Second

Metaboli gives new numbers (activation times) only when previous numbers have been used complitely. I asked for more when i had only 1 left, but they told to spent last activation before they give me new ones. Luckily ArmA didn't ask activationcode when i updated to 1.08. Hopefully not ever again activation is needed when patching the game.

Metaboli gives new numbers (activation times) only when previous numbers have been used complitely. I asked for more when i had only 1 left, but they told to spent last activation before they give me new ones. Luckily ArmA didn't ask activationcode when i updated to 1.08. Hopefully not ever again activation is needed when patching the game.

Most likely not. Only thing that can limit their desire to shoot choppers would be that they have "cease fire"-order or they have more important target which they can shoot at. I doupt that BIS will or can add better target selecting system to ArmA. It would be possible to implent by scripts or even FSM-code maybe. No big deal i'd guess. Using speed, distance, direction to determe is aircraft dangerous or "juicy" target. Then script would be forcing them to aim and shoot the chopper.

Our army teaches about the same. It's more about suppressing the pilot/gunner than damaging the aircraft. And if aircraft is shot at then usually less than 10 rounds is spent for each rifle, even MGs (not AAMGs) won't be shooting more. How many times is individual squad/platoon expected to meet hostile chopper inside about 200 meters range in modern battlefield with modern and well equiped armies (probability would be something like 0.0001%) AI shooting aircraft with rifles... Hell no. They would try to hit every chopper inside 400 or so meters (giving away their positions mostly). If chopper presents great danger to themselves or to some other then why not, but in ArmA there's no suppression by default and AI can't make judgementions of that kind very well. And giving player as squadleader ability to orders his men to fire chopper, while other squads can't... To me it's like against OFP/ArmA-rules, but it would come handy sometimes... I don't have opinion in this subject.

Superb Seems to have conflict with Vilas WW2 configs thou (rifles and such disapear and bullets are shot from soldier's belly) but cold war addons do work with these, which was all i was hoping for. Just did couple quick missions and...

Nothing beats this. I've played lots of MP with LAN connection in my youth. Quake with navy seal-mod, chopper-sim Hind or OFP LAN is the king of MP and this is the thing i miss from my youth... Miss it alot

I use it very much. 200 meters is too long distance, if not under fire, to cross without using timeacceleration. Type of mission has big impact. If it's my own made, i usually am using acceleration alot. Mission made by some other is different case, there's more motivation to do it with 100% attitude

I haven't put it that specificly, seems to work guite well as long as waypoint isn't on bridge. But closer is better. @jimmc wrote: So there's to of us when it comes to experience I've been satisfied with results when using that thing that i told, i haven't noticed problems with it. Ofcourse when using bridges in missions is like creating "medal of humor" type of mission, no dynamic events of anykind in vicinity of bridge. And big units should be broken down.

One hint to be told, if someone doesn't know it: -Put waypoints in both ends of bridge. Not on the bridge, but solid ground before and after it. Should work better that way. Also it can be good idea to put them to "careless"-behaviour so that they don't try anything "funny" when on bridge. I wonder that how people manage to gain that "vehicle falls thru bridge"-feature. I've had it only once in BAS's Tonal-mod (great mod )

Oh damn. Seems that i have read wrong sources Slat armor works or is expected to work bit differently than i thought. It's expected to deform warhead on impact to slat so that it duds (plaintiff1 was right i'd quess, my apoligies), if warhead explodes then slats don't work as well. Finally got my hands on quite solid info, "lessons learned department" or something like that. I also missread that PRG-7 tradoc at start. I was impression that net it mentions uses electricity of it's own, when actually it doesn't. So i was wrong in that too (stupid english! ). Dang. What can i say... Sorry again. And i think i have another explanation why RPG-7's grenade gains more effect at range. Grenade flies too fast at start: Fuze won't set off the warhead soon enough so warhead explodes too close to armor and "plasma"-jet don't magane to form to optimal shape. This "theory" seems to gain more support than spinning-"theory".

