xawery

Will you please make up your respective minds?! 4 minutes is too long, 4 minutes is too short... I fear this issue will have to be decided empirically.

What brazenness to accuse the Central Committee of misallocating funds! No more toilet paper rations for you! But yes, the triggers were fubar and made it far too easy for West to capture the objectives. As I said before, this has been fixed. Not only does West need to outnumber East 2:1 to capture an objective, they also have to maintain this ratio for a couple of mins (I was thinking of four, any thoughts?).

Hahaha, yes, that was brilliant... "CHAAAARGE!" "Wait, wait, I'm not in my M133 yet!" "CHAA- oh ok, we'll wait." *short pause* "CHAAAAARGE!" "Wait, my AI's aren't in yet!" "Wha- goddammit, charge anyway!"

Hey, Fog of War was really good and balanced. Let's wait and see.

Hi Ryan, Agreed on the triggers, they were too simplistic, but they did work as I had intended. They just kept track of East and West units within the trigger, and if West > East = objective taken. In other words, if East had 30 troops in there and West 31, West won, which isn't very realistic. With regard to yesterday's game - West DID have half a platoon in Delovince. My squad was the only one to attack the crossroads, and it was quite a firefight. My AI M113 gunner scored a few nice hits Either way, the triggers are up for an overhaul. What I did today is the following. The triggers again keep track of East and West units within the objective. If West outnumbers East 2:1, the countdown begins. If West manages to retain numerical superiority for a given amount of time (5 mins? 8 mins?), the objective is captured. East can recapture on the same conditions. The problem with your script Ryan, is that if there are no defenders present in the trigger, you will get a zero divisor error. At least, that's what I got when I tried a similar approach. I agree that the M113's are quite deadly when manned by humans. Giving East long-range AT would be a good countermeasure, but it could possibly disrupt the balance of the game. Consider this scenario: if there are too few people on the server to populate all player slots the M113's are much less dangerous, but East could still man the AT-5, giving them a tremendous advantage over West. Without human-crewed M113's to worry about, East would toast the M-60 within minutes. The same goes for AT mines. You can just drop one off at a chokepoint (e.g. Asmore) and forget about it. West won't be able to get through there. Personally, I prefer to give East plenty of satchels (8 atm) because they require human attention to be effective, and give West a chance to disable the threat (e.g. by killing the player holding the detonator). The carriable ammocrate for the mortar is a very good idea. I'll dive in the tx_utils readme and try to get it to work. Regards, Celery

C'mon Jinef, don't leave the sandbox just yet! For what it's worth, I rather enjoyed the clips, especially Nurse Jinny.

Ah, attending evening mass again I see. In all seriousness know: Jinef, perhaps if you'd stop spewing obscenities for a second and actually post a comprehensive list of criticisms and/or suggestions people would take your opinion more seriously. I know I would. So, does anyone else feel that East is underpowered in this mission? As I said before on TS, East has enough rpg's to destroy West's armoured assets two times over. And that's not even taking the satchels into account. My question is thus: is East at a structural disadvantage, or can West's success be attributed to proper tactics? For example: the first few times this mission was played, the M60 went lone wolf and was thus easy prey for East's AT soldiers. Last night, the West commander assigned an infantry squad to protect the tank, and it seems that worked rather well. Again, this begs the question whether East's defeat was caused by a structural imbalance or simply superior tactics on West? I should note however that the M113's have become a more viable asset. I have added one extra player slot to each infantry squad, with a total of three slots per squad. This means that the M113's can be manned by two human players, while the human squad leader commands the rest of the squad. This makes the M113's much more effective. In this regard, I must agree that West has gained a potential advantage over East in the new version of the mission. I welcome all suggestions as to how to restore the balance. Should I give east an AT5? More satchels? Or perhaps mines? Let me know.

