Ferrando
-
Content Count
52 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Posts posted by Ferrando
-
-
I agree, the RTS elements remove the tension filled encounters of the old OPF infantry simulator gameplay "where you've "just" been one part of a relatively small group of units) to a certain degree. I mean while playing the RTS missions, it just doesn't feel like maneuvering Up Close and Personal through the battlefield and on top of that, RTS mission seem to be "clumsy".I also wish there would be more (private) servers with the classical "Player vs. Enemy A.I. COOP" Missions.
But the great thing about Arma2 is that you can have both...I also enjoyed being just a part of the unit, having to obey orders etc. On the other hand, I also enjoyed deciding about the resources, axes of attack etc, and unlike RTS and some strategy games like TOAW in Arma2 you can "personally" observe the operations you conceived of.
Think of it this way, you start as Sergeant and end up as a Colonel. But two things BIS need fixing up because it is unprofessional to release games without them: 1) thorough testing to identify and remove bugs; 2) comprehensive documentation (no need to have a printed guide, just include a pdf file on the DVD).
-
Hmmm, it's not giving me the other groups in the sub-menu to send them to. I assume after you pick "send units" it asks you which squad to bung them to? Mine's empty, despite having other squads there...That's how it works in DoW after I figured it out...we need the manual!
-
I guess it's a tradeoff....Complexity (with bugs attached) vs Simplicity (nearly bug free)
I honestly prefer the complexity and the freedom of choice that the engine allows!
Much more than the heavily scripted/limited traditional missions... see COD...
What I was trying to say is you can get complexity and freedom of choice if you keep campaign structure, especially the triggers simple.
For instance, Badlands mission is good in that you are required
to take 4 villages. It is rather simple to program mission success criteria but you get the freedom to choose when, how and with what forces to execute the mission. Contrast that with the Prizrak task where many users have reported Prizrak missing or being invulnerable. My point is that the mission competion trigger should not be killing or not killing Prizrak but something else that is not bug prone.
-
I was very impressed with "Warfare" concept of Arma2, and how it seemlessly meshes RTS and FTP elements.
Alas, we have all experienced numerous bugs in the Campaign. It is really not surprising given the evident ambition behind it.
However, why not build a campaign with simplified triggers, and mission success markers? For instance, don't make the mission developments hang on a character dialogue script or a similar routine. Instead, why not go for territory capture or a mission critical object destruction, things that can presumably be easier to program? Then all the dialogues and events could or could not unravel w/o the player being stuck in a mission that doesn't end.
Also, it may be better to break the missions into a number of smaller ones. Good example is FOB Manhattan. If that one was split into two or three missions it would be easier to avoid bugs. Same applies to DoW.
Overall, IMHO missions where you are given an objective, such as capture a village or destroy a unit provide better fun and are less prone to bugs than missions where there are tons of time critical events and dialogues.
Finally, even though it is a feature of real warfare, please don't put time limitations in missions. It sucks to get instructions to find and grab someone in 20 minutes.
I am aware that this would reduce the experience somewhat, but simplifying the campaign objectives and missions along the RTS lines (remember C&C series where you usually needed to destroy the enemy construction yard to win) would avoid the frustrating confusion when something didn't trigger a mission-critical event. And I think atmosphere can still be created w/o complicated scripts and dialogues.
Also, why not think about enabling a "force triggers" console command that would allow the player to initiate a routine that wasn't triggered for some reason. An example would be the start of DoW mission.
-
A quick question, how do I assign troops to different squads?If I buy troops at the barracks they just go in my squad, which becomes massive but hard to organise; and if I use the communications (complex commands) menu, when I choose to move the units, it doesn't give me a choice of squads to move them to. Ditto for my map > units menu.
Is it just disabled for this mission, or is it just the squads are too far apart / in vehicles / in a town with too many obstacles between them?
If so, how do I purchase units directly for a different squad?
IE, I want to add AT to my second squad, and I don't want to have to buy it to my squad, hook up with squad #2, transfer the one infantry.
Having sent squad #2 to my barracks, how do I instruct them to buy the new unit?
Buy the units, then select ones you wish to assign, then open communications menu and select SEND UNITS option (it will indicate units you selected in the brackets).
-
Therein lies the problem. My whole team is at the LAV-C2, but the game doesn't end.I really don't want to just use the endmission cheat, because that seems to screw up the campaign...
Try the cheat. Reporting to Shaftoe ends AmAssault mission so you are not missing any "decision" points. The cutscene with Shaftoe introduces the next mission and it takes place on the rooftop of a concrete building at the outskirts of the city and nowhere near the mobile HQ.