And why don't APC's live for long? Because they get hit and they go "BOOM" too easily not only by AT-launchers but almost all other weapons. I quess two M203 frag-grenades is enough for BMP crew. RPG might be to powerful (as armor vaules are too low), but not too accurate and long distance carrying. But honestly: way APCs are used in ArmA by AI or mission designers in some cases wouldn't live for long anyway. When APC is used properly (infantry between it and possible location of enemy AT) it is tough little as*hole. There should be default routine that APC is issued stay back order by AI leader. Yes you can snipe with AT-weapon (as should), but the thing is that vehicle should endure more. Only bad thing with At-launchers is that their trajectory is too straight, there's no skill or experience involved in hitting targets. Distance measurement, understanding the sights (well, not much to be understand in both sights) etc...

I too find this set good. If they are rookies they waste awfully lot of ammos. And being expert they hit quite good still, but not being snipers. And they spot demonly well too. Just remeber that when you visit your difficulty-menu in ArmA and don't use "cancel"-button when returning from there, those values are set to same: So if you had precision at 1 and skill at 0.3 then both of those values are set to 1. So you need to tweak them back via your user configfile.

Definedly no change to AT-laucher's shootable range for AI! That would result armored vehicle supermazy expacely if armored vehicle is in hands of player. I find AI to be easy opponent against player controlled vehicle even now. 300 meters is absolute minimum, below that and game balance (gamefun-balance and realism-balance) would suffer greatly. There's few bad things with degreased shooting range: 1. AI would issue engage orders more easily -> dead AT-guy 2. AI needs to get closer to be able to shoot target -> dead AT-guy 3. Accuravy of At-weapons is more realistic now than if they get degreased. I have statictics for RPG-7 and it's combat accuracy (Afganistan and some other warzones)... If AI's skill level (via mission editor) is set to high it should be quite dangerous opponent, who relatively easily can score hits from long ranges, just like experienced AT-guy. Rookies in ArmA can't score hits very easily, missing their target from about 200-300 meters constantly. These with 0.5 skill-level in my user configs. Adjustable Skill levels via config causes problems, as now no-one is complitely satisfied. I like their low accuracy at low editor's skill levels, but i hate that they waste their ammos to targets that clearly aren't threat anymore. Armorvalues themselves needs tweaking as lauchers aren't the only problem... I atleast see more frusturation in here to fact that small uneffective weapons can defeat vehicles which they in reality or for game balance shouldn't, atleast that easily. Forexample: IRL .50 cal machinegun can take out BMP-2 from frontal direction, if gunner gets lucky (30 mm AP-round can pierce T-72M1's front armor of turret. I've seen results: Ugly), but that can be considered being lucky and mostly would just get MG-gunner killed.

And what about those US soldiers who were supposed to be in US already (about week before attack) but died at first day of war in Gorazol... Or is that mentioned in US version atall? There was bad smell of rotten eggs: Nobody was innocent in that war: SLA, RACS or US.

Those bridges are serious problem, if there would be just one or two bridges it would be fine, but now they are breaking mission-making potential (and gaming fun) of some areas quite complitely. Southern south-sahrani is worst and Gorazol which is already bottleneck (some amount of building-free landmass in one or both oceansides of Gorazol would have been good idea) and it's not even properly working bottleneck because of those bridges. There might be scriptable solution for it (i'm thinking about setvelocity + disableai "move" and maybe setpos), but well ... I'd rather see BIS to take care of it.

They seem to flee even if there's no threats when allowfleeing is set to 1. Once i was testing fleeing routine, and AI fled when there was only me and him (both of us in same side: BLUFOR) on whole map and allowfleeing was set to 1. There's one BIG but: I was testing my suppression scripts and they kinda takeover original fleeing values so that might have affected it (and script tweaks "courage"-skill of theirs during suppression and sets allowfleeing to 1 at certain point) and i was shooting quite much at him to suppress him...

There's psycological explanation for bailing out: Mostly crew of damaged vehicle, which they atleast think, is severly damaged (not fit to fight) will bail out (panicing or then not). Not always, but mostly this is the case. Targets are usually shot to point of destruction in real life (Crew bailing or vehicle burning). Only after that target is changed to other, or this is atleast expected. And crew knows this, as they are expected to do same thing to their own targets. And in ArmA this applies mostly in same way, damaged vehicle is dead trap to crew. Or at least this can be assumed, forexample: crew don't know that squad fired it's last AT-launcher. In ArmA there's possibility to repair damaged vehicle instantly... It's kinda dump that AI doesn't know how to use this as advantage, when player can. They don't automaticaly get in vehicle again if it's repaired... Or atleast i haven't noticed that. But i don't mess with vehicles very much anyway (mostly destroy them).

