Engioc

Hi SparkZ, yeah for me its crashing during the day, as well as at night. Time of day seems to make no difference. Before Adapt was released it was very stable for me, its only started doing this since Adapt. I note if I now try to go back and redo missions from Survive I'm also getting random crashes, when I originally played through Survive it never crashed even once.

I'm actually getting the same sort of issue but it doesn't seem to always happen at exactly the same point, or even the same mission. I've had crash to desktop occurring randomly while playing through Signal Lost, and Common Enemy. I've tried verifying integrity of the game via steam, and lowering the graphics settings all the way down to the lowest setting but it doesn't seem to make any difference. I don't have any mods of any kind installed, just vanilla ArmA 3. Motherboard: Asus Sabertooth Z77 Processor: Intel Core i7-3770K Graphics cards: nVidia GTX580 - GeForce 332.21 driver version Ram: 8 GB Sound: Sound Blaster Recon3D - Driver version 1.1.49 OS: Windows 7 Home Premium x64 DirectX version: DirectX 11 HDD: WD black 2TB with 925 free

I'll add my welcome back too even if a little late. Welcome back Ivan and Martin. Good to see common sense prevailed in the end.

Does BattleEye have a record of my CD key even if I've never used that service? I wasn't aware there had been a hack on that system and relating to ArmA 2 until right now. I have no real reason to believe my CD key would of been stolen for two important reasons, I've never actually used BattleEye (if I did I don't remember using it), and I've never added anything to ArmA 1 or 2 apart from officially released content. I still ask the question because I do take the protection of my CD keys quite seriously and I have no idea how these services like BattleEye work. I take it these CDs are being stolen by people downloading dodgy add-ons which contain a type of virus that then steals it from the users own machine? Any clarification appreciated, hopefully I've posted in the right location and used a good enough title.

Hi All, I've spent several days now trying to figure out how to do one simple, I have plane1 and plane2, they take off perfectly but I want plane2 to land at a specific airport (landat 0) and get out of the plane if plane1 gets shot down. I've set the condition: !alive plane1; and the On Act: plane2 landat 0;getout I've tried this so many different ways its making my head spin and none of the searches I do explain it enough for me to understand it. The getout seems to be ignored totally, the plane lands but then takes off again. I've tried working out how to change the current waypoint for plane2 to the last waypoint which is set to getout, but that never works either as the setcurrentwaypoint is too confusing I can't even work out how to write the line out or how to tell it which waypoint it should be. Why cant I put in a simple thing like plane2 landat 0 and getout?

