st_dux

Modules are basically just game logic units that run scripts automatically. You can create one at anytime with createUnit.

Great suggestion. Is there really no way to suppress the automatic change to "Combat" mode when the AI comes under attack?

The Roman Empire has very little in common with the modern state of Italy.

Usually, if the initial waypoint is close enough to the unit's starting position, the unit won't actually need to move at all in order to reach it. With lockWP, the unit should effectively start out stopped. If that's not working for some reason, you could try using disableAI "MOVE". This makes it impossible for an AI unit to move whether or not it has an active waypoint. Your trigger could then be changed to enableAI "MOVE".

lockWP stops waypoints from progressing, but it will not stop the unit from moving to the waypoint it is currently pursuing (in this case, that would be the initial waypoint). Give your units move waypoints right in front of them before their seek and destroy waypoints. They will stop at the move waypoint and wait for your trigger before progressing. You can also take the lockWP scripting command out of the equation altogether and simply synchronize (F5) your trigger with the aforementioned move waypoint.

Looking at the various new kb functions last night, it would appear to me that CfgSentences has basically eliminated the need for kbAddTopic. The function also checks campaignConfig and missionConfig, so presumably you can make your own CfgSentences for a mission or campaign in description.ext. There is another function, BIS_fnc_kbMenu, that *appears* to be an easy way to give the player dialog options, but I haven't tested this.

Bump. I'm really curious about this as well.

I am assuming that missionFlow.fsm is a special file name that will be automatically executed on mission start. Is that correct?

Basically, MoW is a kind of real-time-tactical simulation whereas CoH follows a more traditional RTS model with resource management, bases, etc. There is a great deal of tactical focus in CoH, however, as it features things not usually seen in the genre such as suppression mechanics and capture-and-hold as the default victory condition. I would say that MoW is more focused on realism while CoH is more focused on gameplay, but atmospherically, they both put a great emphasis on history.

SLI/CF users make up a very tiny fraction of the PC gaming market, so I can see why the developers wouldn't make it a launch priority. As a fan of CoH, I'm personally liking the game a lot. Apart from the blizzard effect, which they're supposed to be optimizing, the game runs perfectly fine for me on a single GTX260. As for the complaints about realism, CoH is a historically-themed RTS game, not a simulation.

Fair point there. I already conceded that Steam-exclusive obviously limits choice; my point was that this limitation isn't really meaningful unless Steam has some actual negatives associated with it. You only need to connect to the internet once for validation (and later for patches if you want to update). After that, you can play offline always (or at least that is my understanding of it). As for slow downloads, I could be wrong on this, but I don't think that "Steam-exclusive" means that there won't be any hard copy sold; I think it just means that Steam will be required. Thus, you could install the bulk of the content using a disc bought in a store, and then Steam would only be required for initial validation and patching. I am not 100% sure on this, though, and I can see this being a legitimate complain for people with slow internet connections if distribution were to be strictly digital.

What, exactly, is the argument against Steam again? All I see in this thread is "I want to the freedom to choose against Steam because I want the freedom to choose against Steam"; I haven't seen a single substantive argument that mentions any real negatives of making the move to Steam-exclusive. Choice simply for the sake of having choice isn't very convincing in this case.

A few things: No one said anything about automatic weapons, which have been restricted since the mid-80s. The purely political term "assault weapon" describes an arbitrary set of features that are mostly unremarkable as far as function is concerned (examples include bayonet lugs and pistol grips). When it comes to gunning down docile school children, a semi-automatic AR-15 is hardly any more effective than a semi-automatic hunting rifle. The "militia" referred to in the Constitution is simply another term for "armed citizenry," a component of the revolutionary forces that was seen at time as having been essential for achieving American independence. It is a reference made decidedly in contrast to a standing federal military force. The Supreme Court has decided that a blanket ban on handguns, at both the federal and state levels, is in violation of the Second Amendment.

It is a worthy cause, but how do you do it? It's already illegal for a known criminal or mad person to purchase a firearm. The firearm used in the Sandy Hook shooting was not purchased by the assailant but stolen from his mother, who was neither a criminal nor insane and therefore allowed to purchase it. How do you prevent that?

Walker, Ron Paul doesn't endorse Romney, nor will he. The two candidates are completely different. Gary Johnson, the current candidate for the Libertarian Party, was previously a Republican. It's not as simple as Republican = Evil in all cases.

You can. The micro-AI enhancements in VBS2 2.0 are the same ones introduced with vanilla ArmA 2. VBS2 1.x still uses the old ArmA 1 AI.

5hfYJsQAhl0

You are talking about two different things here. Should nuclear weapons be regulated/controlled? Yes, of course. This doesn't make someone who sold a weapon ethically responsible for what his customer decides to do with that weapon, though.

Technically I'd say this is correct. I don't believe you should be held responsible for someone else's crime simply for providing a tool for him to carry it out; it is still the criminal's decision and his alone to actually commit the crime.

This doesn't matter. EA is going to continue making a shitload of money because people are going to continue buying their stuff.

The rhetoric may be getting more extreme, but the parties are both still pretty much the same old shit when you get down to it.

I've seen it before. They have a nice website, but they represent a small minority position among the greater scientific community, and all of their claims have already been debunked. Your willingness to believe this pseudoscience is a perfect example of the confirmation bias to which the comic I linked earlier was referring.

With all due respect: http://xkcd.com/258/