-
BTW, when the house blows up, Cooper says there was a guy running from the scene and Shaftoe orders me to get him. Problem is Ive never seen a guy running in any one direction...:o) Any ideas?It's a guy in a white shirt who will usually try to escape to the North. I've managed to corner him but he started shooting his pistol. I've tried to shoot him in the arm or leg but it didn't work, he just died :D ..oh well..
Alternate outcome appears to be when Cooper would just radio that nobody could have survived the blast and that it probably killed the bomber.
Anyways, I don't think it matters as you can't capture the bomber and this arrest task is of no consequence to the progression of the campaign
-
I was only wondering if you waited and tried to grab him the next morning would the outcome be different?
Anyway we are talking about a sideshow as it has no bearing to the campaing progression which is one of the reasons why I find this task odd.
-
Yeah but it's still slow...only 4x
-
Hi all,
In Manhattan, there is a task to
arrest a guy called Nikolaev in Khelm. Obviously, the moment you approach his house it is blown up with him in it. I've tried different things to preempt this, but to no avail. However, it just occured to me that the mission notes state he can usually be found at 6:00 every morning waiting patiently for the post office to open. So I thought to execute that mission at that time. However, this means playing the game for 18 hrs or so, or at least leaving the PC running with the team safely parked in FOB.
Has anybody done that?
Your thoughts?
-
Egh? Where are you living? It's 2009, not 1995. Russia has been on a streak upwards.If Baff needs to backup his statements you need to do the same.
And again, even you admit it was in 1990s, now it's 2009. Things have changed.
Oh a NATO led force pummeled serbia and Kosovo, how hard is that? And they still managed to lose F16s and F117s! I mean c'mon...
The US is fitting ERA on tanks and APCs. And you keep ignoring the damn link I posted:
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=74232
Lower quality FCS, lower quality materials, no ERA, lower quality build, badly trained crews. And no, Iraq wasn't exactly awash with money, the Iraq-Iran war had just ended. It had drained both men and money.
T72s have seen TONS of combat. The T-90 on the other hand, no. We've yet to see it in combat. But I doubt it'd preform poorly. It's got a new turret, composite(as does t-72) with ERA, Shtora and refleks missiles.
OK you win:cry2::cry2:
But on the operational level, if I was in charge of planning I'd take an US Armor-Heavy Task Force over anything Russia could field, anytime anywhere...but that's just me.
-
Tanks have been knocked out by auto-cannons in recent wars. In reality it was because they had damaged critical systems sucs as optics, sensors and moving parts. Of course a smattering of HE or Sabot 20mm to 30mm is gonna do some damage to any exposed systems. Since Arma doesn't replicate detailed damage, such as loss of sights, sensors or external armor/countermeasures you have to make do with pure destruction.Yes, of course auto-cannons can cause damage to tanks. But I don't think they can kill the gunner in the turret, no way. But that happens in Arma2 :(
-
I don't think you have quite grasped yet that the T72's attacked in Iraq are not the same T72's as the Russian's use.No U.S. Sabot round has ever penetrated a Russian T72.
The U.S. Sabot round is not very effrective against ERA systems. The Russian Reflex missile, which can be fired from all Russian tanks form the T64 onwards has twice the range of any U.S. Sabot round and 50% greater RHA penetration than their latest DU one.
It also uses a tandem warhead making it effective against other soviet styled tanks using ERA too.
The daddy of course is the Ukrainian version that has a top down attack like a Javelin.
Neither the U.S. nor the Russian army are particularly reknowned for their high standards of training where I come from.
I haven't investigated the training programs of both forces with regards to tanks, but there are other areas in which the Russian armed forces have a superior training regime to the American's (and still others where they don't).
That the American's train we all know. How it compares to Russian training is not something you are equiped to judge without first finding out what the Russian training program is.
Just imagining theirs to be far worse, isn't the best way to play a poker hand. In fact it's a good way to lose your shirt.
You should substantiate your claims my friend. The only training the Russians seemed to have conducted was growing potatoes on the grounds of their military bases when the funds dried out in late 1990s. There were even widespread reports of famine among the troops, not the mention the prevalence of alcohol abuse. Although the situation has improved somewhat with the rise of the price of oil, Russia is too a Third World country in many respects.