Tut tut Jinef, you sound a wee bit cranky! Is it that time of the month again? We understand. Anyway, while I understand your frustration, I will wait for the opinions of other people before making any drastic changes. And to be honest, I really don't see the point of your rpg clip. If you're trying to say that shooting rpg's at moving vehicles is difficult, then yes, you are correct. Shooting speeding bmp's with the stock BIS LAW was dead easy, but these sights actually require some practice. A single speznaz with a satchel could have halted the armoured advance across that bridge. Nevertheless, I agree that there are many avenues of approach in this mission and that East can't guard them all, but that was kind of the point. Everybody always complains how objective-based A&D's limit tactical possibilities and funnel the players through a single chokepoint every time. Now people complain that there are too many possibilities! Make up your mind gawddammit! Celery PS: I would just like to add that the level of ad hominem attacks in this thread isn't representative of Zeus gameplay. PPS: Despite your vile propaganda, that IS me in that profile picture.

Ok lads, it seems many people hold strong opinions about Lex Talionis. I'd really like to hear them: I can't improve upon this mission without feedback. So... post! POST!

Hehe you might be right there Mandoble... Anyway, I did something simple, based on your suggestion. Two triggers (East and West) per objective. (count list tr_west)>(count list tr_east) did the trick. Thanks for your help everyone! Regards, Xawery

Hi there, I have yet another question for the wise ones on this forum In my mission, one of the objectives is to capture a city. Right now, I have two triggers surrounding the objective: when checking for the presence of West (attackers) and one checking for the absence of East (defenders). If both are true, the objective is captured. This is of course a very rudimentary and rather unelegant solution. What is more, it means that West needs to clear the town of all enemy troops to capture it: one last Soviet soldier hiding in a building will prevent West from reaching its objective. Hardly realistic, and hardly fun. What I would like to do is have the trigger monitor the troops within it, and become activated once West outnumbers East. The problem is, I have no idea how to do it (surprise surprise!. Any help would be, as per usual, much appreciated Regards, Xawery

Hey lads, thanks for the quick replies. Mandoble's solution works like a charm on desert island, but when I place the exact same triggers in my mission OFP starts complaining about zero divisors I have no idea how this is possible, seeing as the west trigger (the denominator) is only activated once west units enter, thus making the denominator non-zero. Gah, I'm at my wits' end here... Btw, wouldn't the CountSide function work in this case? I'm just guessing here, but wouldn't it be possible to place a single trigger around the town and name e.g. towntrig. Then, have an external script monitor the amount of side-specific troops within the trigger using SideCount. Would this work? And, if ObjCap is true, the game ends. Is this even theoretically correct or am I misusing the functions?

Um.. that's just me mate. I suggest you cut down on your migraine pills

I've done some more extensive testing, and the PG-7, RPG-27 and the PG-7VR are all accurate at 300 m. Even though the RPG-27 has an official range of 200 m (why there is a 300 m indicator on the ironsights is beyond me). The RPO-A, on the other hand, is an absolute bitch to aim, but hardly anyone uses it. In other words Jinef, quite blaming WGL for your own ineptitude and start training with those AT's Edit: I should add that the RPG-22, 26 and 27 all use the same ironsights. It is true though that in order to hit a target at 300 m, you have to aim with the upper-most part of the 300 m sight. This is isn't a WGL problem however, as all the aforementioned rpg launchers should have a maximum aiming range of 200 m. The fact that they can effectively take out stationary armour at 300 m can be attributed to OFP...

Many thanks Raedor, off to try it now

Hello gents, I should warn you in advance that I'm a total noob in scripting. I did a search first, but no meaningful results. Perhaps my questions is too noobish to even deserve being asked, but here goes I would like to set the skill of all AI's in my mission to 1, so they pose something of a challenge. Naturally, I could just change the skill of every individual unit, but that's rather time consuming. Is there any way of achieving this via a script?

Of course, after all, "stash" suggests some constraint and the abililty to preserve 'resources' for a future occasion... Back on topic - I've done some work on Lex Talionis yesterday; it now includes a notification when an objective has been captured. I have also extended the time limit to 1.5 h as per Og's request. I have decided not to replace the M113's by trucks however (Kaka's suggestion). I feel it would only limit West commander's options. Right now, if he wants to use the M113's for transportation only, he can. However, should he choose to do so, he can use them as a defensive/offensive weapon. Naturally, the M113's are deathtraps, but East has to make a choice - do we take out the M113's or do we reserve our AT capabilities for the tank? Choices, choices, choices... Edit: I just tested the Soviet rpg (the one with plain ironsights) and they seem to work like a charm Jinef. I had no trouble hitting a stationary tank at 300 m.

