Voyage 34

Well, making them not return fire would be already a good (and cheap) step forward: after all that's what suppression fire is intended for, right? next cheap step could be simply avoiding the "pop out of cover" movement, just to make them stay in cover a little more. With that we could have already a somehow-raw-but-decent suppression model.. EDIT: written in the CIT, this post seems to be really old..

Thanks for your response. Yes, the undo action works, and you are right about the not known source of the unit. But I was specifically talking about a 3d editor (MCC) created unit, whose "spawn code" is in the clipboard when saving the mission. Isn't there a way to delete the part of the code who spawn the unit? i don't know, just asking...

3. Well, i think the game host in a dedi server is nobody; for example i log in MCC when playing mp in my clan, but i'm just a client. 2. in SP you're absolutely right. sometimes even in MP, i don't want to find myself locked out because i was switching between different units (hijacking), or something like that. Just opinions, anyway. Hey shay, i have a bug report (i suppose). First of all congrats again for your great work! When i delete a unit in the 3d editor (the default one, not the RTE), the deletion isn't updated when the mission is saved, and the deleted object is loading again the next time. For example creating a bmp, then doing something else, then "that bmp is wrong!" deleting it and recreating it in another position, will have 2 bmps spawning the next time i load the mission. So i should go in the saved text and find it out by myself the line about the old bmp and deleting manually, but it's not so easy. It also make saved missions write-only. Do you think you can fix it? tested on takistan with only ace. Thanks!

Well, first of all i want to thank you for this great addon, i'm having so much fun creating things on the fly and the results are always brilliant! in the next days i'll try to implement it in the clan i'm in, like a sort of "classic roleplay" gamemode, with one master and the players. Anyway, about your quote, i tried it recently in mp, and i found that - not tested completely though - it works even without the client having it. Not sure if some features could be missing / not working. As a last question, I have some problems when creating cities and FOBs: -the city generator doesn't work always, sometimes it just gives me the "marker created" blink (without the "there's not enough space" message), but no city appears. Don't know if someone have this similar problem. -and when I try to create FOBs or a group of buildings in the 3D editor (in the d.o.c. section), they doesn't show up neither on the pointer, nor on the ground after pressing space. As before don't know if someone have a similar issue. Last question (sorry :D): is there a way to disable the upsmon script (i suppose) on units created and put under your high command? because they keep moving around and changing the orders i give as they wish. EDIT: just found the answer in the changelog, just spawn them with the default bis behaviour. Thank you in advance for the replies. Keep up the great work man!

Great AI improvements ...gonna check these out ASAP

If it is on your plan, re-editing of ArmA 2 vanilla scenarios for coop would be very nice too ;)

Sure, I'll do it as soon as I have some time. I'm also thinking that - due to squad leader often moving again before all units have moved on into the new formation position - there could be the problem of ''lateral'' units forced to cover a 2x distance to catch up with the newer formation. Btw I noticed from recent tests that a unit doesn't completely follow the preceeding everywhere, but only when moving forward. If the preceeding unit strafes left/right, or moves back, the current unit stays where it is. Just some ideas, nothing important.

Right. While the movement order (1, 2, 3, ..) is ok in my opinion (i remember time ago, when - as soon as leader moved on - almost all the squad followed him immediatly in a rushy and disordered way), the problem is - as you said - that when they move, the position to reach should be relative to the leader instead to the preceeding unit. Due to this now squads tend to remain back on the flanks and formation gets somehow "stretched" forward)

Some time ago I tought about opening a ticket for that but I never done it. Can you please tell me what you think about these ideas? (they're not written in a ticket form) I think the main point for that could be: -subordinates AI in delta and column never take cover, but just follow the expected position in formation (just like a cat follows the mouse), sometimes watching random directions. In this sense staggered col. works a lot better. About that I'm not sure: since subs in delta and column are supposed to stay close to the leader and follow him pretty quickly, going prone is a real obstacle: sometimes all the squad goes prone after a few sec, and since the movement is leader moves, 2 moves, then 3, then 4, etc, by the time each soldier have waited for the previous to stand up, when the last one arrives the war could be over. Plus goind prone in urban ambient is unrealistic for many reasons that in the game are not calculated (worse peripheral vision, worse turning speed, etc). So, IMO a squad should not go prone, but act more like (for ex.) in close combat: first to fight: or at least go prone not so often, maybe after some longer time standing (and obviously when under fire). Finally, combined with the "follow the position" bad behaviour sometimes really gives you the feeling you are commanding a squad of worms. Sorry for being so long, and thanks for your replies.