I only read the first few pages on this but as far as I'm concerned ArmA 3 is going to be an awesome game. Also I would of thought anyone playing games for any length of time would realise features that are talked about as confirmed during development often never make it to release because of problems getting them to work properly. Been playing games since the early 80s and certainly not come across many PC games that shipped with all the ideas that were thrown around during the development. As far as I understand it ArmA 3 still has a long way to go before release and I think they're doing exactly the right thing by making sure they only leave things in that work, more than anything else it was the bugs that prevented ArmA 2 from being a bigger success than it was. A good rock solid stable release is what's needed for ArmA 3, other features you talk about can be added later through DLC's and full blown expansions. I totally agree, I was actually surprised when ArmA 3 was announced, I felt they could of done a few more expansions to ArmA 2. When I first joined these forums I did some complaining about the amount of bugs in ArmA 2 but to me with the fixes we already have its good enough, it can still be painful at times but not so bad I couldn't of enjoyed playing for another year or two. I would argue that list does include the player, I'm a player and also one of those film makers :). I think BIS are one of the best devs around, they listen and care about their community way more than most other devs in my experience. When I look around at most other companies like Ubisoft, EA, Codemasters, Atari and the other big companies its clear they have absolutely no care at all for the fans. They release games likes Assassin's Creed loaded with bugs and rarely bother to fix anything but the absolute game breaking bugs because in 6 months to a year they're pumping out the next one to cheat you in to buying. Look around at what most of these other companies are selling you and the prices they charge, crappy DRM always online protection systems, shitty console ports, over hyped games where you pay a shit load more because you bought the black edition that included no actual gameplay bonuses but a nice (worthless/pointless) figurine. Look at the DLCs most companies release and the prices they want in comparison with what the DLC actually gives you. Clearly I'm now getting carried away on my rant about the shitty gaming industry. I don't know how many others on these forums play other games but honestly its hard to find another developer that treats its fans as well as BIS do. Assassin's Creed Revelations release this year was a very bad console port and has received virtually no support from Ubi, compare that to ArmA 2 released in 2009 receiving its latest update just a few short weeks ago whilst also developing ArmA 3. Yet there are so many people on here bitching about what ArmA 3 MIGHT not have included and how bad BIS are. You people dont seem to realise how good you got it. Developers I feel you get a good deal with (in not particular order): Rockstar (GTA) BIS Egosoft (X Universe) Creative Assembly (Total War) Nitro Games (EIC and CoTA) Auran (Trainz, hoping their new simulator store will include BIS games) Gaming Mind Studios (Patrician, Port Royale) ISI (rFactor) Simbin (Race 07, GTR Evo) OK I'll end the list there but my reason for listing them is most companies who offer their fans a good deal with pricing and continued support are the smaller guys just like BIS. Big companies just want your money and their solution to any of your bugs is to forget the one you just paid $100+ for and buy the next one. Apart from Rockstar most of these companies aren't that well known and their games not at the top of most peoples list but just like BIS you get support for years in to the future. The companies flogging you COD, AC and the like will never be as good imo because they lack any real creativity to begin with (all they understand is marketing reports) but mostly because all they care about is the money. Don't get me wrong all developers are in it for money but I still see a clear difference in how BIS treat its customers compared to an EA or Ubi. I'd also argue with a company like BIS its clear there is more to it than JUST money, they seem to have an interest in the product, game, genre their creating for us. In the past I was a big fan of old Might and Magic games, before the days of 3DO, and I remember a statement by Jon Van Caneghem during the demise of 3DO about how many people create games but it takes something more to create really great games. Big companies cant take the gamble and just listen to marketing to make games, but the biggest sellers in gaming history are made by people who had the balls to step away from the crowd and create something entirely new and different. SimCity, The Sims, like em or not they won because they were nothing like any other game. BIS wins because they have the balls to be different. Last thing is I'm actually glad they don't overdo the marketing, they give us updates on their progress when its worthwhile doing so, as opposed to EA or Ubi who feed you so much info you know every aspect of the game before you even get it and are ultimately let down because it can never live up to the hype they generated.

I'll probably receive an infraction for this too but I'm attempting to ask my question anyway. How do I close my account for these forums?

Ah hi, I'd like to ask a question about this if I can. I do post youtube videos of ArmA and if its now possible for me to use the monetizing feature of youtube I'd like to. Maybe this question is better directed at youtube but it is possible for me to use monetizing on BIS videos while at the same time not using it for others. I post videos of many different games and obviously unless they follow what BIS is doing then I cant use monetizing on those videos. Actually don't answer that, I figured it out myself, I'll be sending you my PDF shortly :). One more question though, any problem with me somehow sharing this info on my facebook page? I'm always happy to help promote BIS.

I personally agree with this, I enjoy this mode because of the feeling that there is a larger battle going on around me, makes me feel more apart of a larger team trying to push the enemy back. but... I don't totally disagree with this either. I'd like to see warfare mode develop and have more of a structure to it, at the moment its fun but we're kind of just throwing units out there. establish a FOB, gradually taking territory with a variety of tasks such as clearly out forests, hills, valleys etc as you said, and seeing some life in the towns as we take them rather than empty streets. Perhaps in a way what it needs is the dynamic missions similar to the Armory mode, so the AI could still be given a series of tasks it needs to complete (done in random order so its not too predictable) with the ultimate goal being to take the entire map but the missions aren't simply about taking towns. I guess the strongholds in towns are a kind of markers for objectives the AI needs to aim for but perhaps if these could sometimes be invisible, and located in all different locations across the map. Example you have a marker in a forest that marks an objective for all players to try and take, if the AI takes it they establish a camp and attempt to control the area and stop enemy troops moving through. The AI would have this list of places it should attempt to take and in a random order but obviously it would also need the ability to determine what is currently an appropriate objective, so not attempting to take a camp that is already way behind the enemies lines (unless there is a valid tactical reason). So I think Warfare mode is good, but it could do with some improvements.

