Eagle-Eye

Some basic ideas for side missions, unless indicated otherwise. - Disable enemy FOB / FARP The enemy is using a small- to medium-sized settlement to enhance their combat capabilities in the region. Destroy X vital infrastructure(s) (e.g. ammo cache, fuel depot, watchtower, vehicles, ...), so that their effectiveness is reduced. - CSAR (timed; I'd say not more than 10 - 15 minutes; could be an AO sub-objective as well) A fighter pilot had to eject over hostile territories. We have received signals to indicate he's alive, his current estimated location and which pre-planned location he is headed to. As he will be surrounded by enemy units, he has to move cautiously so his ETA at the pickup area is unknown. Locate and rescue our pilot before the enemy is able to capture him. - Kill HVT (could be an AO sub-objective as well) An enemy HVT is reported to be arriving in X for a meeting with local resistance groups. This meeting will most likely take place away from prying eyes, but civilians may be in close vicinity. PID your targets as civilian casualties are not allowed under any circumstances !! - Camp defence (delayed activation; timed) (Mission only activated once at least 1 player is in the camp; enemy assault begins a few minutes later, in 1 - n waves) With indications that an assault on our camp in X may be imminent, we needs extra men to help set up and man defensive positions. - PoW camp defence (delayed activation; timed) (Same as Camp defence, basically, but now you also have enemy PoW's that need to survive.) Coming nowhere close to an agreement on the release of PoW's any time soon, the enemy is reportedly forming up to rescue their men from camp X. If rescue is deemed impossible, it is assumed that the enemy may attempt to kill the PoW's instead. - Retrieve intel (could be an AO sub-objective as well) (Similar to the current intel mission, except that it's a static object, not a mobile unit) Some documents are so highly sensitive they are only available in hard-copy. Spies have confirmed the presence of one of those documents in X, but are unable to grab it without compromising their cover.

You can also easily set a simple trigger that checks if BLUFOR is in the trigger area, say up to 5 or 10m in front of the gate, and when true, set it to open automatically. That way, you won't have to get out the vehicle to open the gate. Not at home currently, but if you're interested, I can share the code later.

Hey guys, Not sure if this is just a hick-up on my computer or a general thing, but I just stumbled on something astonishing regarding the TS3 plugins-folder under AppData\Roaming. Since AWE also requires TS3 plugins, maybe I'm not alone, which is why I'm sharing this here. Short intro: For the past few weeks, I noticed my 128Gb SSD had only 6 - 10Gb (changed from day to day, for some reason) remaining. Obviously well below the recommended 10%, so I started digging but couldn't find anything that wasn't necessary hogging up that much space. After some searching, I found a tool that scanned the entire disk and listed folders in order of size. That's where I finally discovered that TS3 had multiple "Plugin"-subfolders, 28 levels deep, each with its own files. The link to the deepest level looked like this: Aside from the "Last accessed"-date, all files were identical, so I could see no reason for this many duplicates and deleted them (with some effort *). Getting rid of the 40.158 files freed up a whopping 14Gb of HDD space !! * Windows has a maximum length a folder or file name can have (255, as far as I could find). Once beyond that, you can't manually do anything with the file anymore. Can't move it, nor copy, rename, delete, archive, ... As such, in order to delete them, I had to use the "Robocopy"-method found here. I'm aware this could be caused by multiple things, so it may be nothing for you, but it may also be worth checking on your computer if you maybe have the same issue. Cheers, Eagle-Eye

Could you try a "TK = TK'er setDamage 1" mindset? Will it be disruptive? Yes, but that's the point. There would also be no requirement to check for intent. - In case of intentional TK, only 1 guy gets TK'ed, so no mass TK's anymore, unless the TK'er takes a tank or aircraft and starts destroying manned vehicles. If a troll needs to respawn for every TK he does, it should deter him from doing it after no more than a few tries, as "fun" < effort. - In case of accidental TK, it should teach everyone to properly ID their targets, clear backblast (though not applicable on vanilla ArmA), check surroundings of target, ... which in the long run should benefit the entire community.