You can't seriously claim that US military is not adequatly trained. No country would field a BATTALION of troops organized along the Russian/Warsaw Pact principles solely for the purposes of training. Putting political considerations aside, assault on Iraq in 2003 was conducted flawlessly against the odds, including meddling by Rumsfeld and co. Check out www.irvin.army.mil, that's probably all the research you need as regards the US training. Add regular NATO exercises to the mix, and simply put, the only forces that train today are US/NATO.
Russians? Well, they almost overran Georgia, but how difficult is that? And they still managed to lose a number of Backfire bombers? I mean, c'mon...
When it comes to ERA, it just proves my point. T-72 was developed from T-64, with steel armor. M1 was fielded in early 80s using British-invented Chobham armor that has a number of layers, including ceramics. One of the reason Russians use ERA extensively today is probably because they are unable to develop/reproduce Chobham-type armor. I mean, if ERA was such a big deal, the US would have fitted that already. And I've never come across even a hint that a US SABOT round would have problems with ERA.
Also, how did Iraqi T-72 substantially differ from the USSR T-72 at that time? Remember, in the 90s Iraqis were awash with money whereas USSR was not. They had enough leverage to ask for and receive top notch variants. And Saddam was quietly supported by both the US and USSR against Iran until he had a brainfart and invaded Kuwait.
Bottom line is this...whereas T-72/80/90 family are in many ways excellent platforms, unlike Abrams they are not proven in combat. In both 1991 and 2003 M1 (in all variants) was deployed outside its ideal surroundings (Europe not desert) and performed admirably, even in MOUT. And contrary to doomsayers, the losses were minimal.
-
The difference in Armour is irrelevant vs tank weapon systems. Neither can penetrate each other face on in one shot, both can penetrate each other in one shot from any other direction.
The T72 counters the Abrams frontal armour advantage by using a more penetrative weapon system.
They are to all intents and purposes identically matched.
It also has twice the effective range of an Abrams weapon system and 50% more penetration, so in open terrain it can expect to destroy the Abrams without even being fired upon.
The T72 autoloader is faster than a human and can load while bouncing around over heavy terrain at full speed.
Instead of comparing the newest and best equiped variant of an M1 (also a 35 year old tank) to the very oldest and very worst equiped variant of the the T72, why not compare it to the ones featured in the game.
The M1 has significantly upgraded sinces it's introduction 35 years ago. So has the T72.
Russia is not Iraq.
Russia is the worlds most prolific and successful tank manufacturer.
Iraq is a third world country.
What do you mean by a more penetrative weapons system? More penetrative than US SABOT round?
You are wrong in stating that neither can penetrate each other in the frontal shot. Frontal kills were documented in Desert Storrm, and apparently, SABOT rounds cut through T-72 like a knife through hot butter.
Of course, T-72 has been subsequently upgraded, but I did not start the comparison. You said T-72 vs. M1A2 is 50/50. I would so like you in my poker game :)
As to Iraqi v. Russian crew performance, I don't think the amount of training in the Russian Army is sufficient enough to bring ANY ADVANTAGE that T-72/90 may have over M1. I mean, just read the news reports from 00s about the degradation of standards in their military and bullying of young conscripts. When you factor in the general decline and the lack of funds in the 1990s., it is more likely that RF tank crews would not be very well trained.
And remember guys, US armor troops rotate every now and then to a place called NTCCC in Californian desert, where a simulated OPFOR battalion awaits. All get killed and humbled there - simulated, of course. Every US tanker will tell you that the training is actually more difficult than combat.
Apologies to the original poster, this is straying from the subject but I think it's relevant as Arma2 after all, is advertised as a military simulator. And kudos for the experiment.
-
Er...Kosovo Airport?What about it? As I remember, it was the Russians who dropped a full regiment of airborne troops there.
Besides, the Serbians agreed to withdraw from Kosovo following the air campaing, NATO was unopposed in ground maneuver.
-
The problem is an ovious error in the t-72 and T-90 .cfgThere is a line in this config that makes russian tanks vulnerable to HMGs to.
100 Hits with .50BMG or less with Kord are enoug to destroy it.
A BMP2/3 will take much more hits..
The russian tanks are as vulnerable as a armoured HMMV to heavy MGs and Autocannons.
the bmp3 has a value of damageResistance = 0.014030;
while the t90 has a value of damageResistance = 0.003890;
T72 shares this problem.
There is no problem with the fact that 30mm Autocannons can harm a MBT, ist just questionable to what extend.
Thanks!
Perhaps this has been discussed elsewhere in the forum, but is it possible to edit the relevant .cfg files and how do you go about doing it properly?
-
I'm playing DoW, bought a T-72 and as gunner, I get killed by a burst from BMP-2's cannon.