I think thats a good thing, I agree with the previous post, and that's from someone who is a gamer. I play all kinds of games from the well known GTA, Assassins Greed etc, but I hate to see something like ArmA changed to cater for everyone. All too often with games these days we see them continually dumbed down to cater for larger and larger audiences, and I find it very frustrating. Example....I actually really like the Assassin's Creed game when it first came out, it was different to anything else (on PC) and as a player felt it had a lot of potential for the future. Unfortunately, imo, over the few years its been around instead of making combat, etc harder as I would prefer, its become easier and easier, more and more hack'n slash. More silly combo attacks that look all really cool but require no real effort or thought from the player. They pump these games out 1 every year now and mark my words the AC series, COD, and any other mass produced games like that will be dead and forgotten in a few short years from now. I much prefer Bohemia stick to what they did with previous titles. You don't need to copy what everyone else is doing to be successful and make money, you can do it just by offering something different and unique, and that's what ArmA does. Don't EVER dumb it down for all the casual gamers or you will destroy everything that makes it special/worth playing atm. There is room for games and sims out there. I love both.

Well I like jungles too but obviously it cant be too diverse or it wouldn't seem real. I like both options so having a island that is already diverse in the climate depending on which part of the map your in. Totally different game but I'm thinking along the lines of GTA3 SA where it went from normal grass land, to a snow topped mountain, and the desert. I also like the idea of a map changing but rather than global warming I was thinking more of just normal seasons so you can have cold snowy winters, warm summers, and everywhere in between. To me this would also help give the game more of a sense of time, a long conflict that may run over many months or years.

What I'd really love to see is a map that offers a range of different climates within the one map. I don't think its really possible or believable either but it would still be cool to have a map where the landscape changes dramatically at times, eg going from snowy mountain peaks down to green flat land, forests, sandy beaches, and maybe even some desert. Probably way beyond whats possible but I'd like to see it one day.

I think the game will only ship with the one island and I think it should be great with only the one considering the size, but its highly likely that more will be added via expansions just as they did with ArmA2. Also the community will probably make plenty more for us to enjoy. Personally I'd love to see a snow/ice map....just thinking how cool it would be to be in a mission that allows for me to do some tracking, or being tracked by the enemy, being forced to cover my trail as I move around. I'm only a player though so no idea if this is really possible.

I'd certainly agree with that. I love ArmA and I'd hate to see it turned in to a BF3 or COD type game but its hard to deny that moving around indoors feels clumsy. I cant remember which of the Takistan campaigns it was (BAF I think) where you have to go in to a mosque to free some prisoners, I tried climbing some of the towers around the outside edge to get a better shot at the AI soldiers on higher levels of the mosque but its incredibly hard to get in to a decent position to fire on anyone, crouched down he either ends up falling off, or is so low can no longer see. Weapon getting stuck as you try to move around an find a better position, it just didn't work well at all.