That's corrent. "Plasma"'jet is somewhat loose material, it spreads somewhat (and loses somepart of it's effectivity) because of spinning. I'm not sure has this issues been solved in RPGs so that only stabilizer fins and maybe rod also spins and warhead don't spin. And is it 100% reliable that warhead won't spin at higher speeds, atleast much? Relatively new weapon- and ammunation-type (only about 20-30 years old at that time) that has been produced to masses, so there might have been some issues, that were either too costly to fix or they aren't considered to be too bad. When speed of projectile gets lower, doesn't spinning-speed also get slower (I'm complete n00b in this)

Sorry, i remembered wrong: if HEAT-warhead spins it's effectivity degreases. There's way to modify warhead so that spining's bad effect is reduced, maybe even complitely neutralized. I can't figure out anyother thing that spinning which could effect on warhead's penetration positively.

I didn't found info of anykind about RPG-7's trajectory. Looking at optic's picture in plaintiff1's link tells to me something like this: -For 400 meters: if 300 meter's line of sights are in turret of MBT, it might still hit tracks. -For 500 meters sight's 300 meters line has to be very high above MBT. But these as just rough estimates... Nothing solid.

To my understanding HEAT needs spinning movement to work well. Forexample: Riffled barrel of MBT suits better but HEAT-rounds, but is bad for SABOT. SABOT works better in smoothbore, but HEAT doesn't. So i'd guess that RPG's spining movement has something to do with it... does it spin more or less than at shorter distances, i don't know (i don't know the laws of nature very well)?

I don't know why they recommend it to that external net, but i'd quess that it's safety distance as if warhead touches net, it's flightpath is changed because of contact to net and there's enough good change that it misses it's target. If HEAT-warhead don't go dud and it hits APC, then net has failed (it had only 50% change, or in reality even less, to cause warhead to go dud). So i'd speculate that net's distance of vehicle is back-up. Styker's slat armor works different as warhead explodes on contact to armor. Reason why HEAT or shaped charge isn't used in various mines (This includes magnetic AT-mies) as they don't touch armor of vehicle when blowing-up and shaped charge isn't good in that condition. EFP typed HEAT (i think they are classified as HEAT) is used for that as it carries it's effect better in longer distances, as penetrator is flying metal not "plasma"-jet as in warhead of RPG-7. Shaped charge loses lots of it's power in 50 cm distance, distance can easily be longer then 50 cm if RPG is shot at others than 90 degree angles and i don't know is Styker's slat armor also able to direct warhead's jet downwards. I don't know will RPG-7's warhead's jet still go thru armor after traveling that distance, but effect of penetration inside vehicle is very limited.

Are you mixing it with electrical ERA (or what is the accurate term, i don't know is it in use yet anywhere)? http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/slat-stryker.htm (there's picture of it in link) "The interim slat armor solution forms a metal frame barrier 50 cm ahead of the APC. The cage detonate anti-tank shaped charge warheads such as RPG away from the vehicle and prevent its hot chemical reaction from boring through and causing burns, shock and shrapnel wounds." That should work verywell against RPG-7s. Better penetrating HEAT-warheads, well they could penetrate armor, but they lose big amount of their enegry on the way to armor as distance is far from optimal.

"Bird cage". Is it also called slat armor? But ArmA's stykers don't have them. Armor like that is good against HEAT. Vehicle vulnerabilty: With luck (unluck for others) BMP or anyother vehicle can blow up from first hit if something exploding is hit. Stryker would have better survival ratio as it doesn't inhold that impressive amounts of ammo as BMP. So i quess that it could be shot full of holes with no dramatic effect (if it's empty of personel)... Just as many trucks from WW2: they could be full of holes from aircraft cannons and MGs but still doing their job. But ArmA has to balance with AI, to me ArmA's vehiclearmor and AT-laucher damage is proper (not including vehicle's tendensy to blow up so constantly and easily).

WOAH! There's no better reading than one's analysis of it's cold war opponent's weapons, tactics and such... and they even can be read in internet... This is heaven RPG-7 has quite flat trajectory (comparing to older ones). i don't know how flat, but i try to dig it from somewhere.