The work on the best mod to come resumes! hooray Keep on this way..(and don't forget your family eheh) btw did you liked the AI improvement in beta 77706? I think they have a "cleaner" behaviour now when moving, and they also take cover better. Last question: does your mod improve somehow even the delta and column behaviour (in AI leaded squad obviously)? because the idea of differentiate them from the rest was great, but practically as they are implemented now they are unusable.

Well, talking about AI, I made some test on it this evening, and I feel that IMO that patch is by far a step forward from 77159. Generally speaking, the AI is a lot more ordinate when moving, doing bounding overwatch correctly (and not almost randomly), and moving in sequence (1 advance, 2 covers; 2 advance 3 covers; and so on). As fabrizio said it seems less rushy and more coordinate. On the CQB side I feel the "Ai using corner" thing was what the AI was missing too much (I really hoped for it, but didn't knew it was a wip). Too many times the AI was passing through some taki villages with lot of walls around houses (I usually use feruz abad for CQB testing) running around a lot, without caring if there could be an enemy behind the corner they are turning, or passing by small gates or lateral streets without caring to look there, etc. Now they seem IMO a lot more efficient in CQB, they act better, and 2 teams of US soldiers can now clean a village pretty well, without being intercepted oftenly one by one and being killed while running around in a strange "cat and mouse game" logic. Well, maybe there could still be some space for improvement on the delta formation.. The corner thing even helped somehow on this problem, because taking more often cover behind corners means turning more often around, and so having a better peripheral vision. But I still agree with you that the AI needs a further better PV. Anyway, really good work BI! the AI seems almost like a new one :D. EDIT: another suggestion: another problem for the AI is the fact that sometimes, when they are in prone position, they stand up just to move 1 or 2 meters away (due to formation/position reasons), and then they lie down again. Well, for a soldier standing up when under fire (or generally in combat) means exposing himself to enemy fire, so it should be done only when you really decide to move somewhere "strongly" (or when you notice you are lying on some poo :D - sorry about that). My suggestion is: make a series of small "filters" about the movement from prone position. Example: moving just 1 mt away? stay prone; moving - don't know - 5 or 6 mts away? stay crouched; 30 mts away you can stand up. But I don't know if it can be done.

Great, man! thanks for making that...

Downloading the update right now. Anyway I have another question. Do you think it could be possible to set the vehicle crew class (/pilot class) with a very low courage value, to make them retreat when the tank is destroyed, instead of continuing the assault? (that is the most logical/realistic behaviour for a crewman). Hoping they don't start to flee with the tank at the start of the mission lol.

Wow! this is REALLY great!

Really nice work! anyway the skill level you set in the mission editor still affects the unit's skill, right? (at least (obviously) when going over the minimium unit value). Do you think there is a way to always keep a pre-defined skill (or pre-defined skill classes) for every kind of unit, even in third party missions? I mean to override the editor skill set (for example: I want every SF man to have always a 1 skill level, and every paesant with AK to have a 0.1 skill level, in every mission and every campaign I can play). Because sometimes things can be kind of unbalanced, imagine maybe the mission maker used to play with precision 0.25 and set all units to skill 1 in the editor because he tought they behave well that way, and I play with precision 0.8 and I find myself kicked in the ass by a group of idiot paesants with AKs. Exagerating with numbers obviously - was just an example, anyway that's the idea. Do you think it is possible?

Hi guys! Hope not to break any forum rules, or to post in the wrong section. Maybe I just discovered the wheel, but i have a question about an AI behaviour i noticed just yesterday. I was playing in an AI leaded group - assaulting a depot, nothing in particular - we got a contact, and the leader (with most of the squad) was waiting before advancing. I took the initiative and i decide to advance on my own, when i see a guys of mine advancing him too, about 50 mt. away. I thought "that's good!", i go on, kill some bad guys, and i notice he's behind me. "Is he following me?". I started going around and he were really following me! As i moved he was behind me. "Woooow, that's really nice...". It was the first time I've seen that; maybe i never noticed that, or maybe that's a 1.07 patch's feature. Anyway I tried to reproduce it in the editor, but I can't understand how it works. We're always in combat mode. In a USMC fireteam i never get followed. In a USMC squad i sometimes get followed by one or two guys, mainly when playing in an AT soldier (M136), while sometimes no one cares about me (playing with a rifleman). In a russian squad I get mainly followed when playing in a machingunner role, or a RPG18 soldier (notice that in a machingunner you often get an automatic rifleman "buddy", while in a RPG18 soldier you have a RPG7 guy behind you - sometimes with a third rifleman). That's really nice, but I can't understand how it works; did someone never noticed that? I firstly thought it was the famous "attack in pairs" seen in the beta patches, but i sometimes have even 2 guys behind me. If someone knows something about which roles are "escorted" in a squad and what's the logic behind that (I don't mean the ratio, but how it works) please post it there. PS: I use only a "no engage" mod for the AI leaded squads, but if you just put a squad with a move wp in combat mode you should anyway see that.

