james mckenzie-smith

To get the icons in a particular order, the easiest way is just to assign them each a different rank. They will appear from the highest rank, to the lowest. If more than one unit shares a rank, the most recently placed will tend to be more to the right, while the ones placed first will tend to be more to the left. This should work if you choose to have the soldiers all the same rank. Arrange the soldiers accordingly, and then, to have the player be a group leader at position three: 1. select 'control -> Player' on the third unit's Edit Unit menu. 2. Create a trigger, x20000 y20000, Blufor repeatedly present, on Act. should read "group player selectLeader player", not including the quotation marks. That's it! As an option, you can put the trigger down with this in the on Act.: group player selectLeader player; onTeamSwitch {group player selectLeader player} That way, if you team switch, you will remain group leader! Note that, if you start the scenario in the normal group leader position with the option to teamswitch, you only need a trigger with this... onTeamSwitch {group player selectLeader player} ...in the on Act.

Now that you have found your answer, would it be possible to share it with the rest of us? I am not able to find the answer myself, and I would be happy to learn what you have found out! :)

Hello All, I have a small problem. I have successfully made some pretty detailed HC menus, but I am in the process of trying to simplify things, by allowing the player to use the F1-F12 keys to select an HC group (or more than one group), and then use a custom communications menu to execute commands. Now, I know that, to do this within a player's squad, you can use something like this... {_x stop true} foreach groupselectedunits player ...and it stops 'em dead. Problem is, it does not work at all in HC. Selecting an HC unit using the F1-F12 keys (or by any other method) and doing this results in nothing much at all happening. I have tried: _array = hcSelected player; _array stop true and onHCGroupSelectionChanged, _x stop true and other hc commands, but cannot figure it out. Any assistance would be considered a great favour, and worthy of much praise!

F2k Sel, stand by to be worshipped AS A LIVING GOD. Thanks a trillion! :)

Thanks for the assistance. Unfortunately, I use triggers and nothing else for my missions, and I imagine that that PHP code goes into a .qf file. In a trigger, it generates an error saying something like 'local variable in global space'. I will have to keep looking for a solution. It's one of the last little pieces to the high command puzzle...

Idle speculations. According to the game's official web site, the largest map is located in Poland. Given that the setting is the summer of 1944, and the position of the shadow on the flying Stuka (indicating early afternoon in summer, with the Stukas heading generally NE) and the historical dispositions at the time, I'm going to hazard a guess that the body of water we see below is the Vistula, near Magnuszew south of Warsaw, and the scenario involves the 8th Guards Army (formerly the 62nd Army of Stalingrad fame).

That's it, although when I get the chance - after Christmas, methinks - I want to get the newer Combined Arms Battalion out, which has numerous improvements, including combat engineering functions (well, minefield breaching, anyway). If Iron Front: Liberation 1944 retains high command functions - and I really hope that it will - then I will probably start doing this for Wehrmacht and Red Army formations as well.

http://esimgames.com/purchase.htm A new license for SB Pro PE v2.640 costs $100. The $25 upgrade is for owners of previous versions.

My 'pter decided that it hated ArmA2, and corrupted. I need to find the time to reinstall, etc. etc., and right now that's not priority one. It will happen, but with Christmas on the way, it will take a few weeks before I find more than a couple of hours to rub together. Wait a while, it will happen. Plus, I have a few alterations to make anyhow.

