engagements are seen as significant and usually better recorded. Find section, platoon or company tactics manuals. Use old ones and anyones - bread and butter fire and movement tactics don't change that much. Learn what should be done, what shouldn't be done and what has been done. At this stage, the briefing will have almost written itself as you'll know what you want the player to do and what not. The backstory is just that - background. Expend effort on the mission; just enough story to make it make sense. Too much too-good storytelling and the mission may not live up to it. Ground can work for you or against you, whether you want it to or not. Terrain and tactics are related; look around. Spend at least as much time designing for the enemy as you do the friendlies; they are the challenge and you spend far more time watching them. Do not rely on AI reactions for everything - they need a mission too. Get the enemy to use the right counter-tactics to your tactics and find ways to penalise the player when he does something he shouldn't. If you think AI act weirdly, remember HI will be worse. Find ways to 'encourage' players to not 'cheat' your carefully-crafted mission (and then claiming it was all too easy or some critical event wasn't triggered or they never saw your arty (either sense) effects etc). You know how you want your mission to play out - they don't, so will benefit from some guidance. Balancing difficulty is hard. If you set the mission up so that AI will fight AI it can beta test itself while you roam around as SetCaptive true or as a civvie to see what happens. Weight it so your side doesn't win, then the player has to make the difference; which is what we want from the game. Finalise the briefing - make sure it's consistent with the objectives, the action and the 'boundaries' of the mission. Leave voice work until last - the script will change and it's a pain to record new stuff and make it sound like the old. Manage the expectations of players to suit yourself. Stick your reasons for doing and not doing things in the readme and chop the unconstructive-critcs' legs out from under them. Make a feature of 'big addons' or 'no intro/outro' or whatever. Don't suggest your mission is 'good' because that becomes a challenge to some to prove you wrong. Several projects in development are a good idea as you can take a break and tinker with something else, then come back to it with fresh eyes and ideas. It also stops you putting all your good ideas in one never-finished mission. At the end of the day, build a mission you would like to play; then one day, when you've forgotten the pain and frustration of making it, you just might! Apologies if it was a bit dark in here.

The crux isn't medics and guns, it's guns and the Red Cross (or Crescent or whatever; but I will refer only to the Red Cross). The Red Cross is there for protection and it is considered unsporting and very naughty to hide behind it while shooting people. Medics are allowed to carry arms for the defence of the wounded. If they want to actively engage the enemy when they have nothing better to do then they shouldn't be wearing a Red Cross; they'd be no better than non-medics hiding behind it.

Have you tried bimbling round the outside of a building with a group and ordering one of them into the suspect parts of the building - the move cursor will pick up any indices? If memory serves, the displayed index is one more than the BuildingPos index.

Don't know the background to the above, but can't resist pointing out the obvious that if we can't re-invent history we'll have even less missions to play!