I'm not entirely sure I understand what your getting at here but to me its the Toybox/sandbox element that wins in gaming these days. Sure there are plenty of games pushing you along a linear story where you hand held all the way. Sure Arma is totally different because it gives you total freedom, but there are plenty of other games doing that too and quite successfully. Grand Theft Auto, Test Drive Unlimited, Assassin's Creed, Mafia, Saints Row, The Elder Scrolls series are all examples of games that offer a sandbox free roam style of gameplay. I know some of these games open that world up to you slowly by locking off parts of the map until you achieve certain goals like a GTA but even then if you talk to most people who play it the first thing they do is try to open up that world asap, deliberately targeting the missions that unlock the whole map. So for me ArmA is a winner because of the gameplay it offers. I see many reasons why it fails to capture the attention of main stream gamers but I dont think its the sandbox element thats to blame. For those who dont know me, which is probably most of you, I don't often come on forums posting, these forums or any others. I don't consider myself to be a hardcore milsim player and my knowledge of anything military is VERY limited. I play ArmA because I love all kinds of games, I'm a hardcore gamer but not in any one genre. If ArmA became too much like all the FPS out there I'd probably stop buying it. When I look for games I love games that offer something really different and ArmA certainly does that. I know they want to grow the audience and I hate seeing posts by people who are so against that, sometimes you posts on here and feel a real sense of elitism by some people who play ArmA and infact many other more realistic hardcore games suffer from this same problem. All the military buffs and realism freaks think its better to leave everything the same as it is now and "stuff attracting new players because they'll only muck it up anyway" is often the sort of attitude you get. So I'm not against attracting more people to play including the most casual of gamers but I think they need to be careful about how they do that. ArmA needs to stick to what its good at and that is realism. Don't make a game that just copies what everyone else is doing, win because you offer something truly different and so far that is exactly what they are doing. Sameness is exactly what's killing PC gaming, someone has a great idea to make a RTS and suddenly everyone jumps in an makes one (most of them not worth your money), make a FPS and suddenly everyone just copies that same old formula and again most of them simply aren't worth the money unless your a total FPS freak. I only play 3 FPS style games being ArmA, Call of Juarez, and Outlaws, because they each offered me something a little different to the usual Doom running around in endless tunnels that look like the last tunnel I just ran down. I know FPS games have changed a lot since then but most of them still are stuck on copying one formula. COD, BF, MW, heck I dont even remember the names of them but they all look the same to me. God forbid that ArmA ever became like those games, because for all its faults it really shits on the rest of the FPS pack even if most gamers are too dumb to know it. One other comment I read on here was that most gamers do want to be hand held the whole way and that is one of the big problems with ArmA because you have to do some thinking, but if you do the hand holding for a while they eventually discover what is so great about it. Back in the early 00s I used to run a small games club where I worked, just using the network after hours to do some multiplayer. I remember many times with some old RPG games I was in to (Might and Magic, Ultima) trying to get other people to play them was hard because of the same problem. They'd love it when they see me playing but when they sit down to play it they wanted me to say go here do this, go there pick up that, etc etc. The game didn't force them down any one route and people do find that hard because so many other games lack that freedom. My solution to the problem is rather than changing ArmA in to something simpler I'd rather see BI make another spin off game. Just something that helps get the name out there, people will play it, get used to some of the simple parts of the game and when they reach the end will be encouraged to try the bigger full blown ArmA experience. I know they have a limited amount of resources but BI look like a company that is definitely moving up the ladder slowly, just look at the number of games recently or soon to be released and its obvious to me ArmA2 has brought in reasonable profit. Not so long ago people were saying IF there would ever be an ArmA3 2012 and we'll have it. Once thats released focus on a smaller version of it, maybe even one that can be sold on consoles (I know that comment will upset a few people lol, its a dirty word around here).

I love the idea of using enemy uniforms, however from what I saw in the latest video it seems a little unrealistic so far. In the video he shoots the guy and steals the uniform....what about all the blood and bullet holes? I like the idea of stealing uniforms but I think I should be forced to do it with a cleaner kill than that, eg a knife to the throat, dart, poison, whatever but not something thats going to ruin the uniform.

Thanks for that, sounds like I should just get OFP. Thanks for the advice mate.

I wasn't entirely sure where to post this on the site but I'm wondering if someone can tell me what the bonus content actually consists of in ArmA X. I did read the info when considering buying it and this is all the info it provides: Artworks Box arts Icons Wallpapers Soundtracks Maps I was looking for something more specific, so exactly what music are we talking about and does this mean I'd be downloading MP3s or something? Is the map a paper map or we're talking extra in game maps? Same sort of info for the rest of the items. I ask because I've already bought ArmA + OA + BAF + PMC so is any of this bonus content going to be worth it. Oh and please dont just tell me its not worth it, thats just your opinion, I'm wanting enough info to decide for myself if I should bother buying it. **Edit Just wanted to add I also already own ArmA Gold too. I am wanting to get Operation Flashpoint or ArmA Cold War Assault whatever name you wanna call it, but question is if there is enough worthwhile content in ArmA X I can get it as part of that instead of buying it on its own. Also is this a download only or can I get a boxed DVDs version? Thanks.

Not here to start a war but I'm glad PhysX will be used. As for the issue around those with AMD graphics cards well as far as I understand it the game will still run, but you may not get the full benefit of PhysX. Easy to fix that, an nVidia card isn't that much and although I'm sure my next comment will make me unpopular imo AMD has never been a good choice anyway. FYI - I'm not just saying that to be an nVidia fan boy, I'll support whatever card offers the best deal but imo nVidia is the safer bet when it comes to gaming. Sure in the end there is no real difference in performance from nVidia to AMD, thats not the point. At most the difference you get from one card to another is a few measly FPS that most people will never notice anyway. Whats 50FPS vs 49FPS, not frickin much. I'd still choose an nVidia over AMD however because they've been around longer, more established and there isn't a single game that wont run on them, and run well. I cant say the same for AMD. Sure many games do support AMD, but there are some that don't or dont work as well on AMD because they've used something like PhysX that isn't fully supported. What's more in my own experience during a number of workstation rollouts for companies like BHP and other large companies I've often seen problems with AMD chips that don't seem to happen with nVidia, plus when it comes to installing new drivers the AMD ones seem rather messy, easy enough when you know what you're doing but nowhere near as smooth as nVidia. nVidia can automatically clean off your old drivers before proceeding with the new install, it auto unpacks to your drive and auto launches the install/setup.exe. AMD however at least in my experience did none of those things, it didn't remove old drivers, it did unpack but certainly didn't auto launch the setup. Perhaps the laptops I've seen with AMDs were bad because HP, Lenovo etc did a poor job, but I'd still choose nVidia because I know for sure it works, always. Anyone care to name a game that wont work on nVidia?

