View Full Version : Questions, Observations, suggestions....
I've mainly been play testing the Anaconda Ops -
1. Excellent game (first and foremost).
2. Phase 1 of OP Anaconda? How does one achieve victory?
Meaning after inserting 3 SOF teams...and waiting for the follow-up Assault (including TF Hammer), along with the CH-47's, Apaches and F-16's that come in - What exactly are they suppose to do?
Do you get credit for each CH-47 that reaches its LZ??
I've played through several times and have yet to meet victory conditions. Typcially because I do not get credit for enough friendlies in the needed AO. Yet all my RT survive (Maco, India, Juliet) - Do I need to keep my MH-47's in the AO?? (I assumed they should be back at the safe zone).
It seems that TF Hammer comes in (advance to a certain point then waits....Afghan trucks).... Then my AH-64's, CH-47's come in.....CH-47s land (but no troops appear to come out)....they hold there for some time....then they all leave?? - Is more suppose to happen?? Are the CH-47s suppose to drop troops??
3. Is indirect fire on the AC-130's dedicated to only a certain type of internal weapon system?? - Meaning AC-130's will only give indirect fire for a certain amount of time (HE)...then show being out of AMMO - Yet the AC-130 will still have plenty of 40mm rounds and/or 25mm rounds (in their respective guns) which the AC-130 will continue to use...but only under the orders of "engage and surpress"....not indirect fire mode. Can these guns not be used with indirect support fire?
4. How are we suppose to destory caves?? F-16 will not strike them (or will not strike an object unless being fired upon or moving.....caves do neither of these)....(it seems many enemy are hiding in these caves...Go figure!....and only come out once the larger assault (AI assault) is on...
5. Recon (SOF) teams that are inserted to specific good Ob posts and with their LOS showing a good visual to the LZs.......Yet they don't seem to see many of the enemy within the LZs (or at least don't seem to see many of the enemy which seem to appear within their shown LOS). -
Meaning, say I have Maco RT inserted at a high peak (in which their LOS appears to show a good line of sight to say LZ 5 and 6??.....Yet they seem to rarely pick-up units who are near these LZs. (I only seem the once I have a UAV overhead).
Is the LOS......does this give a unit a visual ONLY along the exact yellow line iteself?
6. Having an option to allow SOF RT to give laze orders to fast movers (F-16, 15s) seems like it would be a great addition. This would work incredibly well at taking out caves (just as an example).
7. Did I mention I think this is an excellent game?
8. Will Predator UAVs fire hellfire missiles if we outfit them?? - I play tested this in a quick type mission. I could not seem to get the UAV to fire. By either using "Surpress" or "engage" target options.
9. In Anaconda if I am using Helo insertion do I need to take along the Quad bike team?? (would this help with putting more friendly #s into the AO?).
10. When we assign a # to our differing units (Shift + #). It would be nice when we click their respective # that the screen would hover (move) above where they are on the map. Currently it only clicks over to them....but then you need to move your map to find them manually.
11. Any comments / suggestions that would help with what the game is looking for out of our inserted SOF Recon Teams/Units - I have them on "hide, weapons hold, avoid obstacles"....I have them inserted to good Ob posts along high peaks. Is it best to simply leave these units alone and there throughout? (which I assume is correct?).
12. Is there any links or a ref guide to walking through newbies on exactly how ATF maps are layed out / work. I know they are Topo maps but are there any guides on learning to read them and/or understand them more throughly.
13. While I haven't played any of the BHD missions yet - I've noticed in the DB (aatf.db). that the Shughart/ Gordon vehilce/unit has "0" kill odds Vs all weapons? - Is this an error? or are these values correct (for other reasons?).
CPangracs
19 Dec 06, 15:04
I know Pat is on leave and enjoying a couple weeks with his family before deploying overseas, so I'll take a stab at some of these:
2. Phase 1 of OP Anaconda? How does one achieve victory?
Meaning after inserting 3 SOF teams...and waiting for the follow-up Assault (including TF Hammer), along with the CH-47's, Apaches and F-16's that come in - What exactly are they suppose to do?
Do you get credit for each CH-47 that reaches its LZ??
I've played through several times and have yet to meet victory conditions. Typcially because I do not get credit for enough friendlies in the needed AO. Yet all my RT survive (Maco, India, Juliet) - Do I need to keep my MH-47's in the AO?? (I assumed they should be back at the safe zone).
It seems that TF Hammer comes in (advance to a certain point then waits....Afghan trucks).... Then my AH-64's, CH-47's come in.....CH-47s land (but no troops appear to come out)....they hold there for some time....then they all leave?? - Is more suppose to happen?? Are the CH-47s suppose to drop troops??
