RangerX3X

GAME REQUIREMENTS - (Note that this may change ) - OS - Windows 7 / Vista I hope that does change. No XP no sale.

Once again you prove yourself a forum troll. Not one place have I suggested to "sack mod support". Here is a great line of argument for you - read, then think, before you post. :eek:

BIS has depended on the mod and mission community to carry their water for almost a decade now. Let's be candid here: They are working on ArmA 3 and we still do not have any stock in game representation of an air defense system (setting a Shilka on a hill top is not an ADS), AWACS, mobile artillery pieces, or any semblance of integrated support. All you have to do is fire up DCS: Black Shark and take a look at the encyclopedia, fly a few missions and play around in the sand box editor to find out how it is done. I am not asking for each piece to be a sim version of the real life version, simply representation at the tonka-toy level we have now.

A rail-based system is basically the units roll smoothly along as if they are attached to a rail, such as a train or roller coaster. They maintain uniform spacing with other units in the same group and maintain a consistent speed along the designated route. For aircraft, it is the same - the units will progress along the intended path (waypoints in the editor) and land exactly where you tell them to, regardless of the situation on the ground. Even with extreme scripting this simply is not possible in the current game engine. While some may get close, it is never spot-on, and is always inconsistent - factors that make the effort to script daunting to say the least.

UnitCapture and PlayCapture are not solutions - and they exponentially increase the file size of the mission.

Please implement a rail-based system for pathing of vehicles and aircraft so that mission designers can finally develop missions that contain working convoys & patrol routes, realistic attack profiles & reliable landings-under-fire. Is this realistic? Of course not – But neither is the system we have had to work under since Cold War Crisis – derelict pathing, impossible flight management and the untold frustration brought about by the inability to correct these shortcomings. I would venture to say the number of missions that were broken and not released because of incoherent AI routines regarding traveling from one path to another and performing a specific action is incalculable. As the mission editors (and community mods) have kept this series alive since 2001, providing us with a rail-based solution to effortlessly implement vehicle and aircraft maneuvering would be a gold mine for the true beneficiaries – those who download and play missions and mods. Imagine the missions that could come out if a mission designer could place a waypoint down and have that helicopter land exactly at that spot and perform exactly that task relegated to it instead of convulsing at the presence of anti-aircraft batteries and MANPADS. If the pilots dies, or the cargo being transported is shot to hell or even if the aircraft takes a direct round from a T-80 and vaporizes – fine!! It will tell the mission designer to go about it in a different way. Put the transport unload waypoint a few hundred meters back, bring in some CAS beforehand, etc. But stop putting us through the utter turmoil of having to try every trick in the book scripting or otherwise to accomplish this, only to have it work out 6 out of 10 times. A convoy group of 20 vehicles with an infantry platoon in trucks should be able to travel from point A to point B without regurgitating on rearranging the convoy into some byzantine hierarchy that neither we nor Yoda can surmise. They should be able to roll out at a specified speed, keep an assigned spacing to the next vehicle, and be assigned an assessment protocol of when to stop, dismount, fight of an ambush, cut bait and run. If the developers would simply stop tweaking a failed system with the inevitable end result of only providing a ginned-up failed system, and implement a rail-based system found in – dare I say – arcade shooters, this game would take a huge step forward in the quality and depth and number of user created missions.

There are "Close shaves" and then there are complete rip-offs. There is simply no excuse to virtually mirror the titular character from another highly successful military shooter. I guess the developers really do live in a vacuum. And that is simply sad that they would take the time to model and script an aircraft that never went into production and never flew a single combat mission. I guess "The Ultimate Military Simulation" really does not give a hoot about realism when it comes right down to it.

Forgive me if these points were raised previously: 1) Please change the central character from Captain Scott Miller to something else. The Ghost Recon Series has used Captain Scott Mitchell forever, and the decision to go with a Captain Scott Miller character seems like nothing but a cheap rip-off. 2) Drop the RAH-66 Comanche - The RAH-66 program was canceled in 2004 before it was fielded. It is not needed in this game when there are other more viable and real alternatives that could be used. 3) FFS - fix these issues once and for all: AI controlled convoys AI suppression fire AI helicopter flight pathing and landing under fire Thank you.

The AI would navigate the limestone towers about as well as a convoy column can negotiate a turn right now...

I would buy an official Korean War conflict any time period as long as two conditions are met: 1) It is not DLC 2) The only sand on the map is a beach or a golf course my tanks roll over. I am sick of bland desert wanna-make-believe-Arab worlds. It was old and dead when Battlefield 2 came out, and is only a stinking rotting video game corpse now.

A value-added tax is not a sales tax; your premise is completely incorrect.

Negative, mate. A value-added tax is something imbeded at every point of the manufacturing process that ups the overall cost of a single unit, before it ever hits a store shelf where the consumer has to then pay a sales tax to purchase it.

Personally, I am holding out for this:

There is no VAT in the US, and there never will be. Who cares about 57 cents? Not me. Bottom line is that it costs more at Sprocket than it does at Steam. But the real bottom line is that it is not available on the store shelf. In the end it is immaterial as BI will eventually package everything up in an Anthology of sorts and sell it as a complete package, once they release their Mafia DLC (oh, come on now, you know it is coming). Scarface with a SCAR...

There is nothing hard at all about understanding what “DLC†is. Nowhere in any of my posts did I pose a question even remotely close to “Gee, I wonder what DLC is?†Most ignorant thing you’ve seen in a long time? How about the beginning of your response being one of the most arrogant things I’ve seen in a long time? The move to DLC was a business decision for BI that is simply costing the company sales. When the “content†costs more to purchase from the Sprocket site than from Steam, one begins to get the pungent aroma of value-added tax stinking up the transaction. I live in America, and simply choose not to pay for Europe’s poor fiscal decisions. Of course, none of that makes a lick of difference if I just happened to purchase OA off of Steam instead of in the store, then I wouldn’t be having this discussion because then I would have been allowed to purchase the DLC’s from an American website. And that makes no sense whatsoever.