As a very small number of you may know, I am in to the whole 'High Command' feature of ArmA2/OA, and have long been displeased with certain of its well-known limitations. However, I have overcome two of these; namely, getting infantry units to board transports that are not in their own group, and also in making units wait until I tell them to proceed on their waypoints. Both of these have radically increased my enjoyment of HC, and now I am looking at other features to add. The one that is stumping me so far is mine clearance, when nested within a sub menu of a custom communications menu. Desired behaviour is a unit or units will perform several mine clearing animations over time, so that as they move, they can sweep a lane clear for other units. While the following works well, when merely in a radio trigger... 0=[] spawn {E220A action ["deactivateMine", E220A]; E220B action ["deactivateMine", E220B]; sleep 5; E220A action ["deactivateMine", E220A]; E220B action ["deactivateMine", E220B]; sleep 5 ...etc. so that twenty deactivateMine actions appear ... ];} ...it rather falls apart when in this structure: [] call BIS_fnc_commsMenuCreate; MOUNT_SUBMENU = [ ["",false], ["ACo 3Pn 1Sq BOARD", [2], "", -5, [["expression", "[AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG] orderGetIn true"]], "1", "1"], ["ACo 3Pn 2Sq BOARD", [3], "", -5, [["expression", "[bB, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG] orderGetIn true"]], "1", "1"], ["ACo 3Pn 1Sq DISMOUNT", [4], "", -5, [["expression", "[AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG] orderGetIn false"]], "1", "1"], ["ACo 3Pn 2Sq DISMOUNT", [5], "", -5, [["expression", "[bB, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG] orderGetIn false"]], "1", "1"] ]; BREACH_SUBMENU = [ ["",false], ["ACo 2Pn 1Sq BREACH MINEFIELD", [2], "", -5, [["expression", "0=[] spawn {E120A action ["deactivateMine", 1220A]; E120B action ["deactivateMine", E120B]; sleep 5; E120A action ["deactivateMine", 1220A]; E120B action ["deactivateMine", E120B];}"]], "1", "1"], ["ACo 2Pn 2Sq BREACH MINEFIELD", [2], "", -5, [["expression", "0=[] spawn {E220A action ["deactivateMine", E220A]; E220B action ["deactivateMine", E220B]; sleep 5; E220A action ["deactivateMine", E220A]; E220B action ["deactivateMine", E220B];}"]], "1", "1"] ]; COMMAND_MAINMENU = [ ["MOUNT/DISMOUNT", [2], "#USER:MOUNT_SUBMENU", -5, [["expression", "player sidechat ""this is TEST1 (submenu)"" "]], "1", "1"], ["BREACH MINES", [3], "#USER:BREACH_SUBMENU", -5, [["expression", "player sidechat ""this is TEST2 (submenu)"" "]], "1", "1"] ]; [bIS_MENU_GroupCommunication, ["COMMAND MENU",[0],"#USER:COMMAND_MAINMENU",-5,[["expression",""]],"1","1"]] call BIS_fnc_arrayPush; The menu appears correctly, all non-breach minefield commands work as planned, and the option to breach appears. However, where they cleared mines like men possessed in the radio trigger version, for the custom communications menu, they opt to just stand there. Can anyone see where I am going wrong? I'm a little stumped for now...

This is incorrect. I have several scenarios that call for precisely this, and it works perfectly. A soldier called ABC, with a condition of presence of 50%, will dictate whether or not any soldier with an "alive ABC" in it's condition of presence field will be there. This includes any and all units in any and all groups with this in their condition of presence field, even enemy units! Here's another trick for the OP. If one wants a 50% chance of either one group appearing or another, then give the first group's leader, who we will call "ABC", a 50% chance of appearing, and put the "alive ABC" thing in all of it's group member's condition of presence field (the group leaders' remains "true"). Then, in the other group, put "if (alive ABC) then { deleteVehicle this };" in the initialization field of every member of the group. Give the next group a chance of not appearing as well, and you can have a whole chain of possible units appearing or not. Of course, one can also fiddle with the probability of presence fields within all of the groups, thus ensuring a wide variety of possible units in a scenario. It is a great way to ensure variety and unpredictable scenarios for the determined single player gaming aficionado!

Greetings, all. I wish to make a trigger using the function 'stop'. Currently I use this in the On Act: unitname stop true That works perfectly, but also requires lots of effort when creating a battalion-strength HC mission! I would prefer it if the player could just select an HC group using the usual F2, F3 etc. keys and then activating the trigger! This must be possible, as the HC functions that were built by BIS pretty much require it to work at all. I would appreciate any assistance. I am no great hand at this sort of thing, and I am stumped, and have been so since last February! P.S. Last Feb., Shuko very kindly provided... {_x stop true} foreach groupselectedunits player ...which does not do the trick, alas.

Thanks for the input, gents. I will try these out.

It's really a question of time. I am doing it! I will try to put at least a small sample scenario up this weekend, with all of the HC functions that I use.

I looked at your test mission. Perfect! Good work.

This is incredibly useful. It also works in a trigger. Thanks a million!

Zwobot is quite correct! Amateur error on my part. Thanks for noticing, Zwobot.

This should actually be quite easy to accomplish. 1. For each vehicle, place an empty version of each vehicle down, and give it a logical name (for example, T110 for the command vehicle of the first platoon, first company). 2. Then, place crew on the ground where you want them. Name each crewmember in a logical manner (such as T110D for the driver, T110G for the gunner, and T110C for the commander). In each individual unit's init line, type... this assignasDriver T110 for the driver of vehicle T110, this assignasGunner T110 for the gunner of vehicle T110, and this assignasCommander T110 for the commander of vehicle T110. ...where T110 is the name of the assigned individual vehicle, as previously mentioned. 3. Then, make your board vehicle trigger. How you want it activated is down to you. In the On Act field of the trigger, have the following: [T110D, T110G, T110C] orderGetIn true This will cause the three crewmembers to board their tank! This can be extended for as many vehicles as you like. Something that looks like this... [T110D, T110G, T110C, T111D, T111G, T111C, T112D, T112G, T112C, T120D, T120G, T120C, T121D, T121G, T121C, T122D, T122G, T122C, T130D, T130G, T130C, T131D, T131G, T131C, T132D, T132G, T132C, T100D, T100G, T100C] orderGetIn true ...would be what is required for the crewmen of a Russian style tank company to board their vehicles.