Well, it looks as if the helo's aren't offloading their troops, which is what is supposed to happen. I will see if I can't find the problem. Nice catch! There is no way to win that scenario as stated if the Chinooks don't offload the troops!
3. Is indirect fire on the AC-130's dedicated to only a certain type of internal weapon system?? - Meaning AC-130's will only give indirect fire for a certain amount of time (HE)...then show being out of AMMO - Yet the AC-130 will still have plenty of 40mm rounds and/or 25mm rounds (in their respective guns) which the AC-130 will continue to use...but only under the orders of "engage and surpress"....not indirect fire mode. Can these guns not be used with indirect support fire?
40mm Bofors and 25mm are DIRECT FIRE weapons, not INDIRECT FIRE weapons. You cannot access these through the IF menu, and you cannot control them other than to give a suppress order
4. How are we suppose to destory caves?? F-16 will not strike them (or will not strike an object unless being fired upon or moving.....caves do neither of these)....(it seems many enemy are hiding in these caves...Go figure!....and only come out once the larger assault (AI assault) is on...
This is as planned - caves cannot be destroyed. I believe this is on purpose, but only the original scenario designer, who was involved in the actual planning and execution of the operation, can say for sure!
5. Recon (SOF) teams that are inserted to specific good Ob posts and with their LOS showing a good visual to the LZs.......Yet they don't seem to see many of the enemy within the LZs (or at least don't seem to see many of the enemy which seem to appear within their shown LOS). -
Meaning, say I have Maco RT inserted at a high peak (in which their LOS appears to show a good line of sight to say LZ 5 and 6??.....Yet they seem to rarely pick-up units who are near these LZs. (I only seem the once I have a UAV overhead).
Is the LOS......does this give a unit a visual ONLY along the exact yellow line iteself?
Yes - yellow signifies good LOS, gray is no LOS. Also taken into account is the current status of the enemy units! Likely, they are also in defilade, which decreases their ability to be spotted. There is also the terrain factor of any terrain attributes between the unit and the enemy which may affect LOS.
6. Having an option to allow SOF RT to give laze orders to fast movers (F-16, 15s) seems like it would be a great addition. This would work incredibly well at taking out caves (just as an example).
These teams DO have a laser observation ability out to 3000m. The issue is that the F-16s don't have the laser guided munitions on board. The issue here was more that they were observing, not lasing to destroy. This is truly a question for the scenario/db designer through Pat Proctor - can't answer it.
8. Will Predator UAVs fire hellfire missiles if we outfit them?? - I play tested this in a quick type mission. I could not seem to get the UAV to fire. By either using "Surpress" or "engage" target options.
The only way to "outfit" them with hellfires is to build one into your own database and create your own version of the scenario. You cannot directly alter either the scenarios or the database(s). Sorry. BTW, Armed Predator UAVs were not used in this fight.
9. In Anaconda if I am using Helo insertion do I need to take along the Quad bike team?? (would this help with putting more friendly #s into the AO?).
It couldn't hurt, but i don't think you could meet all of the win condition requirements even by doing that - you need a MINIMUM of 18 vehicles/teams (16 in one OBJ, 2 in the other), to win.
11. Any comments / suggestions that would help with what the game is looking for out of our inserted SOF Recon Teams/Units - I have them on "hide, weapons hold, avoid obstacles"....I have them inserted to good Ob posts along high peaks. Is it best to simply leave these units alone and there throughout? (which I assume is correct?).
Yes
12. Is there any links or a ref guide to walking through newbies on exactly how ATF maps are layed out / work. I know they are Topo maps but are there any guides on learning to read them and/or understand them more throughly.
No single reference, but there are threads and topics in here about that topic. The down and dirty is that the base map is an elevation model, overlayed on top of that are various terrain types that can impede movement and LOS. As for reading the map, you need to be familiar with basic topgraphical symbology and colors to understand what many areas are when looking at the "contour map", and normal geography when looking at the color map.
Using the tool tip to hover over an area to see what the terrain is , its elevation, and location is the best way to check terrain in a particular area.
13. While I haven't played any of the BHD missions yet - I've noticed in the DB (aatf.db). that the Shughart/ Gordon vehilce/unit has "0" kill odds Vs all weapons? - Is this an error? or are these values correct (for other reasons?).
This is more an ode to the two CMOH winners, as they are not in the game.
I'm sure I speak for all of those involved with creating the game that we appreciate that you are enjoying the game. We also appreciate your attention to detail. If you bear with us, we will always do everything we can to ensure you have a great wargaming experience with every ProSIM product.
Curt Pangracs
JamesBailey
19 Dec 06, 15:28
This is more an ode to the two CMOH winners, as they are not in the game.
