Sniperwolf572

Yeah, I agree, jump in difficulty for that mission is probably frustrating in a campaign setting because you are accustomed to following your team and dealing with things as they come where in this scenario you kinda have to play it as a babysitter for your AI. Even in Infantry it doesn't seem to be that bad. But anyway, to answer your question, I had only one casualty on it with that strategy as when you spot the enemies early, your own squad becomes much more alert and effective, otherwise they all just run into the enemy and get slaughtered if you don't spot for them. People dying doesn't seem to have any effect in this part of the campaign as there's another silly behavior from the AI in "Radio Silence" where my squad all died and I couldn't do much there. I believe they fixed that so the dead people won't come back, but you also won't run out of teammates by the end.

Yeah, it's like Showcase Infantry, but it's not a 1:1 copy as it's obvious even by intro alone. The strategy that worked for me is to not follow the team and additonally don't go into the forest on the south. You are way too exposed there due to the enemy locations. The enemy will just pick off your squad and then you'll be a lone wolf. Go up the north hill a bit, behind one of the rocks that will give you cover from the enemies in the valley AND the enemies on the ridge that way you can spot them before your team gets ambushed by the enemies advancing through the trees in the valley. Apply grenade launcher to the enemies in the valley then engage the enemies on the hill. After that cross the valley to the forest side and engage the village from behind the rocks that are on the east side of it. From there on, you shouldn't have any issues. I used this tactic in Showcase Infantry and when I realised it's like Infantry, I just did the same and it worked on the first try. I'd agree that you'd probably have a very hard time if you don't take the initiative as that's how Infantry plays out as well. It's a brutal mission if you just follow your squad around where the other missions are ok.

Devils advocate to a devils advocate, if you're going to look at the game as a purely "military action, with generic shooty objectives, at all times" then you are right. But there is merit in storytelling perspective, as certain stories cannot be told without both genders present. Some things certainly wouldn't be the same. What if Valentina was the same character with the same lines but instead she was a he. What if Angelina was Angelo? What if Liz was a he? And so on. Sure, they're minor roles, but I'd argue that they bring a storytelling impact. Even as "set decoration".

This isn't like that. Changing of the ID's happens whenever a map is recompiled I believe. The objects that are there get different ID's, everything looks the same, but the missions now don't work due to ID's not pointing to the same object. Imagine you are reading an article on a website, and that article has an id of 1234 in the URL. You share it with a friend. Before he clicks the link, some writer for the website the article was on added another article to the site, but imagine the site behaves like the terrains in Arma and the URL for the article you sent your friend is no longer valid because 1234 is no longer the ID of the article but the ID of either a non-existing article or a completely different article. For the reader and probably the editorial staff this is an inconvenience and makes no sense. But the developer might have thought "well, you know, we should to this so our last ID is always the total number of articles in the database and so we don't overflow the ID field too soon". To be honest, the best solution should be done in the tools/engine. If an objects gets removed, so be it, it's tolerable, but ID's changing all the time on even the smallest updates is a larger issue. ID's should persist for objects on the island that weren't modified. Maybe have an SQL-like "auto increment" variable that is stored with the map so you could do if implemented: For old maps, you'd regenerate all ID's for one last time when the terrain is saved. ID's of objects that have been deleted are no longer available (Referencing a non existing ID would return null as kju suggests or whatever it returns now) New objects get ID's that are being incremented from the stored increment variable (Potentially assign ID's only on map save so you don't skip an ID if you place then delete an object between saves) Existing objects never change their ID's This would solve 99% of the issues for the community with regards to the ID's and it would let the island authors update their islands as they please without the need to concern themselves with issues like these. Progress is great, new features, new additions and everything. I'm not a supporter of "backwards compatibility at all costs" if it impedes the progress even slightly, but this something that could and should be solved in some way.

Tried helicopter showcase twice today, once with ShadowPlay (Max quality, 10 minute buffer) and once without. Awesome quality, if it wasn't for the icon in the corner, I wouldn't even notice it was running, and just hit Alt+F10 to save the last 10 minutes. Now it just needs the streaming compatibility. I see another application for this, it's is going to be neat for bug reports. Those pesky bugs that show up only once in a million attempts. Try, try, try until it happens then just record the last 5 minutes. :D

Anyway, this should clear up the diagram. Here's a human head placed with nose in crosshairs for my example above. Head height is approximately 25cm on the vertical axis. Ignore the horizontal axis as obviously a head isn't 50m wide.