That's what I meant...seems like sometimes machinegunners and AT soldiers have some kind of escort by riflemen (or often automatic riflemen for machinegunners and RPG7 soldiers for AT guys). The problem is that this cannot be considered (imho) work in pairs, because you can have even 2 or 3 guys behind you.. I think that the most logical thing would have been to have 1 less important role soldier (es. rifleman/RPG7 rifleman/automatic rifleman/grenadier) linked to each important soldier (RPG18/machinegunner/squad leader), but it's not like that. To be precise the "work with your buddy" would be better applied to a USMC squad, which single fireteam (3FT x 4 soldiers) can be divided in 2 pairs (even if actually no one seems to follow the FT leader).

@neokika: I played in several roles, and if I'm not wrong the only time I played as a FT leader in a USMC squad (= 3 fire teams) I expected - if they have to follow someone - to have at least my fireteam behind me, while no one cared about me. Mah.. @nemesis: I saw the "attack in pairs" but seem strange that I never noticed that since 1.02. And as said above sometimes I've had 2 guys with me, that is not properly a pair. So how this system works and how it assigns soldiers to other soldiers remains unclear. PS: your signature rules

I personally don't think it'll be featured. I mean, standing in a land vehicle it's ok, because they're almost always horizontal, but the problem is that a plane/air vehicle can reverse, change inclination, and do a lot of complex manouvres, while you, standing soldier, must always keep your body almost parallel to your position's azimuth (feet towards earth's center of mass). Try to think about what will happen when a plane roll sideways (even 180 degrees maybe). There would be the total chaos for the passengers: weird animations, people stuck trying to move someway, sometimes finding themselves reversed upside down, maybe someone gets killed from the collision system, and other funny/awful things like these; I really can't imagine this (and I think it will ruin all the immersion).

The manhattan bug is well known (and pretty annoying - don't know if it's been solved now). For the others you should try to better explain the situation and possibly reproduce them. Or if they happened just 1 time i think the game can be forgiven Last but not least, eventually use the bugtracker (try to be be clear and not to double post obviously).

Finally someone being honestly sorry about the mushroom-like growing of the BI forum threads due to people asking things several times instead of searching. Ps: good behaviour, you're forgiven :D

You can use the "reveal" command in he enemy's team leader script field. Don't remember the synthax, probably somthing like: enemyTLname reveal yourname, anyway you can found it in the biki. That should work. And also the guard wp is useful if you need, it makes that unit attack an enemy detected everywhere by another ally unit, even if on the other side of chernarus (useful for creating reinforcements).

If the map is in a .pbo file you can simply extract it (with cpbo for example) and put it in in your documents/arma 2/mission/missionname folder. Anyway it's been said lot and lot of times before, so please search before post new threads (not to talk about the thread title).

Wow, that's a really good stuff! I always wished to see it in ArmA II (even if, for fair play reasons, the M1 tanks should have reactive armor, or something like that, implemented, too, but that's another matter). Anyway, great work! Just one suggestion: i saw your videos; shouldn't the explosion be closer to the tank? I mean, in your mod the missile get hit about 3-4 meters away from the tank, while in reality it should be around 1-1.5 meters..

Yeah, I tried too the iz3d in anaglyphic mode, and I have to say: yes, it's cool,, but: -it have a big impact on performance (it lags on most of the pcs i think), making the game unplayable. -it stress your eyes a lot -difficult to aim, due to the 2d nature of the crosshair (i was told at least, because i don't use it) -the colours are some kind of...psychedelia, due to the red-cyan lens you wear; it's somekind annoying after a while, seems to be in a trip. So, comparing advantages/disadvantages, I gave up on anaglyphic (i want to save my eyes too). On the other side, the new generation 3d (e.g. real 3d you see in the cinema) is a lot better, without color distortion, high quality, etc.., and i think that playing ArmA 2 that way must be something awesome. Unfortunately you need a 3d screen and a lot of other things to have, that they will become for sure more popular and cheaper in the future, but now are not so widely used. (I will wait when my son will be playing ArmA 7, with full 3d vision, virtual soldiers all over the kitchen, and all that kind of thing XD)