Ok guys, I think everyone should take a deep breath. No, make that two. First of all, this discussion is about to degenerate to a 'my army pwns your army' and 'your army <3 penis' dick-waving contest. I know we all sometimes feel the atavistic urge to bang our fists on our chests in support of our troops, but it's all pretty useless don't you think? There is no way of saying how one army will fare against another, simply because combat involves many contingent factors which cannot be accounted for a priori. Furthermore, no military is stupid enough to disclose all details about its forces and equipment, so any attempts at logical reasoning in such discussions are nothing more than uninformed speculations by default. Please, let's not lower our standards to those of militaryphotos.net (have you noticed the sudden rise in the use of the word 'retarded' in this thread?). Second of all, there is no way that any incident caused by the IDF would result in a military conflict between Western powers and Israel. Not even shooting at the UNIFIL commander. Think about it. Even if some countries would be in favour of military action, it will be a cold day in hell when the USA abandons its support for Isreal. The USA will thus naturally veto any proposal for military actions against Isreal in the UN. As the Coalition of the Willing has shown, moving in without UN approval can really isolate you and turn the public opinion worldwide against you. And that was a war against a two-bit dictator! What do you think would be the fallout of attacking a fellow democracy without UN approval? Then there is the general anti-war sentiment in Europe, caused not in the least by the loss of life in Mr. Bush's Little Big Iraq Adventure. In other words, no western nation would make a move against Israel without UN approval, and even then it would have to consider the internal consequences of such actions. Third, what would be the point? Teaching the Isreali's a lesson? Regime change? As much as I disagree with Isreael's policies, I do realise that weakening Israel in any significant way would destabilise the Middle East even further. As BUZZARD said, any sign of weakness would be the green light for Israel's enemies to take a piece of the cake. As it happens, Israel's enemies (especially Iran) aren't exactly best pals with the West either. It is in noone's interest to strengthen their position. In conclusion: to seriously consider a 'Israel vs The World' military conflict is to waste one's time. Which is not to say that any 'incidents' involving the IDF and UNIFIL would go by without consequences. We can all see what kind of controversy the relatively harmless incidents have sparked. Imagine the detrimental effect on Isreal's standing in the world should something truly significant happen. Isolation, loss of credibility, perhaps even economic sanctions. But full-scale military conflict? No.

There's only one truck and it's not on the frontlines :P Haha, I love it how this little feature (credit goes do Dethleffs) still manages to confuse people. One would think that driving around with the headlights on would be a dead giveaway...

Good to have you on board Ut-Oh! @Og: True, the m113's are a joke, but so is the M60. East has five playable AT slots with ten rocket-propelled grenades in total. They also have a wide range of satchels. Put differently, West armour shouldn't stand a change in theory. However, the last few games have shown that intelligent use of the assets (on both sides) can tip the scales of battle. That was our goal when making this mission - forcing the commanders to consider their options and make choices. While the mission itself still needs considerable work, I have to admit I am rather satisfied with the diverse turns the mission took when commanded by different people. Specifically, I am glad you decided to use the bridge Og

Nice compilation Tipsi, I don't remember being that extatic when I blew up that tank, but there you have it! Hahaha, I just listened to the TS recording, marvellous stuff "Ok, the tank is not going to come back that way, they know the town is too well defended -- it's coming back! Eisen, Mamoo, run away! RUN AWAY!" So, did West win? Did the M113's come in handy?

Hahaha, haven't listened to the recording yet, so... who won?

Boy, this certainly was a friendly-fire event

Thank you Soul for flattening my arse with your APC :S

Nice bumping there Mr. Jinef. I certainly am ready. Couldn't attend last saturday and coming saturday is also a no-go, so tonight's game is all the OFP goodness for me this week