First off, does the graph look like it's a straight line? Nope. The M16A2 in that graph is zeroed for 25m near zero and approximately 340m far zero. Far zeroing is what you are adjusting in Arma. Now imagine you are firing at noses of targets at 25m, 200m and 340m with that M16A2. You'd hit them at 25m and 340m but 200m the bullet is almost 25 centimeters upwards of "zero". It's not possible deviation, it is it's peak altitude for the 25-350 zeroing. Now, average human skull is also around 25 centimeters in height. So if you are shooting at the nose, your bullet will fly over the head of the 200m target by around 12 centimeters. Additionally, imagine a situation where you were on the ocean with a rifle. And you're standing with a handgun on a platform that's 2 meters tall. If you fired the handgun parallel to the ocean and dropped a bullet from the same height the bullet was fired from, they'd plop into the ocean at the same time.

If you want to play it on the same profile. Select the first mission and hit "Revert". If you want to keep the progress on the current profile, you can create a new profile and start over on that one.

It's a bug and they know it. No need to be overly dramatic.

There is no major issue, this is not true. You can shoot something that you do not see. LOS is not equal to LOF in this game or in real life. You do not shoot bullets out of your eyes. Your rifle is also not on your hip. If I fire at this point, that guy is getting shot. I do not see him. My barrel is clear of the wall and that's all that matters. On the other hand, if this happens: Then I will not be able to shoot him because my barrel is pointing at the wall, no matter what my sight or eyes see. He can still shoot and kill me perfectly fine. But, holy Armstrong and Berghoff, what's this: I have done the impossible. I have adjusted my stance to the left with CTRL + A, instead of leaning, I'm a wizard. I'm barely exposing myself, but I can still shoot him and see him! There is nothing wrong with what's happening in your video. You are arguing with infant logic. Is this BLUFOR soldier invisible to this OPFOR soldier? He sees your entire damn forehead and the helmet because you can see him. But he can't the barrel of your weapon, the place where the bullets come out of, because it's being obstructed by ground you shoot at. Here's a test for you. Imagine that there is a guy in your room, aiming an MX with an ARCO at the distance. You stand next to him. If you place your finger on either of his eyes and he fires the rifle, will your finger be blown off by the bullet? If you place your finger on his scope and he fires his rifle, will your finger be blown off by the bullet? If you place your finger on his ironsights and he fires his rifle, will your finger be blown off by the bullet? If you place your finger on the tip of his barrel, like Bugs Bunny does to Elmer Fudd, and he fires his rifle will your finger be blown off by the bullet?

I was specifically talking about "Kerry do this, kerry do that" part of your comment to make a point that a low ranked guy is obviously going to follow orders given, not military combined arms tactics. Alright, sure, that makes more sense on what you want rather than your initial ranty post without any clear explanation. I suppose the situation here is different. The story itself makes a strong point to indicate that there's only a few men left across the island with whatever else being concentrated at the main airport and subsequently denied to the rest of the forces that were left on the tiny island when the backstab happens. They're literally scrapping their gear here. Tank battles, to me, don't fit too well at this point in story or Stratis itself. Sure, they could've tossed in an MRAP mission maybe. Planes seem to serve the same purpose as the tanks in the CWC second mission. They're these insurmountable opponents that you have to hide and retreat from. Sure, they're not a threat and their ammo seems scripted, but considering how the default plane AI would pretty much ignore you, I'd say they were forced to do so to make you at least slightly in danger. Sure, CWC, by the 10th mission you encountered some tanks in the second mission, you've driven a truck and maybe killed a BMP or two if your AI died. But I wouldn't class it "so diverse" as you do "all kinds of mission types". You killed infantry. First mission you ran about training. Second mission you stormed Morton and you could passively watch the battle as your tanks and helos wrecked stuff up but either way, you were killing infantry. Third mission you went to a village and killed some infantry alongside some tanks only to be pushed back by the armor. Fourth mission you drove a truck then went to a forest to kill some infantry. Fifth mission you went to a road to kill some infantry. Sixth mission you went to Montignac to kill some infantry and a BMP. Seventh mission you were lost and had to sneak your way to the end. If you were brave you killed a BMP or stole a tractor. The most "diverse mission" so far, but still in the end it's 99% killing or avoiding infantry. Eighth mission you killed some infantry and extracted in a truck. Ninth mission you drove a truck and killed infantry. Tenth mission you stood in place and killed some infantry. Eleventh mission is the first that really breaks the mold and has you ambush tanks with AT mines and from here on tanks are introduced and whatnot and it becomes really diverse. I'd say the diversity is to be expected from the next chapter of the campaign from the way they seem to be setting it up, especially with the strategic map. We're only a third of the way in. Especially considering how there is a strong influence of CWC to the point you team up with a faction named exactly the same as the one in CWC. I'd say it's much better than the original concept of "specops brohuahua come to Altis but a nuke lands" we've been expecting. My major complaint would still be that now I have to wait for the chapter two for at least a month, if not more. :p

