Ebden

The weapon could be a good basis for a mission, esp. if the mission involves the weapon in use throughout firing either on an in-map area or part of a campaign on another area (weapon in Chernarus, early mission on UTES, but end of mission finds unknown bombardment of island, moving to second mission to disrupt bombardment) Of course, I'm one of those nubs with lots of ideas and zero editing ability, so instead I'll be pleased to see the train as a usable transport addon in the future.

Next some clever WWII fanatic needs to make this, and give it to OPFOR (reworking the 'scrapmetal' history of the Gustav Gun a bit to say that the US gave it to the USSR following WWII out of respect for the assaults on Fort Stalin, Fort Lenin and Fort Maxim Gorki...maybe a good mission background?)

Now you've got me confused. I'm too daft about this stuff to be sneaky, but I'm trying my best to get the Sparta crowd up and running with ACE. They are keen to use a stable version and are not interested in continuous updating of the server. If 1.0.4 is the same as v284, then great. I'm going by the roadmap dates at dev-heaven and corresponding them to the released version #s on sixupdater.

Is b284, the version released today, the same as 1.0.4? Is this the last of the thrice-weekly updates?

Nice. Look forward to trying it this weekend.

Are the server crash issues sorted with this TvT yet? (This is the mission with Blufor Hum chasing Opfor AI, with an extra Opfor Hum squad harrassing Blufor, right?)

Myself and a few others spent several hours working on this one. It was brutal on my machine. Three of us with AI disabled made it to the second town, but by that time I had frozen, crashed, dumped to desktop, or BSOD'd and couldn't continue. Each time we liked what the mission offered, which is why we kept going back to it (I was hosting at the start, but someone else took it with a more stable machine). I was unimpressed by the UK weapons though, especially when used in a mission with CQB at the very first objective. Not a one of the UK weapons has iron sights, so we opted for some of the ACE2 weapons instead. Also, it may be ACE2 related, but on respawn we were not able to rekit a ruck nor put a weapon on our back. Despite these hangups (investigating compu stability this week), I'll be back at this mission soon.

Edit: Sorry, comments relevant to another mission. Wrong thread.

The NES comp was tounge'n'cheek. I totally get your point about addons as an obstacle, and there are plenty of missions available without addons too. ARMA 2 launchers are available to help manage launching games with the right addons, and even ACE2-Beta has a couple manual updater programs around. I don't want to distract this thread about OP. ICARUS, so we'll keep it on topic for now. Are you stuck at any particular step for using the addons in this mission?

C'mon alleycat, you can't imagine that everyone thinks the same as you? If so, we'd still use NES 8-bit. Addons are functional and immersive to varying degrees. ]ntruder is using them to give the mission a certain 'feel', which wouldn't exist if this was Chernarus with vanilla kit. I'm all for using addons when they will add to the game's enjoyment or functionality. I do agree, however, that addons can decrease potential users, because the means to use them is still not as user-friendly as it could be. (wasn't 1.05 supposed to support something which automatically launched addons based on some .pbo parameter?)

Gave it a look as well, I liked what I saw, but I'm still trying to coerce a group to download all the addons needed.

I think just the first ground convoy, NW of the MLRS, should be moved. The second ground convoy, a couple KM to the NE, is far enough out that most players (if all slots full) can get in the air and pick a few targets. That is if it's that convoy that destroyed the MLRS. I still don't know if it was that or a 4km lock from one of the SUs. (The two tanks just NW of the MLRS seemed the most logical given how close they start, but I don't know if they had a real angle to fire). Either that, or add in secondary defense checkpoints to slow the advance of ground convoys. To keep from simply 'beefing up' ground defenses in your mission, the checkpoints could be optional secondary defense objectives, emphasis still on the MLRS. The checkpoints as well would need to be far enough out that ground convoys must first pass them before effective ranging on the MLRS. This is all moot if the MLRS went down from a long-range SU rocket instead. In that case, I'm not sure what to offer to help the mission along. I wouldn't want to see the mission 'step up' in intensity over time, trickling in more and more SUs, that's not the point of the scramble. Maybe, if it was an SU that destroys the MLRS in the first minute, the SUs could have a few more ground targets for them to engage...US or other allied AA defenses, with the crew skill set low enough that they don't take too many kills from human players. On further thought, there's an Everon mission that might have a few hints to offer. Edit: Mission Valkyrie by Nikiller The point is-there is an air group and a ground group, both meant to assault two towns. What about adding a few (2-3) ground slots in that local militia? Would that completely wreck the point of the mission? No SMAW/Jav, just mines, satchels, perhaps an RPG. Playing those slots isn't necessary, but it might give a combined-arms touch.

Host issues on my end from the earlier noted high pings. The other EU server (2 legitimate trys) ran smooth. A couple traffic-jams with player coordination at the deck launcher-if more than one person selected deck launcher then the stack-up is a bit crippling (though I think the launch-effect still works, my A10 took off facing the ship's port side). Most frustrating was Opfor's quick takedown of the MLRS. It happened within 2 minutes each of our two tries today. We identified a couple T90s moving close at the starting gate. It created a bit of a mad rush the second time when we realized what had happened. I like the need for quick-response, I haven't seen a mission yet that legitimately can end that quickly, but it can also be a big turnoff to other players to lose that fast. I wish I remembered which pilot slot I used the second try. On my first spawn I was glitched into the carrier wall and had to die and respawn before continuing to play. Given how quick the round can lose, wasting a respawn at the start is bad mojo.

Tried with 8 people on my home machine via internet-cross Atlantic connections (non-MMA version). Pings all 350-450, crippling. I normally hosted these guys at max 180ping. We're going to try with a EU connection now. From what I saw at the start, this looks like a laugh (a good laugh).

