N'kEnNy

<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>Question: Scripting Aspects of the Command Interface</span> What is it that determines what number a unit is assigned to? Is this  Closeness to commander?  Type? Pre-scripted? Rank? or Random? Say I command a 6 man team consisting of 2xMGs, an AT soldier, Grenadier and two regular riflemen. How would these be assigned numbers?  F1-F12 <span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>Follow up 1:  Improved interace</span> The follow up question is whether or not it is possible to somehow script/reorder this sequence? I find the F1 through F4 buttons easier to reach while sitting in a dark room engaged in a quickly evolving situation. Therefore I would like to have my most potent units  'closer at hand' Would it be possible to somehow force their numbers to be assigned based on type and function?  Specifically the prioritization order I'd like would go something like:  Leader, MGs, ATs, Teamleaders, GLs, Medics, Snipers, Riflemen.  Which would mean that the above team would look like this. <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">F1: Leader F2: Machinegunner F3: Machinegunner F4: AT soldier F5: Grenadier F6: Rifleman F7: Rifleman Perhaps not overly realistic, and sometimes downright unpractical given how formations work (all MGs would be crowded around leader); but damnable convenient as I'm sure you would agree. <span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>Follow up 2:  In Game Rally Option</span> If it is possible to affect the order of of soldiers; the next question brings the rally option.  Would it be possible to do this 'in the field'. Lets say the above squad suffers casualties.  F2(MG) and F5(GL)  F7(rifleman)  picks up the dropped SAW This would make the squad look like this: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">F1: Leader F3: Machinegunner F4: AT soldier F6: Rifleman F7: Machinegunner After the 'Rally' option the squad would reorganize itself to look like this: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">F1: Leader F2: Machinegunner F3: Machinegunner  [Former F7] F4: AT soldier F5: Rifleman Again providing optimized control layout. Thoughts? Ken

Brilliant! I'll try it at once. Group Link has produced some fantastic firefights so far, and I cannot wait to try the new version.

Another few days of playing. 1. Wound System Overall I like it, though I dislike the lack of information when you actually get hit or hit someone. A better range of Audio-clues is more or less must-have. Perhaps an animation like FFN (or SLX) when you've downed someone? 2. Stamina How much stuff are people carrying? The few times I've blacked out; I knew what was coming. The distance and speed which you can run seems to be a clever compromise between gameplay and realism to me. The only suggestion I would have is to let the 'heavy breathing' audio-clue come earlier and at higher volume to reinforce the message of what is happening. 3. Ruck sys ('bergen' & Looting I'd just like to say that this functionality performs excellently and adds a lot to the game. I notice that the looting animation usually activated with the G (gear) button has been removed. I wonder why? It seems to me that it would be a fairly realistic thing to enforce when players are rummaging through their backpacks. In fact I would combine the Gear dialogue with the "RoundCheck" functionality thus saving us one more button worth of trouble. 4. CQB sights Interface Having the backup sights available is a real boon, but I find I dislike the interface used to toggle them. ArmA is a game already cursed with too many buttons, and while I've no problem remembering Shift-F. I think a simpler system would be better. A solution which sacrifices some realism and option, but gains greatly in terms of utility is to "lock" the SIGHT to certain firemodes. Burst, Auto: CQB sight Semi: Scope. 5. AI Changes and Suppressive Fire Here is an area which I believe much improvement should be made. Currently the AI seems to me to be excessively spending with its ammunition budget. There is simply TOO much full-auto going on for the AI to make a credible threat! Not to mention the expenditure of ammunition. Combined with the extreme engagement ranges it seems to me that the AI quickly becomes bogged down at 500+ ranges and able neither to to mount an effective assault nor inflict any real casualties on their targets. The amount of full auto being thrown around by AI soldiers also makes it hard to recognize when and if there is some sort of 'suppression' script in effect. A greater amount of Semi-Auto or short crisp burst fire at 50m+ would be welcome, which would add distinction to the suppressive fire or MG type attacks that might happen. 6. FX, animations, model-additions To round things off I'll say that the graphical content of ACE is top notch and I look forward to the next release. Though I would appreciate UI-icons for all weapons/sub-selections. -Ken

So after playing for a few days... While the file size doesn't concern me too much, I think that the abundance of 'extra' stuff particularly in endless varieties of the same weapon families. Particularly the HK416/7, SCAR, and M14 suffer from this. While I do enjoy the additional weapons/stuff, I think this hopelessly clutters the Interface. I think it could be worth learning from BIS, instead of having a million varieties, come up with 8-12 different and interesting game enhancing varieties.