After some time of abscense, I joined AWE the other day and this was the first thing I noticed. At spawn, during mission prep, everyone was just talking random nonsense totally unrelated to anything ArmA, there was a prowler driving through and almost crashing into people, a few guys were playing dress-up in the arsenal etc. Best of all, over the course of 5 minutes, 2 or 3 grenades went off, injuring / killing several. Not once did I hear anyone complain about it, almost as if it's completely normal... Now, though annoying, if this behaviour was restricted to the downtime between missions, I could sort of deal with it. Unfortunately, it continued into the mission, with someone constantly calling out/nagging ASL's name (every few seconds for nearly a minute), people suddenly making weird noises or beginning to sing, opening fire despite ASL's repeated instruction to keep weapons cold, collectively bursting into laughter when someone from another squad comes in over the radio saying he's the only survivor of a T-72 that rolled up on them, and then making no effort whatsoever to go and help even though we were just 300m away, ... Part of my abscence is because I'm more active on a more mil-sim-oriented server nowadays, where the behaviour I just described would result in an instant kick or even ban, or at the very least a stern speech from staff. To be honest, my experience from the other day isn't much of an incentive to return here. Quite the opposite actually, since I feel AWE has basically turned into an EU1/2/4 style of play, but with mods...

In another community (milsim) I'm active in, such behaviour would result in a permanent ban with no chance of ever coming back... Now, I know AWE aims for something in between public and milsim, so I'm not saying that extreme's the way to go for AW, but if it's apparently becoming such an issue that it puts people off from taking leader roles or even joining the server altogether, maybe it is worth considering (regardless of status or activity on the server), even if just to take back control of the situation and server?

Hey guys, I have 3 devices I use to browse this forum: desktop computer, laptop and mobile phone (not using Tapa, but regular browser). Until about 1 or 2 weeks ago, I had no problem with being logged into this forum on all 3 at the same time, sometimes even using them simultaneously. Now, however, that doesn't seem possible anymore, despite having the "Remember me" checkbox ticked. What happens if I log in on 1 device, is that all others get disconnected after about 5 - 15 minutes. Just to check, I did use Tapa a moment ago, and it too disconnects all other devices. E.g. I'm now posting this from my desktop. This afternoon, I'll be away from home, so if I want to view the forum, I'll have to log in on my phone again. When I'm back home tonight and want to check on my desktop or laptop, I'll also have to log in again. Because it's on 3 different devices with different OS (win7, win10 and iOS 10.3.2) and settings, I don't think it's a local problem, but just in case, I have already deleted cookies, cleared browser cache and history (on all devices). Unfortunately, as expected, that didn't help though. If it's not some configuration in your forum software / code that's set incorrectly, any word of advice on what I could try next?

Great guide indeed. Does anyone remember the America's Army medical training (1, 2, 3, 4)? Not saying you should do it, Skull, but something like this (interactive mission, or instruction video) for ACE's medical system would be very useful.

There has been a topic about call signs, where I suggested this, but never really got feedback: I know it can be a bit confusing and overwhelming initially, and you can dumb it down as much as you want / need, but once you've used it a bit, someone will be calling in and Command will know straight away: "this callsign = that aircraft type / role = SWOT = action". Similarly, if Command calls "we need Camelot on station ASAP", pilots will immediately know to take the heavy attack helicopter, instead of "request CAS" being replied to with "Roger... Ehr ... Wait ... You want me to take the Littlebird, the Apache, or the Hornet?" This is used IRL as well, by the way. E.g. helo's tasked with (C)SAR, will very often use RESCUE as their call sign, just to make it clear to everyone in the area what their purpose is. Similarly, F-16s often use FALCON or VIPER, while F-18s will use HORNET, F-22 RAPTOR and so on, simply because it's the easiest way to let others know what aircraft type you are, and thus what capabilities you possibly have.

You could argue that an operation like I&A wouldn't happen without air cover, and expect enemy air units to come fight for air superiority. If that were simulated, you could have jets on both sides doing counter air and CAS. That being said, IMO, ArmA is a good infantry simulator, with a decent helicopter simulation but falls short terribly when it comes to jets. Theatres are by far not large enough (would need to be at least 4x Altis), and flight visibility should be increased (at least 25KM, preferably more). For that reason, I don't think ArmA is the right sim to set up such an environment. I also doubt any ArmA-server would be able to host both a ground war AND a continuous air battle.

Could be an issue with mods not yet being updated for the revised throttle control (full analogue axis instead of digital -100 > 0 > 100).