This can't be real. You can't pierce T-72's armor with BMP cannon. All modern wars suggest that unsopported Infantry Fighting Vehicles like BMP run like hell if they encounter tanks.
I'm running the 1.02 patch. Has anybody noticed a similar thing?
-
Fuel distance of russian "T-90С" (T-90S) is about 550 km on good road, and +200 km with extarnal fuel tanks.Compare this with M1A2's 450 km's......
Yeah, but you can put pretty much anything into M1A2...jet fuel, petrol, diesel, yoghurt :D
T-90 is diesel only...besides you are unlikely to advance more than 50 clicks in a day w/o some kind of operational pause/resupply.
US Army's 3rd ID 150 km thrust in OIF was the farthest armored advance in a day in history. (Can't remember which date exactly, but I think it was on the third day of the campaign).
-
Why is this wrong?T72 vs Abrams should be close to 50/50.
Same for T90.
Are we talking about real life or Arma2???
Man, in real life M1 just toasts T72 in every respect.
1. M1A2 has infinitely better armor.
2. M1A2 has far superior sights, T90 doesn't come close let alone T72 which is a 40 years old design
3. M1A2 has a crewmember-loader, who if properly trained (and they are) is at least 15 seconds faster in reloading the gun than T72/T90 automatic loader.
4. M1A2 is powered by gas turbine which makes it faster and quiter than T72/90 powered by diesel engine.
5. Finally, M1A2 is fully digitized, with BLUETRACKER and other goodies that allow for complete situational awareness
Overall, this means that M1 shoots farther, faster and is more accurate than T72/T90.
The M1 vs. T72 debate was resolved in Desert Storm when Iraqi tanks seldom even saw Abrams tanks before they were destroyed. Abrams' slated armor plates are so effective that few tank rounds fired at them were deflected upwards. These facts were documented in great detail in numerous books on the operation (my favorite is the account by General Freddy Franks, VII Corps CG, co-written with Tom Clancy). Granted, Iraqis were poorly trained, but remember, US training standards are far superior to Russian or Chinese or whoever.
Bottom line is, even with T72 or T90 crewed by Russians, my money is still on M1. The odds are 90-10 in its favor, not 50-50.
-
Anyone help with a tip on taking out the third village? Also, I can see I get (for example) $43 for taking out a technical (nearly at the expense of my own life)...how can I afford to build a factory and buy APC's?
"Another strategy is to capture the second town and just wait until you get enough money for a heavy factory and a BMP-2...it's easy sailing once you're mechanized."
You get money from towns you control. The more you control better the cash flow. You earn money in combat too, so after you set up your HQ, buy yourself an RPG and some troops and harrass the enemy at the 3rd town until you have enough money.
It's too bad people give up on Badlands mission. It's rather enjoyable.
-
After getting so frustrated not being able to reinforce my other squads in the Badlands mission, I decided to use the "endmission" cheat to continue on the dogs of war.However, when I start DOW, the NAPA faction who I was allied with in the previous Badlands mission now sees me and my squad as an enemy and kills us right away 2 seconds into the mission.
what is going on? what do I do about this?
Just replay Badlands, it's a great mission!
When you create additional units, select them, go to Comms, then select SEND UNITS option and finally, select the commander you wish to send them to.
Alternatively, just wait until you have sufficient money to build a heavy factory and a BMP2. Nothing can hurt you with that sucker around.
You should definitely finish Badlands, and do EVERYTHING so that NAPA and CDF are allied again.
-
I don't mind the fact that you can't buy NVGs, but I DO MIND that Coops had them and then he doesn't anymore...
This also goes for the rest of the kit. In Manhattan I took M4 with ACOG and then in Bitter Chill I'm back to M4 with reflex optics. Why can't BIS let me keep the stuff I want??? It's not realistic for anyone to take the preferred weapon off a badass Recon Marine ;)
-
Another strategy is to capture the second town and just wait until you get enough money for a heavy factory and a BMP-2...it's easy sailing once you're mechanized.
-
I found them about 2 clicks south east from the village, you should be able to spot them as you go over the crest of the hill. There are a couple of technicals and a BMP. Unfortunately, there was a bug so the vehicles were just standing there...it was like shooting fish in the barrel
Is there anywhere to rearm at manhattan?
in ARMA 2 & OA - OFFICIAL MISSIONS
Posted
You can rearm at the crates behind the long desk where Shaftoe is. That crate has all the firearms in the world.
I read somewhere in the forum that there are crates with SMAWs and Javelins around, but I don't have the time to go back there and check them out.