Bart.Jan

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Nov. 22 2002,19:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bart.Jan @ Nov. 22 2002,18:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Same way you can tell that goverment doesn't need black policemen/policewomen because there is lot of white candidates. Women are citizens same way as men are. Because they are females they have no RIGHT to defend country as males ?<span id='postcolor'> No one has the "right" to be a policeman, or a soldier. The rule of thumb, as you alluded to, is that if you qualify according to the standards established by the organization, you may be considered. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bart.Jan @ Nov. 22 2002,18:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are some requirements for various branches. If someone doesn't meets them he must go out. There are some people responsible for setting requirements. But is it some sort of defect to be female ?<span id='postcolor'> It's not a question of whether females are defective, it's a question of whether there is a need for them in combat arms. (1) There is no need, and (2) their presence would create more problems than it would solve. The military is not the place to conduct social experiments. As an extreme example, would someone in a wheelchair have the "right" to have an infantry table of organization changed so that he could join? edit: sloppy quoting Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'> To have right to be policemen or soldier I mean you can try to do it. If you met all requirements (no problems with law, good physical and mental condition ...) you can be choosen, of course. But there shoud be same criterias for men and women. Not to exclude cadet because she is woman. In past women had no soul, they had no right to vote, they were excluded from official political life etc. Nowdays they can vote and they can be politician. They do not have to, they can = they have "right". Wheelchar person doesn't met requirements for physical condition. But sex should not be some sort of condition or requirement. (1)I think there is need for good soldiers and women can be good soldiers too. What's wrong with healthy women who can do her job  with same quality as man can do ? (2)There can (and will) be some problems with including women into troops, but all problems can (and must) be solved. That some men can not stand women as equivalent colleague is not excuse for not allowing them to be their colleague. Women are human being too and they shoud not be punished because they are females.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Nov. 22 2002,18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> It's because the USMC doesn't NEED them in combat arms. Women in combat units is the solution to a non-existent problem. We have a similar situation with our aviators. Some of the services allow pilots to have corrected vision. We don't. Is it discriminatory? Heck no. It's just that we have an ample supply of officers with 20/20, so we don't have to relax standards.<span id='postcolor'> Same way you can tell that goverment doesn't need black policemen/policewomen because there is lot of white candidates. Women are citizens same way as men are. Because they are females they have no RIGHT to defend country as males ? There are some requirements for various branches. If someone doesn't meets them he must go out. There are some people responsible for setting requirements. But is it some sort of defect to be female ?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Nov. 22 2002,15:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">C&H : Capture and Hold A&D: Attack and defend Yeah shadow same here.<span id='postcolor'> No, shadow no . That I didn't knew some abbreviations doesn't mean I know too little about mission editing as Balschoiw ! Â Â j/k But I have little experience wit MP mission editing. I have almost no oportunity for proper testing. Â

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (BaronVonRed @ Nov. 22 2002,14:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Real life isn't like QII/QIII or Unreal Tournament -in real life, Â women in combat are a liability.<span id='postcolor'> I'm not talking about games. Untrained, badly trained or coward soldier in combat is liability. And it doesn't matter if that soldier is man or woman. I can not realy understand why you think that trained woman is always worse than trained man. If you got 10 trained men soldiers you can find the best and the worst one. If you replace several of them by trained woman soldiers you can also find the best and the worst one with similiar results comparet to all-men squad. Same training gives you similar results despite of sex. I'm not saying that armed forces are ready to efectively fight with women in their troops nowdays. But if there will be will to let women choose their occupation there will be more people to study how to solve possible problems, and at the end mixed troops will work on same (or better) efficiency as all-men troops works. But it will be hard and long work with "superior alpha" males in high politic and military posts. I, personally, know several female soldiers and I think only few of them can be a good for combat. But also several of them are better then several male soldiers I know. There are even males that are not capable to be good combatants.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MesserJockel @ Nov. 22 2002,13:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...or perhaps the germans (im german btw)... we didnt look too good in mohaa, rtcw and bf1942... strange that noone complained about that... j/k<span id='postcolor'> Yes, and then I'll complain about SOF2, where Prague is full of russian speaking soldiers(?). Â

I know what means COOP and CTF, but what means C&H and A&D ?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (BaronVonRed @ Nov. 22 2002,12:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Women are women, and men are men. They are NOT equal in physical or mental abilities, they are DIFFERENT. They both have their strengths and weaknesses as humans. No man can do EVERYTHING better than a woman can do, and no woman can do EVERYTHING better than a man can do. That's the way it is throughout nature, and that's the way it was intended. Cry about it, argue about it, then deal with it.<span id='postcolor'> No man/woman can do EVERYTHING better then another man/woman can do - generally. But it's all about individual persons, not about men and women generally. You can not deny something for someone only because he/she is part of group that has some generally unacceptable attributes. (racism, nazism, sexism) Woman are generally physically weaker that men are, but you think it shoud be reason to do not let that woman (from picture above) to be machinegunner ? (if she mets other needed criteria)

Ancient games download site : www.the-underdogs.org

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (BratZ @ Nov. 22 2002,09:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Someone needs to be left at home,to raise family and etc.. and to have people at home and for the freedom that you may be fighting for.<span id='postcolor'> In family where mother is soldier and father is not it make sence to let mother fight, don't you think ? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think war and death by that type is a man made thing and we shouldn't involve women into our nasty habits.<span id='postcolor'> Maybe with more women in higher political posts there will be less war conflicts. Less disdainful and vengeance thinking politicians - the better. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A good looking woman would distract me in the field,I would always be thinking about sex (of course this is a personal problem,and is something soldiers would will have to work on)<span id='postcolor'> It can be advantage for woman. Enemy may be in two minds to shoot female soldier and it can be his last mistake. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think we should stick with jobs that match our genetic makeup <span id='postcolor'> I think we shoud stick with jobs that match our dispositions. Why to hinder woman in doing job that she can do with same quality as man ?