Why would I eat McDonalds hamburger when what I want is Steak?

I just reinstalled ArmA on a fresh Vista based PC. I must say that I am greatly impressed by the extent and features offered in ACE. It is good to see a mod with a decent amount of external consistency; even while having been built by multiple contributing persons. When I test run gameplay altering modifications I have a set of "basic" editor only type missions that I run through. ACE offered a great improvement in gameplay in all these, at least compared to Vanilla. But in comparison to the base load-out of mods that I play usually play ArmA with? I'm not so sure. As I see it the prime advantage that ACE gives us is a specific template of realism that makes it easier to organize large games. While I suspect most large-scale Arma/OPF clans/gaming leagues had these already, there is a hope I have that ACE can unite them all. But what is the next step? Beyond fixing bugs or tweaking existing game values that is. ArmA is currently riddled with clutter; perhaps ACE is the answer? A seamless integration that seeks to simplify an already messy control interface, brain addled AI, and to have a real and marked effect on HOW we interact with the game. Of the various subsystems I've had time to play around with, the result has been generally pleasing. Many are familiar from already existing mods (ballistics, models, etc) but the with an added internal consistency the end product is excellent. - Stamina System has yet to make itself felt. - Steady Aim is awsome - 'Improved AI' and 'suppression' I cannot speak for. - Effect and quality of models ranges from acceptable to excellent. Thank you ACE. - Ken

I cannot find the words expressing the joy of getting yet another patch for ArmA; it makes me think that BIS really cares. If I had but a single suggestion for this patch (barring any necessary bug fixes) is that they (bis) make it possible to BIND buttons and combinations directly to the AI command interface. ie:  I want to be able to press  say  "Shift-1" to select TEAM RED  and so on. Or the possibility to bind  "#/Move/Advance" to  "shift-w" for instance.  I feel this is a very feasable and logical change which would greatly simplify or even enhance the control and command layout. ## If BIS really would want to make my day they would look through the Command interface scripts and try to fix some of the existing bugs in regards to changing "combat mode" (danger/stealth/aware/safe).  Perhaps re-ordering some of the command buttons/numbers to a slightly more streamlined or ergonomic layout. I recognize that this is potentially a time consuming endeavour, time possibly better spent working for ArmA2.  Yet the advantages present in using ArmA1 as a test bed for ArmA2 features cannot be understated. Thank you, Ken Mikkelsen

Yes! You guys are made of win!

<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>INFANTRY IN GAME CHARACTERISTICS</span> <ul>SLA <ul>[*]Conscripts - Must be led by Political officers or they flee. - With Officer they will charge fearlessly. - AKM or AK74.  Prefer close combat with their Full-auto weapons. - Flakvest for 150% Health - Few special weapons for default squad (1MG, 1AT) [*]Motorized Infantry - Supported by BMPs - Well equipped with AK74ms. sometimes optics. NVGs for leaders. - Body Armour for 200% Health. - A high amount of explosive type weapons. GL and AT. - Will still try to rush into close engagements. RACS <ul>[*]Irregulars - SLRs and L4s for formidable long range firepower. - No body armour 100% health - Poorly supported and few AT weapons. - Prefers ambushes [*]Regulars - Nominally better supported - Body Armour  for 200% Health - Perhaps a future-weapon?  G36? US Forces <ul>[*]Marines - M16A4 and M4 for select troopers.  Well equipped with Acogs and Aimpoints. - Few soldiers per squad but exceptionally well armed. - Default 8 man squad carries  2 Saw, multiple single use AT, medic, and 2xGl. - Well supported when possible. GAMEPLAY And there you have it.  See how by making each team unique and interesting we can actually introduce some FUN game play concepts?  See how commanding a SLA force is different from commanding a US one? or a RACS one? Asymmetric balance == win