Okay, I'll do this. I will upload the most recent version, which is a US Army Combined Arms Battalion (70+ AFVs, 450+ men!!!). There are some changes to the readme that I have to do, among other things, as certain features have been improved. Please bear with me for a few days; I have a real life that gets in the way, constantly! I'm sure that you can all relate. Anyway, I'll try to have it done by Sunday. I will also try to include the older, slightly leaner US Army Armored Bn, and, if I have time, a company combat team organization or two for slightly smaller scenarios (and less powerful PCs!).

Gents, I get this to an extent. Only trouble is, the replacement leader's group (in my case) seems to be the only unit under HC control after the trigger is triggered. Any ideas as to how to correct this?

The realism of this game, along with any computer wargame or conflict simulator, is dependent to a great degree on the players playing it. SOCOM 2 on the PS2, when played by a player in a realistic fashion, is a more realistic simulation than ArmA2 is if ArmA2 is being played by a total dickhead running around fraggin' his team mates and teabagging corpses. This applies for both SP and MP players. Scenario design also has a huge amount to do with realism. Realistic scenarios, played in a more or less realistic fashion by people using vanilla ArmA2, will be more realistic than a game of capture the flag played by people playing for a laugh, even if using any mod that supposedly increases the reality of the stock product. ArmA2 offers a better framework than almost any other game for a player to shape game play experiences to suit his or her tastes with regards to realism. Sure, there are some aspects that are intrinsically more realistic than others, but it is really up to we the players to make ArmA2 realistic or not, or at least as close as the game can get to realism, given it's limitations and advantages. Anyway, I cannot give a number, as requested by the original poster, as I really cannot quantify something so abstract.

Thanks for that, I will have a look as soon as I can spare a few minutes!

Have you found a method for team switching within HC that allows one to regain control of a unit, after it has been involved in a team-switch by the player? If so, could you give us a clue as to how you managed it? The issue has been plaguing some of us for quite a while!

Here are my out-of-my-arse idle speculations, based on the evidence so far, and previously shelved BIS plans for Game 2: The overall strategic background scenario is for an invasion of Europe in 2020 by Chinese forces (see the map from the first hack attack). This is the fifth phase of a larger operation, the previous four of which were designed to get Chinese forces to Iran. These previous phases were probably political and logistical challenges involving little fighting, merely involving the tearing of various -istans from the Western orbit, and transporting massive numbers of PLA units by rail into Iran. Iran is the jumping off point of much of the operation. The Chinese attack Lemnos as part of the larger invasion; using it as a base, they can prevent NATO attempts to attack their main overland supply line at it's narrowest choke point, over the Bosphorus. Due to strong PLA forces in the region and on the island, and as a way to keep the Chinese unaware of their plans until too late, NATO opts to engage in unconventional warfare on Lemnos. A significant insurgency on the island could make air operations for PLA units based on Lemnos next to impossible, erasing one threat to a more direct attack by NATO on the Bosphorus. The island could also serve as a good base for an attack on the Bosphorus, and also as a point to launch strikes against the Chinese rear. This unconventional operation involves Captain Miller and his team, inserted by the HMS Astute. Follow-on NATO forces would no doubt be a force that has an interesting array of men, armour, and air units. Playing as Miller, the player will have more control over the unconventional warfare campaign than in any previous BIS game, with a more or less real-time, dynamic campaign, as first proposed for Game 2. Island will be about 450 km square, or 20-22 km wide. This might be ArmA3; then again, it might be a heavily optimised and modified ArmA2 standalone module. I would guess the latter. I would also guess that this invasion of Europe marks a scenario that could be further exploited for more modules in the future, as this is a big event in the Armaverse; 'The world will change', or so the map said. I must add that I don't find such an invasion scenario to be particularly plausible, but as a military scenario for a game of ArmA's type, it would make for some compelling virtual battlefields.

If he joined the Royal Marines out of school at 18, completed the Royal Marines officer's training course in fifteen and a bit months... http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/royalmarines/training-fitness/royal-marines-officer-training-course/index.htm ...and then joined the SBS after two years of service, or more likely, two years as troop commander in a Commando... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Boat_Service#Recruitment.2C_selection_and_training ....and assuming he's pretty clever and all that sort of thing, and makes Captain within five years of completing his initial training and three years SBS service (inclusive), plus any additional training for X Squadron - and who knows how long that is?! - that gives us about 25 years. 1992 + 25 = 2017 at the earliest.