Women are same country citizens as men are. So they should have same right to defend their country and every branch of armed forces shoud be opened for them. But they shoud serve under the same conditions as men (including physical). Withou exeptions. And for BaronVonRed : I think that well documented, scientific F A C T is that men have higher physical disposition that women. No that women are physically inferior to men. Women have higher pain-limit that men on the other side. In time of guns you do not need olympic-athlete Arnold  soldiers but soldiers that match some physical standart. And with proper hand-to-hand fight training (e.g. musado) less powerfull and smaller fighter can defeat taller and stronger one, despite of sex. You are sexist.

I think it can be done by executing one-line script after destroying radio tower : </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> ?(side player==east): showmap false <span id='postcolor'> From official scripting reference : player Type of returned value: Â Â Object Description: Â Â person controled by player. In MP this value is different on each computer. But I have no oportunity to test if showmap false disables map only for local player or for all units in game.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Nov. 20 2002,00:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyone knows a program to check win98se for errors? I use scanreg.exe /fix, regclean and the jv tools, but my pc still freezes very often.<span id='postcolor'> I'm using Norton Systemworks, but it's not freeware/shareware.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DV Chris Death @ Nov. 19 2002,18:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here's an example, that should do your job: wp1 - move wp2 - move - syncronized with a trigger wp3 - move wp4 - move OK, the unit will start moving to waypoint 1, and wait there, until the trigger becomes activated. Once the trigger is activated, the unit will move to wp3, and then to wp4.<span id='postcolor'> Little mistake : When trigger is synchronized with second wp then unit will go through 1st wp and will wait near 2nd one.

From official and Unofficial scripting reference and (of course) from scripts made by other  people.

And you don't have to use script for this. It can be done by one trigger : axis : 0,0 activated : repeatly condition : player distance civilianName > 10 on activation : civilianName move getpos player

You can use "distance" command. Here is my version : calling : [target,tail] exec "follow.sqs" </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> _trgt=_this select 0 _tail=_this select 1 #check ?(_trgt distance _tail)>10:_tail move getpos _trgt ~1 goto "check" <span id='postcolor'> For your situation target will be player and tail will be civilian. calling : [player,civilanName] exec "follow.sqs"

make two move waypoints for another unit first move wp place near starting position of another unit then synchronize detection trigger with first waypoint

You are looking for something like this ?

You can try trigger/script that checks behaviour of unit. Noramaly unit has "aware" behaviour but if it knows about enemy then behaviour changes to "combat". One problem is that it works only with non-playable unit because if player go prone his behaviour changes to combat too. condition : behaviour unit == "combat"

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (thelatinman @ Oct. 15 2002,18:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">having a AI group defend a fixed position without running back and forth like chickens and (often) being shot in their back.<span id='postcolor'> Did you try Hold Position wp ?

Try : </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> ; Script name : scudlaunch.sqs ; Prepare it scudstud action ["SCUD Launch"] ; Wait 15 seconds ~15 ?!(alive scudstud):exit ; Launch it scudstud action ["SCUD Start"] ; wait 1 second ~1 ?!(alive scudstud):exit forceEnd exit<span id='postcolor'>

use only : </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">forceEnd<span id='postcolor'> If it'll not work use : </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">forceLoose=1<span id='postcolor'> and make loose trigger on map with condition : </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">forceLoose==1<span id='postcolor'>

Why is in script this line ? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">[_Vehicle, _Launcher, _FireCenter] exec "napalm.sqs"<span id='postcolor'> I think it makes infinite execution of napalm.sqs script.

and then you can name group by : </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">groupName = group unit4<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 14 2002,09:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Why that hateful attitude towards officers? Did some officer pee in your corn flakes? The funny thing is that I have several Finnish friends who have served in your military and they have about the same opinion as you. Makes you think how good state the Finnish military is in. A military where the men don't trust their officers can't be in good health.<span id='postcolor'> I agree. I know several absolutely non-competent officers. They are much more clerks than soldiers. Several times I think that I should personaly shoot them during figt so they can not bring destruction to whole group. (I was at several field exercises with them) On the other side I know (very few ) officers that can be followed and trusted without doubts. It's because there are lot of old officers in CZ Armed Forces, that are spoiled by previous communistic regime and there are lots of officers generally. But they are leaving step by step and they are replaced by new younger officers and warrent officers with different attitude towards military-life. Thanks to reform of CZ Armed Forces. I'm talking about regular not the elite troops. Men of elite troops are selected very carefully.