This might stir up (yet) another separate topic, but I'm wondering if the problem with "bad quality leaders" lies in the current concept of AWE. What I mean by that is that it's not random public lone-wolfing, but not fully milsim either. I feel like that may be catering to too wide an audience, creating mentality issues. I know a server on Falcon BMS (study-flight sim) that does the same, and they face the same problem (sort of). Some people (the "purists") on there want to take it all the way, others (the "rookies") just want to do their thing in a slightly more organised way, and maybe pick up a few things from the purists. But because they both have different interests in the sim, the purists don't like going there because the rookies kill their immersion, the rookies don't like going there because the purists are going way too far and too strict. That being said, "bad quality leaders" may in fact be a result from the different expectations everyone has on AWE. Maybe (it's just an idea), if you were to go more strict (i.e. leaning towards or going full milsim), you might end up with a better organised bunch that doesn't actually need micromanaging, making SL's job a lot easier. Should note I wrote this reply in a hurry, so it may not be as clear as I intended.

No in-game footage yet, but looks like this could become a "nice" realism-oriented game/sim focusing on SWAT operations: http://voidinteractive.net/

Whenever possible, you would be on another frequency band than the one you're jamming. E.g. cellphones operate on "three bands (900/1,800/1,900 MHz or 850/1,800/1,900 MHz) or four bands (850/900/1,800/1,900 MHz)" (Source: Wikipedia). Since this information is known, you can specifically target those. DUKE could be configured to jam 700 - 1000 MHz / 1700 - 2000 MHz to neutralise all cell phone signals in the area, while vehicle crew would operate on any frequency outside those ranges. One example I know where it wasn't possible to use a different band was during the CSAR of Scott O'Grady in the Balkans, back in 1995. EA-6B Prowlers and EF-111A Ravens were tasked to jam all frequencies they thought the Bosnian Serbs could use, so they wouldn't be able to report sightings, radio in reinforcements, use their anti-air defences, .... While effective in blocking the enemy movement, comms were also near-impossible for the 200+ NATO aircraft that were airborne within a very wide radius (+100NM). (Source: NATO AWACS Operator during that mission)

As a seasoned pilot in several flight sims, I have to question / wonder why it is wrong to use an AA jet for CAS opportunities? Especially in I&A, where at times only an AA jet is available and there are no immediate AA threats (e.g. after radio tower has been taken down), do you want that asset to just sit there unused, or the pilot to just fly around aimlessly until something pops up? (latter being most likely, since almost every pilot seems to want to fly a jet) Obviously, in the Buzzard (currently the only AA jet), you're not as protected or well-equipped for CAS as you would be in the Wipeout or Neophron, but you still have a gun that is perfectly capable of suppressing / taking out ground targets... You clearly don't want to take on a Kamysh or Tigris with a Buzzard, but unless you still have stand-off weapons available, you shouldn't come close to such a high-risk AO with any jet anyway.

Agree it would make sense to separate air and ground rewards, but whatever you do, do NOT under any circumstance create a spawn on an active taxiway or runway. There's a reason spawn areas and hotspots are clearly defined and/or separated from the outside world in the current I&A version. Doing otherwise is just asking for problems, because the last thing you want is that a reward is bought and spawns right in front of a heli or UAV on short final.

Haven't tried the dev-branch yet, but I'm glad they FINALLY found a way to fix that throttle issue. Definitely took them long enough. If I understand correctly, you still need to apply some throttle to move forward, though? (would be a shame, cause unrealistic) AAF-jet is inspired more on Gripen and Rafale, by the way, not the Eurofighter.

I'm a good pilot, but I never really bothered with the helicopter achievements, so that wouldn't work. It's been sidetracked a bit due to RL stuff, but I'm still working on a flight school project. Once it gets airborne, that should help, I hope.

Aside from repair specs, you can refuel any vehicle, including drones, at any fuel truck, fuel HEMTT or gas station. Same for rearm (Ammo trucks, containers, ...) or repair (trucks, containers, ...), and you don't even need to land or be real steady with helicopters / drones to do so. Just being within a 5 or 10m radius (or so?) is enough. All vanilla, without mods, confirmed in editor.

Finally, a worthy opponent.

I don't know if that's a factor. A lot of people used to play it regularly, so we know they have Apex. We just don't know why they don't use it (as often) anymore.

I already tried researching what the cause for reduced interest in Tanoa was. It used to be almost as popular as Altis (often 40-50 players online) but for some reason that all changed when I&A3 launched. It took some time, but it got better in the past few months, reaching 30+ players again. Now that we finally do (semi-regularly), they do this... As I said in the other topic, without any presumption or allegation of intent, I fear this change to EU4, even if temporary, will be the blow that kills Tanoa on AW...