I don't understand the complaints either, the screenshots look beautiful and all looking very realistic to me. So its set in the future, that's not a bad thing, there is little need to for BI to simply pump out another game too similar to what they've already done. When it comes to how weapons work, and how we work with them I'm sure BI will make it as realistic as always. Really not sure what all the fuss is about, just a few nice screen shots that look like they're just trying to show of the new graphics more than anything else.

I was the commander the entire time apart from a few brief seconds at the start when the AI established the HQ in the spot we started at, from that moment on though I voted myself and commander and stayed that way. I did occasionally HC as I said to move those other two squads around but those were only very brief, I was 99% concentrating on the battle near their base with my HQ setup right behind the strong point in Elektro. One good reason never to switch back to AI as commander is because as soon as it has command it immediately mobilizes the HQ again attempts to move it back to where we started despite the fact there are already many defenses and vehicle plants where I moved it too at Elektro. So matter how much you build your base up never hand back control because the AI just doesn't understand and insists on the base being at your starting point. I think you'll find that is the case no matter where you try moving your HQ to as I did read some forums on moving the base previously but to other locations and they reported the same thing, AI always wanting to return/stay on your starting point. Also I have to admit in a way I did take advantage of a small but valid cheat in that I restarted the game a few times till it started me at the town/start point closest to Elektro so I wouldn't have to travel too far, as I said at the start speed is very important, the longer you wait the harder they are to crack so I didn't want too much travel time. Actually on some of my earlier attempts I did do some other pretty crazy stuff too. For example, a few times I actually immediately mobilized the HQ and actually drove it right in to their base :), what can I say I'm an aggressive commander. As funny as that may sound I did have some success with that too because again it really did seem like I'd surprised the AI. When I arrived in their base they already had around 6 light tanks ready to go but they were all empty, when I arrived of course men when rushing everywhere trying to get in their tanks and I was hoping if I was quick enough I'd be able to shoot most of them before they managed to get in, sadly though they always managed to get 1 or two tanks mobile, and they also have a number of machine gun nests and other defenses so it was hard work. A few times I even attempted to establish my HQ right in the exactly same area as theirs, one time even built it on the closest spot to their HQ (did I mention during these attempts I did have an extra couple of men with me to man the cannons in the tank and then help while I established the base but after a number of these methods I decided I was being a little too aggressive which is why I pulled back to the Strong point. Before I finally work out how to play it I also tried another aggressive but slightly quieter method which was trying to sneak in to their base and plant satchel charges. Believe it or not they aren't very good at spotting you much like some of the other scenarios and I did manage to blow a couple of buildings during these attempts too but I could never carry enough charges to do the entire base in one hit and I'd get shot to pieces trying to get back out. I'll say again though, as crazy as some of my attempts were it kept reinforcing to me that getting in quick and right on their doorstep was a good idea because they just were not ready for me to come in to town so quickly. Unmanned tanks, being unable to spot me crawling in to base and the fact I wasn't sitting in some far away town with them coming to slaughter me. So I stuck at it and managed to find a way through their defense. Build your base right behind the strong point in Elektro and build your defenses all over that hill, keep yourself low or even stay inside the strong point and just build like mad, the second you have the cash spend it on more defense and build closer and closer to their base, find the gaps in the fences etc so you can get close and shoot through those gaps. One reason I gave up on trying to do it from a distance like the guy I originally quoted and expanded on was because of it being night and even with nvg I couldn't see enough of their base to aim at anything, so rather than building the defenses further back on the hill I moved as close as I could get. It also had the benefit of stopping them from getting too close to my HQ but they will come at you from all directions so you need your defenses facing all directions, I got to the point I was building ZU-23s in fours with their backs to each other so they'd cover all directions within each group. Also of course with anything in ArmA2 keep saving often because it doesn't take much for it to all fall apart, take a couple of bullets while you're moving to take control of some of those ZU-23s and you'll be glad you saved just a few minutes before hand. I've now seen it and I've now completed it twice. My internet is a little slow at the moment because I've used up my limit but in the next week I plan on trying to video as I play it through and I'll post it on youtube and provide the link (now I've said that it'll all go horribly wrong :) ) but I'll need some time because obviously this is a fairly long scenario so it'll take me time to put all the video together, render it and then upload it, I wish I had done that on my first successful run through because it was a good feeling when I finally beat it, it was the last thing I had to complete in ArmA2 and that includes OA, BAF, EW, and PMC because I had done all the other campaigns and single missions, even all the training and unlocking the armory. It was a mission that had bugged me for ages because like many others I tried soooooo many times and couldn't figure it out and just got slaughtered by the AI. Sometimes I'd manage to get off to a good start but in the end the AI would always overwhelm me with sheer numbers and heavier tanks that I couldn't match. My approach may be unrealistic but it certainly works. I can 100% guarantee I never at any time held 3 towns before destroying their HQ, I was taking them one at a time, then less than a minute later they'd be lost again. Oh and one other thing I noticed on my attempts at going right in to their base was its not always arranged the same way, eg buildings are randomly placed within that area so HQ is not always on the same spot, neither are any of the other buildings. Always within the same area but not the exact same spot. So once the HQ was fairly close to the edge of the area which is what prompted me to try satchel charges but then found when I'd restart the whole scenario the HQ had moved further in to the middle so it was hard to get at. Apologies too, read this again after posting, my grammar and typing in general always seems to fall apart when I do anything online.