And the funny thing is, the situation is so screwed up in the Arma 3 campaign for the BLUFOR, it might even be remotely plausible. But it still doesn't happen. Which I believe is good. ---------- Post added at 23:11 ---------- Previous post was at 23:09 ---------- So a campaign made of "we are stealthy super special forces bros missions", got it. :j:

Sounds like military to me. I'm not sure what you expected, it's an introductory part of the campaign where you are not a person of any relevance to influence any decisions of your higher ups (even if you did have a say on what missions to go on). We could have another "leet ranked soldiers do freeroam missions" but that didn't quite end up being liked the last time, did it? If you liked CWC, it's the first part of the campaign up to move to Malden, pretty much the same story progression. I don't see any "casual cod-ing". The closest it got to that for me was the ending of the last mission. Why the opposition to squad vs. squad combat? Is the "we are heavily outnumbered" type of opposition at all times really necessary? How would you define a good campaign that hasn't been officially attempted and labeled as shit after OFP? We've had "cog in the machine", was labeled shit. We've had "PMC's saving the island", was labeled shit. We've had "Leet operators behind enemy lines", was labeled shit. We've had "Multi point of view Afghan" was labeled shit. And now we've gone back to the roots to a great extent. I'd love to hear what you think would be a great campaign, since I've seen a variety of official campaigns and you label them all shit.

Loving the campaign so far. Two things with Radio Silence:

Newborn logic, I've covered my eyes, therefore mom can't see me. Your eyes, your scope and your barrel are different entities in different positions and at best you can line up 2 of them. 1) If you want to argue for weapons lowering when the weapons collide, fine, I'll agree, but it will still result in you being killed because you couldn't fire back. 2) If you want to argue for weapons to be physical objects that collide, fine, I'll agree, but it will still result in your video being the same thing and 1) needs to be implemented as well because we'll get the same CQB movement horror that was in Arma 2. 3) If you want to argue for your stance to automatically adjust to some arbitrary things so that your muzzle and optic are always clear of any close object, you'll find it that it will get you killed more than when you control the stance adjust. Whoops, I'm near a wall and I automatically adjusted to the side, now I'm dead. Or you'll be unable to aim at certain things in your proximity when you want to.

Slightly adjusting your posture to expose as little as possible is very possible in Arma 3. Once again, are you aware of it? CTRL + Movement keys adjust your stance slightly. So for example the right guy could, while standing, press CTRL + W to slightly raise his rifle to clear the cover. It's not done automatically. The stance in the picture, or well something similar, you can accomplish by pressing CTRL + A while being prone.

In 2013 we have a feedback tracker to report bugs XD !!!!!

So, it's an issue that your gun doesn't shoot out of your eyes but instead out of it's muzzle? How do you expect to keep your head in cover if you are looking through a sight that has LOS on the enemy? Your forehead and helmet is going to be way above the sight and a nice target for anyone if you have eyes on through the scope as your eyes aren't on top of your head and they're not going to telescopically go out of your head and to the scope. The taller the scope, like HAMR, the more discrepancy is going to be between what your scope sees and what the barrel of your weapon sees. Either stance adjust up and clear the rifle so it can shoot over the obstacle or back up and into cover where you are not exposing yourself. You can't have it both ways. And no, you don't have to keep shooting, when you back out of your scoped in view, the crosshair is clearly indicating that your muzzle is obstructed by the ground, there is no need to fire.

There's already a shitload of tickets related to all the bugs with attachTo in Arma 3, incuding that one.

He's saying that it's already working similarly to that, for at least a month I believe. All models might not be up to date tho. He documented it here quite extensively. Edit: Ninja'd.

Can report the same, but since I picked up Mafia 2 (Already had Civ V and expansions) I got the complete Mafia 2 DLC pack for 75% off. Civ discounts are much more valuable I'd say. :)