Personally what I miss in ARMA is simply consistent design. <ul>[*]I hate how your troops are utterly mongoloid (at best of times) [*]I dislike how poorly simple things like weapon changes/reloads are done. [*]I loathe the in game UI. (HUD, Game Menu, and Editor) yeech. [*]Finally I feel that this game lacks spirit!  I mean how difficult would it have been to make the teams actually different from one another?  Not just models but the 'feel'  of how they approach combat. The spirit of Arma? Consider default ARMA and the potential it really had(has).  There are three teams, yet they seem to be almost carbon copies of one another. For a game like Arma thats terrible!  There are so many cool in-game mechanics that could have been used. Imagine if you will The RACS nation, a former British colony, is attacked by its larger heavily industrialized socialist neighbor. The newly found oil in the southern bits of Sahrani, which should have been the way out of an economically declining state of mostly  tourism and fishermen, proved too tempting to the big brother to the north. SLA army has recently been investing heavily in retrofitted Russian heavy equipment in addition all male citizens are required to attend 3 months of military service, plus a yearly refresher course, but many stay in for the long haul.  It is a matter of pride to own and maintain your State given kalashnikov. By contrast the RACS nation is a poor one.  In theory there is a draft open for both men and women, but in practice the nation can only afford to train and equip a fourth of the eligible men and women.  The equipment is mostly older British equipment. SLRs, L4s, and flak armor at best. The nations heavier equipment is mostly second hand American many which it cannot and has not upgraded. US interests are drawn into this conflict initially due to the very rich and easily obtainable OIL found on the southern islands.  US forces are asked to intervene by an overstretched British military (Afghanistan and Iraq). The total armament available to the United States is titanic in comparison to to the island nations.  Unfortunately  Washington Red-tape combined with increasingly volatile situation in Iraq leaves only a small task force available for intervention.

Just a quick question along the same vein. I've been playing with the Editor, and I'm wondering if setting the NPC RANK (corporal-captain-whatnot) has any effect on the game? I created a team of maxed skill Spec-ops soldiers all set to Colonel rank and they seemed to Lazer through the other troops. (they had not before) This test was brought to you by pure-guess-work@arbitrary-judgement.gov.no

<span style='font-size:13pt;line-height:100%'>The Post Above</span> In the post above I use a few arbitrary terms; this is my definition of them. <ul><span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>RULES OF ENGAGEMENT</span> All of these assume that the team follows waypoints. [*]Assault - Fire and Movement; close order when in city/town zones. Aggressive formations (wedge, Line, etc) and behavior. [*]Patrol - Weapons in hand, skirmish/relaxed formations. If Enemy engaged goto Assault; revert to Patrol when done. [*]Safe - As Patrol; except weapon slung. Revert to Patrol when done. Line Formations. [*]Recon - Hold Fire, fire only when spotted AND close by.  If enemy engaged Retreat until out of Line of Sight. Revert to Recon. Line or skirmish formation. [*]Infiltrate - Hold-fire. Engage nearby enemies freely with suppressed weapons; only use regular weapons if spotted (or directly commanded to).  If spotted goto Assault; revert to Infiltrate when done. [*]Ambush - Hold Fire.  Squad leader assigns targets. When majority of squad is ready; Open fire; goto Assault if in danger; revert to Ambush when done. <ul><span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>Squad Flags</span> The Squad Leader assigns a 'flag' (on or off) behavior pattern to his entire squad or individual troops. These are intended mostly for players or pre-scripted AI. Also assumed to be applied when appropriate ROE is selected.  [*]Hold fire - Open fire under no circumstance; except if enemy is within 10-20 meters and has spotted you. [*]Suppress - Exclusively use Grenades, Grenade Launchers, burst fire, or full auto as fitting.  (MAXIMUM FIREPOWER) [*]Conserve - As name indicates; attempt to conserve ammunition. Slow and sure rate of fire; do not attempt suppressive fire. (except on squad leader override) Other Potentials are  "Silenced weapons only",  "only when close" <ul><span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>Basic Tactics</span> The basic tactics represent a select series of semi-prescripted actions that your troops can undertake.  They are assumed to prioritize as appropriate to the "Soldiers Job" hierarchy. In case of AI squad leaders, it will use its basic terrain knowledge combined with mission/priority to determine which general maneuver is the best course of action. [*]Flank-  Inside  urban or Forest zones  "peel" either left or right.  On open ground  use basic leapfrog tactics (again left or right). [*]Assault-  Either Leapfrog forward (as with flank)  or order troop to "advance" as a single unit. Engage targets as appropriate. [*]Dig-in/Seek cover- Orders the troop to hit the dirt; crawl towards nearest piece of cover and engage targets as appropriate. [*]Retreat- Leapfrog Backwards until out of enemy line of sight (or order canceled ) ; expend ammunition freely. <span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>KEYBOARD SHORTCUTS</span> For players these commands would by default be easily accessible through the key-arrows. <--  --> - LEFT OR RIGHT ARROW [*]Press Left or Right arrow to order squad to PEEL left or right. [*]Double Tap Left or Right arrow  to order squad to Leapfrog left or Right. ^ - UP ARROW [*]Press and Hold Forward arrow to order squad to Advance (standing) [*]Double Tap forward arrow to order squad to leapfrog forward. v - DOWN ARROW [*]Press Backward arrow to order squad to Seek Cover. [*]Double Tap Backward arrow to order squad to leapfrog backwards.