One reason why may be a small detail I forgot to mention. Just prior to packing up the HQ one thing I did was go to High Command and ordered the other two squads to head for the nearest town. Then switched back and drove to Elektro. A few other times when time permitted I again switched back to HC mode and ordered those two squads to another town. In all including Elektro I probably did take 3 towns before destroying the enemy HQ.......BUT..... Never at any point before destroying their HQ did I actually take and HOLD 3 towns. I took those towns but almost immediately lost them again apart from Elektro where I had established my base.

only about 4 months ago and was playing on the current patch. This was after PMC and all the patches: ArmA 2 108 EW 105 OA 157 BAF 102 PMC 101 Looking at the ArmA2 game updates section it seems there is a 109 patch for ArmA2, and 159 for OA so maybe these are the ones that introduced the bugs?

To be honest I haven't experienced the problems mentioned here. I destroy the office building, then their HQ, and completed all the other objectives and no red crosses and my game ended perfectly. I'm not going to deny there may be bugs, I didn't experience any on this one but I surely did on other campaign missions, and scenarios, the amount of bugs in ArmA 2 is its downfall. It's a great game and I love it but all to often it comes out looking crap because of the bugs. 90% of the time things run well but when things go wrong in ArmA 2 they go really wrong and look really lame. I've shown ArmA 2 to many of my friends and people are amazed and the size and scope of what ArmA 2 gives us but then you listen to the robotic sounding AI speech (like when trying to give driving instructions to your AI tank driver), tanks getting completely stuck with pathfinding issues, ulb flying in circles even though you've set a waypoint for it miles from its current position, just too many things that work and then for some stupid reason decide to stop working and act crazy. With all that people get put off this game and for BI and ArmA long term I hope they get addressed because as I said I love this game and great concept.

I see your point about it being unrealistic but in other ways I dont mind because you can take command and as such have the ability to move your base to anywhere on the map which is not unrealistic at all. Often the problem on this scenario is not the time limit but the overwhelming number of light and heavy tanks thrown at you (and the speed with which it can do it) and once the T72s etc start rolling and the fact you cant build a heavy vehicle plant yourself makes it impossible. The fact I choose to build my HQ in the same town as his doesn't necessarily make it unrealistic, just a very aggressive move on the enemy and as it says in the brief you should hit them hard and early while they're not expecting it, and if you follow that it works. AS for waiting for a fix, well thanks for your comments and I do understand what you're saying but I'm happy enough with the way it is now. If there is an official patch which changes how this scenario works well then I'll play it with those changes, but I think I'll keep playing it before that happens too because so far I've not experienced the bugs.