[asa]oden

This is the line you bomb at (307): ResourceName imageset = hq.GetBuildingIconImageset(); Your mission has a faction that is lacking a so called MainBase (collected 4 lines above this to that "hq" var). Are you really running a vanilla Conflict mission?

My best guess would be that you miss "SCR_RespawnSystemComponent" in your gamemode. Maybe BI should add "if (!rsc) return; in there. Are you building something or running an existing mission?

Same. I guess we'll just have to wait it out.

Maybe create a "zero-content" mod with dependencies to all the mods you want.

As you have already noticed the Conflict gamemode is pretty hardcoded on faction (rather than checking "isFriendly") and while a small and fairly easy mod of "class SCR_SpawnPoint" would let players of "friendly" factions in to the current spawnpoints pretty much nothing will work from there on (no tasks to begin with). My advice is to duplicate whatever extra factions you have into either of US, USSR or FIA - not all but just the "Campaign_US_Player.et" or whatever main faction needed at minumum. Then add these to a duplicated "ArmaReforger/Configs/Factions/US_Campaign.conf" under "Entity Catalogs", "CHARACTER", "Multi Lists", "Campaign" as new "SCR_EntityCatalogEntry" - Also add a "SpawnerData" and a "LoadoutData" under each of these new units. The SpawnerData has a "Variant Data" where you can add a variant such as "VEHICLE_MERC" (the only one by Bohemia but you can append other types to this list via "modded enum ESpawnerVariantType" if you are into scripting. This would be the first step to "connect" each unit to similar groups and vehicles down the other entries in the "Entity Catalogs" I don't think it will help in the current Conflict code but that's how I matched selected player profile with spawning a "correct" supporting team in my DustCTI (Conflict flavour) found in "US 1st Cavalry Division" mod (download and copy-paste anything useful if you want to go down this route) when a player selects anything else than the 1.CAV slot. Example: modded enum ESpawnerVariantType { // VEHICLE_MERC, SPETSNAZ, RECON, US_1CAV, US_1ID, US_3ID, US_4ID, US_8ID, US_82AB, US_101AB, US_MARINES, }; (never got around to creating Marines as they didnt really make a big impact in Cold War Europe other than Embassy work maybe)

Either in prefab SCR_EditableVehicleComponent under "Entity Budget Cost" type "CAMPAIGN" or in the config where you list the Entity Prefab you have "Entity Data List" probably containing a "EditorData" and/or a "SpawnerData", there you can edit/add a "LoadoutData" (SCR_EntityCatalogLoadoutData) and set the "Spawn Supply Cost". Haven't tried but should work. Edit: just tried the config approach - no go (I assume it relates to player loadouts only). Go with the prefab SCR_EditableVehicleComponent

Patrol Ops 2 on Celle 2 3 sets: USMC Russia Bunderwehr (BWmod) Download Minor edits by me and subroc such as group respawn on ai team members etc. Have fun (we do) Edit: USMC and RU versions had missing playerslots - redownload if already done so.

You'll see one day.

So, how much will you charge us for this then?

Gotta love how Steam manages to punish us who's avoiding steam as much as possible. No way to get away is there?

mmm "04: Civil War" is a Warfare mission like Superpowers. Unless you have some other mission named almost the same?

I'm afraid Gossamer is correct. Deserves or not maybe this should have stayed an ArmA addon after all, the step up to complete game is bigger than most expect I guess. Reading all the modules there is pure ArmA2 content looking for USMC, CDF, RU, INS and GUR factions shows the release was rushed so asking customers to be patient now for the patch is something that leaves a bad taste in the mouth. But as always, it's easier to put expectations on others than on oneself.

Nope not doable in vanilla warfare. In my view, Warfare is a group coop game where players support eachothers with their groups so I don't see the idea of running in the same group - but thats OT :)

Considering BIS is about to release 1.61 and IFL patch 1.03 will be 1.62 I'd say what was IFL 1.60 is not really the current stable and well working BIS 1.60. I start to think IFL got the current 1.xx back when they wrote the license agreement with BIS (years ago?) and has since developed in parallell but failed to apply whatever BIS has sent them to keep on track with BIS development. As such we sit with this not too stable odd behaviour experience of today, still 1.02 if far better than 1.00.

Please enlighten us new players. In other news: +1

remove the [if (!isServer) exitWith{};] or replace with [if (isDedicated) exitWith{};]

Nope. This file pinpointed by the warfare editor object is used to override the shown variables set to BIS_WF_Common (thats actually the warfare object) and you can tell warfare2.pbo to look at [Common\Init\Init_Common.sqf] which physically resides in your mission folder. In that file you redirect reading barracks from your [Common\Config\Config_Barracks.sqf] contaning your edited unit lists. Not the best system made by Mike Melvin but i works. Actually you can override alot of files removing "corepath" from the relevant calls using files in your mission filder rather than the warfare pbo. There's a bunch of them in Client and Server init-files. This way you keep your mission pbo small using warfare.pbo functions execpt for those files you redirect - now thats a smart move by Mr. Melvin :) God Bless his Socks (as someone here would say). Saldy though this system would've worked perfectly unless they changed core function calls with each patch rendering this system to a total mayhem for anyone put some effort in there moving alot of files out to the mission folder. Also note that warfare is using "activateAddons" (worst command since Rommel left the desert) which will get you "error .. downloadable content" running your edit in MP - just an error with no other impact so you should be good to go, but it's annoying as hell. Edit: no worries - it actually IS quite difficult I cleaned up a version of CWR2 I made some time ago, this one running pure warfare2.pbo with overrides as I tried to describe above. Even if you dont have CWR2 you can still see through the files how it's done. If you have CWR2 you'll find it in editor on Everon. Download Example folder here

Using [initMission.sqf] you can add what files you want to control (override from warfare.pbo): With above as example you need to put [Common\Init\Init_Common.sqf] in your mission folders and from there on it should be self-explaning. Also, this seems to be ArmA2 issue and not ArmA as you put Takistan as example.

Thats what I did before stopping running an open server, so yes - I've seen a share quantity of lame connections.

config-wise units have 3 levels where one is available for use in editor and the others are for config-inheritance pretty much. The Li-2 is "protected" so you're not able to use it in editor but if you know some basic scripting you can create it as createVehicle["LIB_li2",pos,[],0,"FLY"]. This is common with WIP units. I'm using it in my Swift Visit II (red army version only) mission

Yes, why do you ask?

--- Edit: Oops, not an addon is it? :) I'll try and think before typing next time haha.

Wonderful Blake! I read "all" Hassel books when I was young (104 years ago). Will try this asap getting back from work (going to be a looong day).

Thanks Mr Burns, well done. Just one small thing, will you revert the faction back to "Bw" with the next pending 1.1?

Bis_baf