doubleDizz

Member

Last active 2 months ago

  1. 2 months ago
    Fri Jan 19 13:33:35 2018

    Have you tried choosing 'Tactical' over 'Civilian'?

    Other than that there's no way to reduce the CQB unless you make a specific taor marker really tiny, then you'd need to know which building was being used for the asymmetric installations...

    Are you wanting the insurgent installation to be better defended?

  2. 3 months ago
    Thu Jan 11 23:40:31 2018
    doubleDizz posted in ALIVE GUI issue with 21:9 monitor.

    The interface size in video options? I have that set to 'very small'

    Let me know if that's what you meant.

  3. Thu Jan 11 23:36:56 2018

    DaveK, have you tested any different between using 'Occupation' over 'Invasion'?

    I'm currently an hour into a re-built scenario, with the friendly OPCOM now set to 'Occupation'. Because in my prior version (it was set to 'Invasion') I kept losing objectives I'd clear at the start of the mission, due to unit re-tasking or poor reinforcement...

  4. Thu Jan 11 23:24:45 2018
    doubleDizz posted in Logistics reinforcements .

    I think the Logistics module is designed to reinforce from a single position. In the Logistics wiki article , it even has a tip how to force this...

    Tip: use Military Placement (Custom Objectives) set to very high priority (e.g. 999) to set a custom fixed insertion point.

    I don't know how to move the reinforcements insertion point during a mission, but keen to find out if that's possible!

    Are you good with script? I feel like your (lack of a) helo issue might resolved through whitelisting/blacklisting units for the force pool. ie: add another faction with helo units to your AI Commander module, change your Logistics module's option from "Faction" to "Side", then blacklist ALL of the 2nd faction's unit except for the helo's... maybe?

  5. Thu Jan 11 23:12:10 2018
    doubleDizz started the conversation How I use Combat Support for more than it was designed.

    It's quite possible that plenty of people already do this and I just haven't read the forum thread, but I wanted to share this.

    I use Combat Support, specifically the Transport Type, for more than it was probably designed for.

    A. The obvious first one is vehicle transport. I normally have an array of CS_Type "Transport" modules on my missions; a light/fast land vehicle, a large-troop carrying transport, and an armoured vehicle like a tank. I use the Move order to get them places and set the ROE to Engage at Will once they arrive at the location.

    B. I also use the CS Transport module for rearming, refuelling and repairing my vehicles out in the AO. I use classname HEMITTs and use the same Move order to get them to location, then use them as I need and order them RTB when I'm done.

    The reason I do this is because the Logistics 'Convoy' Type sometimes doesn't work, even though it would be the better function to use, because I could include an armoured escort for vulnerable units, like the HEMITTs.

    The other issue (although it is cosmetic) with this is, every time I order a land CS Transport to move, the radio command calls "requesting Air Lift at..." It's minor, but it doesn't make sense, cos I'm requesting a land unit (I know the air lift radio is hard-coded, because the Transport option is designed for air units).

    Combat Support improvement suggestion

    If you are looking to build on the Combat Support module, I was thinking you could:

    1. add a drop-down list to the module which specifies whether the Transport unit is 'Land' or 'Air'

    Then the radio part could call correctly, plus the land unit could do some things the air units can't (eg: reverse out of a tight spot at the module placement point; currently, any land unit used as CS Transport, can only move forward out of it's "base" position, meaning it is unable to use reverse).

    2. Add 'Rearm/Refuel/Repair' CS_Type with additional 'Escort' options

    This would be a lot of new code, but I think a lot of it would just be duplicate of the existing Transport CS_Type.

    This could be used for HEMITT type vehicle resupply whilst in the AO (like my example above). Because of that unit types vulnerability, It would be cool to include an armoured escort for this CS_Type.
    In the module, you could add some additional form fills, to include:

    Escort required (for R/R/R type only): Yes/No
    Escort units (Max: 3): classname,classname,classname

    The code would need to make the 'Escort' units follow the Move order given by the player, and place place the 'Rearm/Refuel/Resupply' unit in the middle of the escort.

    Another obstacle for this would be the 'Escort' unit placement. The CS module works well because it only ever places a single unit, but this theoretical CS_Type could place 4 units on the map. This could be resolved with an Alive-specific Marker variable name though (like ALiVE_CS_Escort_BLU_F or whatever); the escort units would spawn there.

  6. Tue Jan 9 01:41:53 2018

    I stopped getting CAS after putting the MACC module down and disabling all the options in it

  7. Mon Jan 8 20:58:06 2018
    doubleDizz started the conversation ALIVE GUI issue with 21:9 monitor.

    Just noticed this when communicating to a civ townelder. The GUI popup appears in the bottom right corner and can't be read.

    -image-
    https://i.imgur.com/jAkpQh2.jpg

    Is this a bug or something I can fix on my end?

  8. Wed Jan 3 00:42:08 2018

    Can confirm, CAS tasks generate (A LOT) when you pick Strategic Auto Tasking. I came to the forums to learn how to blacklist tasks, didn't realise you couldn't blacklist Strategic ones (the wiki doesn't mention that).

    I can try plopping a MACC (because we all know what that means) and disabling stuff and see if that stops the CAS auto-tasking to player infantry units who are not in air vehicles

  9. Tue Dec 26 13:02:45 2017
    doubleDizz posted in Multispawn ignores CfgIdentities.

    Thanks Savage. I'll learn more about the onPlayerRespawn see if that works

  10. Thu Dec 21 01:18:57 2017
    doubleDizz posted in Multispawn ignores CfgIdentities.

    Anybody? Just point me in the right direction if you can't be bothered typing an explanation

View more