Shame to see this happen, even if it's just for a test period... EU2 Apex was never as popular as EU1 Altis (though it sometimes came close in the 2.x days), and it had a very rough restart with I&A 3, but in the past few months, it was still able to draw at least 15, and often 25+, players. Personally, I actually liked that it had less players, because there was often a lot more discipline (I've heard someone say it sometimes had more than EU3 ...), or at the very least less trouble to handle as Spartan / admin than on EU1. Judging by the statistics of the past 30 days, a Sunday evening would've had 35 - 40 players on Tanoa, but last night on EU4, there were 6 at best... I don't know what the staff's goal is, nor am I implying they're doing this intentionally, but I think switching Tanoa to another server is probably the best way to kill it entirely.

Hey guys, I know it's something that has popped up in the past (did a search on several keywords, but couldn't find any hits, though?) so I'm just revisiting the topic of making I&A set up to have players fight against players. Could be a future update of current I&A3 on EU #1 or #2, a new development on a separate server alongside the regular I&A, something for AWE or entirely dismissed. The powers that be have final say. So, first things first, why? 1) Main reason (every time probably) is very simply because AI can be really dumb sometimes, and you need a human brain to close that gap. E.g. if you're far enough or when AI are garrisoned in a building, AI will never react, despite being massacred. Also in CQB, AI have some serious shortcomings... 2) The entire idea behind I&A is that the island is controlled by an enemy force, but those forces are always restricted to just the AO circle, give or take a few 100m. With human players, they could be coming from and/or set up anywhere, including somewhere outside that circle. Keeps everyone on their toes. The way I figure it could work (open for debate): - It's not meant to become a pure PvP. The main focus remains on the BLUE side, but a limited amount of players will be able to join the RED side. E.g. with the current 60-player limit, we could have 45 - 50 BLUE players VS normal AI and 10 -15 RED players. RED's purpose would be to hold off the BLUE attack as long as possible, not to reconquer the island. - The AO's can continue as they are now, basically, without any big changes. - RED would get their own main operating base, obviously far away from the BLUE MOB and with equal base protection. - As RED is meant to control the island, they should have a few locations to spawn across the map. These locations could be fixed (i.e. FOBs are always active, but initially used by RED, later taken over by BLUE), built into the AO or set up manually by RED players. - Random (civilian) vehicles are spawned inside towns and cities, to provide alternative ways of transport. Regular civilians could be spawned as well, if server can manage, for IFF purposes. - With a total of 10 - 15 human players, RED would consist of 2 pilots and regular infantry units. The rest of the AO is filled with AI. - Because of limited amount of players on RED side, there would be no distinctive separation between roles and their associated gear/capabilities, except for pilots. Everyone else would theoretically be able to revive players / repair vehicles (if they brought the appropriate backpacks) while carrying any other kind of CSAT equipment. Weight limits would obviously still apply, and for reasons of fair play, viper outfits and thermal scopes remain prohibited. - RED would have no access to mortars, because there already is the artillery that spawns every so often, but they would be able to deploy unarmed UAVs and MANPADs. At this point in time, I'm still thinking about whether all RED players should be allowed to function as UAV operator, or if that's something that should also be restricted to the pilot slots... - RED receives rewards when BLUE fails a side mission. Positives: - Above all, the human brain that is capable of things the AI just can't begin to imagine. - A bigger challenge, more thrill and a larger sense of achievement when going up against human players. - Variety. With a single starting point, humans can create vastly more different outcomes than AI ever could. This also holds true for equipment. One time, humans could be commandeering a civilian vehicle to get to the AO, next time they could be bringing an armed Orca, another day they could lay down IEDs on suspected ingress routes, ... - Constant reinforcements, adding the illusion that the enemy is really trying to maintain / take control over that AO. Positive or negative, depending on point of view: - IFF, especially with CSAT equipment rewards. At present, there's a chance that a side mission gives BLUE side a Gorgon, Kajman, ... Similarly, if not overhauled, RED side could receive a Marshall, Blackfoot, .... That makes friendly fire and destruction of a reward that has just been received a real risk, especially on public servers with no / little communication. Negatives: - Theoretically, both sides could attack the enemy's MOB, or position himself in such a way that they can shoot anyone the moment they leave the base protection zone. We can only hope that is not abused. When noticed it is, Admins and Spartans can take appropriate actions, though. (rule suggestion: do not come within 1 km from enemy MOB) - If no / few BLUE players are online, RED players may have a boring time. They could just reconnect to BLUE, though. - RED is basically meant to be a losing force. Though I'm fairly certain most will not mind at all, I'm sure some would rather not connect at all, than to connect as RED because all BLUE slots are taken. Your turn now.