Ironic, I was checking this thread, trying to sort why the launcher cycles the 'new mods found/deleted' window, and I received an error message from the launcher (v2.0.4 RC1): It's contents contained no parameters <> And 'No application is associated with the specified file for this operation' Line 7813 Run Ideas?

Yes, that's the bit. On further thought, what I first called an easter egg may not fit the def'n, because that little element in Berezino adds directly to the immersion level, ethical reflection on the scenario, etc. If I'd found a graffiti tag with mission maker names, that's more in line with an easter egg. Perhaps instead chalk this bit up to a dark, clever, addition to the mission. BTW,

First impressions, from a 90% runthrough of EW and a quick spin in the editor. ...Whether basic mission scripting or new elements enabled via the update, I'm pleased with what appear to be more options for mission makers (or maybe BIS mission makers are just that good) New mission-elements from EW, or at least new to me: I'm pleased with the AI improvements at this point. Also, since I didn't notice any of the previously common draw-distance annoyances, then I assume the fix is working. (Not noticing a problem means it isn't a problem). I'm excited to see this element function, not sure on now...just leave everything else as-is, the .exe will access the various addons? * Automatic launching of user made addons (units, missions etc.) via "pbo" file association with the game Not sure what to make of this one. Does it keep people from turning into birds? * DRM free for users of legitimate installs. For our servers, we are pleased to have the Battleeye option, and we'll explore its operation and efficacy soon.

Was your health 100%? I also initially was stuck w/o a board option, but I picked up on advice earlier in this thread. You need to heal yourself (via medic-machinegunner). The catch is that you need to get him to heal you BEFORE the SL gives the order for you to get in the truck. I luckily had a handy save during the last trek. BTW, he won't heal you on your first call. You need to pester him up-close and he'll eventually flip you over and stuff gauze in your holes. :eek: Also, for those who haven't found it: Easter Egg.

I remember reading about a scenario that puts one human player with High Command over AI squads versus a human team. I've searched this forum and armaholic and I can't find the reference. Does the game style ring a bell? Please post a link if you know the mission or discussion I'm trying to find.

Thanks, I'll keep an eye out for it.

I second the above post.

I'll still kick him if he doesn't follow server rules.

Any solution to the VON issue? It worked for me last week, but doesn't seem to work anymore. My ARMA is up-to-date, my mike works just fine in TS. I've gone through variations of restart with and without TS, addons, etc. Nothing. I can hear others using VON in-game, but the game isn't picking up my transmission even though the ptt symbol appears. (my name, however, doesn't appear, which is the indicator for actually transmitting).

Tractor's getting a bit off-topic I think. Arma 2 may support three-way missions, or missions with three independent human factions playing at once, but it doesn't really fit the nature of a tournament unless it was a round-robin with squads rotating through different roles and playing the same thing repeatedly. It makes for a good custom mission idea, if the game engine permits that complexity. To digress from tournaments for a moment: Hypothetical: The mission begins with two primary factions, blufor & opfor, battling for territory control to ensure an uninterrupted power supply from Pobeda Dam to the industrial facilities in Chernogorsk. Objectives would be mirrored for both sides. To capture Pobeda Dam, Chernogorsk, and various transformer/power relay stations between. Completion objectives are capturing all and holding them for a set time. Failure will occur if more than a set # of secondary relay stations, or any of the primary stations/dam are destroyed, or a set number of civilian casualties occur. The third faction, independents/CDK, are interested in both blufor and opfor taking their little war elsewhere, and will do what they can to prevent either side from completing the objectives. They are not interested in causing a widespread blackout either, but success or failure is not dependent on maintaining Chernarus's electrical grid. Completion objectives are the destruction of both blufor & opfor HQs, or a set # of enemy infantry or vehicle kills, or the successful capture and defense of Pobeda dam and the Chernogorsk power station. The only failure category for the independents is exceeding a set number of civilian casualties. Interesting enough, but it'll get old after a spell. To keep it interesting, and where the game engine may fail the idea, is an alliance element. In exchange for arms (tanks, helos, etc), blufor and opfor can seek neutrality or an alliance from independents. Assorted in-game timers and scripted rules will need to be added to keep some loose control on how it works while still permitting the sort of back-handed manipulation that makes it fun. (after accepting a bribe, a no-entry radius for independents is enforced around enemy-held objectives for 10 minutes. An alliance can be broken if accepting sides shoot/kill an ally). Figuring out some way for a third team to interact with two other primary teams could be a script made available for other mission makers. It has nothing to do with tournaments though.

Yes, more information is available when you register on the AGW site. I just saw another forum post from one of the admins here. In summary, Assault-and-Secure (AAS) game mode is a capture-the-flag style game. If you played Project Reality for BF2, then you would be familiar with the concept. In this version, the opposing teams, as organized into squads via AGW-forum recruitment, spawn in any of their controlled 'cap zones.' To maintain focused play, the cap zones are organized linearly (Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, etc), and may only be captured when the neighboring zone is in friendly control (i.e, a team cannot successfully occupy cap zone Echo if they do not hold cap zone Delta). The cap zone names are the same for both sides, so the opposing team would only capture Echo if they held Foxtrot. Each side can have up to 50 active players, for a 100-man server. By the end of C1 a few weeks ago, 90 players were engaged regularly during Sunday battle times. Some armor and air assets are available and used by dedicated vehicle squads. Kits will be limited to simulate real battlefield loadouts. More detailed rules are available on the forum once you register, and they are recruiting to start the second campaign in a week or two right now!