<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>Opf vs ARMA</span> I find myself in agreement with many of the first posts. What did Arma really offer that Opf didn't already do? To be brutally honest the graphical improvements, and the few bug-fixes made for ARMA are of little consequence.  ARMA is a game released many years after OpF; graphics and such are simply expected. <span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>Great Expectations</span> For me the greatest fault I found in Operation Flashpoint was the AI control interface.  I greatly enjoyed playing a simple infantry commander in OpF; I luxuriated in the robust feel of a large scale infantry simulator. I loved the feel of playing the weakest and softest target on a vicious battlefield.  There was one major flaw however. That was the infantry command system. Seriously using F1 through F12++ to command your squad and then navigating through a bizarre and sometimes byzantine command layout was the single biggest weakness of Operation Flashpoint.  It was one it carried over to ARMA. When I first purchased ARMA I simply could not believe that this was still present. Especially considering how USER INTERFACE is 'free'  its something that doesn't require any CPU it only requires some forethought and intelligent design. Certainly your soldiers are everything but  canny (I believe the bottom line fault is found  with having too many scripts on top of eachother)  But the interface to command your team of muppets are just amazingly cumbersome.  ESPECIALLY in a game thats supposed to be released on a console platform.  K.I.S.S for crying out loud! <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>A Dream World</span> Personally I feel no need to micromanage every moment of my squads life; I shouldn't.  Its an infantry simulator for crying out loud. I would expect my soldiers to know the basic business of Soldiering. Now obviously this example is simplistic; but isn't that the very key? KEEP THE COMMAND INTERFACE/INTERACTIONS SIMPLE and above all DEPENDABLE.  The players themselves are bound to bring the random seed with them.

While I've yet to try it; this is an absolutely brilliant idea. Would it also be possible to get a patch that removes the move-block for vegetation in the game? (Operation flashpoint style move through bushes.)

Thank you for a very interesting sound mod. A few comments. Overall the sound 'feel' and 'weight' is excellent. For a layman (in terms of sound engineering) its hard to accurately describe, but the overall effect quite authentic, but above all consistent. I particularly enjoyed the M24 and M117 sounds. The sounds I think you should work on are the silenced or Sound suppressed weapons. As well as the 'SMG' class of weapons. While both the M9-SD and AKSUN sound great; both the M4-SD and Mp5Sd sound weak and inconsistent to your other work. While I recognize that this is the 'point' of having a weapon suppressed in teh first place, the overall delivery doesn't come across as authentic. Where is the 'Angry stapler' sound we've come to expect? (and enjoy) Also the unsuppressed Mp5 and AK-SU are particularly unimpressive. While far from commonly heard weapons, they should nonetheless have a unique 'identifying' character. So when a player comes across it on the battle field, he is instantly aware of something unusual. --> fun.