Very cool! :flag: :salute: :flag:
I know Pat is on leave and enjoying a couple weeks with his family before deploying overseas, so I'll take a stab at some of these:
Well, it looks as if the helo's aren't offloading their troops, which is what is supposed to happen. I will see if I can't find the problem. Nice catch! There is no way to win that scenario as stated if the Chinooks don't offload the troops! [/QUOTE]
Great! Glad to know this appears to be a bug and I'm not either going crazy or simply the most incompetent gaming TF commander out there -
40mm Bofors and 25mm are DIRECT FIRE weapons, not INDIRECT FIRE weapons. You cannot access these through the IF menu, and you cannot control them other than to give a suppress order
Thanks for the info - Appreciate it -
This is as planned - caves cannot be destroyed. I believe this is on purpose, but only the original scenario designer, who was involved in the actual planning and execution of the operation, can say for sure!
Huh? Caves are listed as part of those objects that can be destroyed it seems - As they list how many enemy caves are there to begin with and how many are left at the end of the mission? Or maybe they are just listed at the end so you are aware of how many caves were actually out there??
Yes - yellow signifies good LOS, gray is no LOS. Also taken into account is the current status of the enemy units! Likely, they are also in defilade, which decreases their ability to be spotted. There is also the terrain factor of any terrain attributes between the unit and the enemy which may affect LOS.
Gottcha - Mostly what I was assuming, just wanted some additional insight from others more knowledgeable -
These teams DO have a laser observation ability out to 3000m. The issue is that the F-16s don't have the laser guided munitions on board. The issue here was more that they were observing, not lasing to destroy. This is truly a question for the scenario/db designer through Pat Proctor - can't answer it.
Thanks again for the info - (are lazer guided bombs modeled in AATF? And if so, do you laze a target apprx the same way you'd call in indirect fire support?).
The only way to "outfit" them with hellfires is to build one into your own database and create your own version of the scenario. You cannot directly alter either the scenarios or the database(s). Sorry. BTW, Armed Predator UAVs were not used in this fight.
I did create a second DB for play testing this option - Still no-joy in terms of getting a Preadtor UAV to fire when outfitted with hellfires.
And, regarding Predators being outfitted with hellfires during Op Anaconda. JSOC did have a few that were outfitted already back then - And one did fire hellfires at AQ elements on Takur Ghar Mtn range -
It couldn't hurt, but i don't think you could meet all of the win condition requirements even by doing that - you need a MINIMUM of 18 vehicles/teams (16 in one OBJ, 2 in the other), to win.
The bug regarding the CH-47's not dropping soliders once landed is obviously the bigger issue here -
Yes
No single reference, but there are threads and topics in here about that topic. The down and dirty is that the base map is an elevation model, overlayed on top of that are various terrain types that can impede movement and LOS. As for reading the map, you need to be familiar with basic topgraphical symbology and colors to understand what many areas are when looking at the "contour map", and normal geography when looking at the color map.
Using the tool tip to hover over an area to see what the terrain is , its elevation, and location is the best way to check terrain in a particular area.
Thanks -
This is more an ode to the two CMOH winners, as they are not in the game.
Excellent!
And thanks again for your answers / responses -
Curt Pangracs[/QUOTE]
Just an update - I went into the scenario builder - And it does appear the CH-47's do not have orders to drop soldiers off - ("insert dismounts"...is NOT checked) - This is very likely the problem.
CPangracs
19 Dec 06, 17:20
To your questions on the caves...they are listed only as vehicles/units, as they are a "container" for units, and that is why they are listed.
Personally, I'd do it a bit differently, but there it is.
Not sure why your UAV didn't fire - it won't if the pK doesn't include an effect against a particular unit/vehicle type, ie, it shouldn't fire at dismounted people unless there is a value of 1 or more against that unit.
The lasing stuff is fairly new to me, and Pat can answer better than I, but I believe it was mainly for PGMs fired by arty, so...
CPangracs
19 Dec 06, 17:26
Just an update - I went into the scenario builder - And it does appear the CH-47's do not have orders to drop soldiers off - ("insert dismounts"...is NOT checked) - This is very likely the problem.
Yes, but it has to be setup properly in the "environment", and it has to be done to the scenario itself - you can do it to the one you created (go for it!), but we are worried about a way to patch the scenario that shipped with the game!
Yes, but it has to be setup properly in the "environment", and it has to be done to the scenario itself - you can do it to the one you created (go for it!), but we are worried about a way to patch the scenario that shipped with the game!
Yeah - I understand how it could be hard to patch - Though couldn't you just redo the mission itself (1st Anaconda Op) and make it a download (which would then either overwrite the current mission...or just simply create a new one). Or would this effect the "campaign mode"??
As for doing it yourself - It does appear slightly complicated from what I am looking at (and my limited exp with AFT/AATF editors). I see one can right-click on a given unit and then give them "mission orders" to "insert dismounts". It then asks where you want them dismounted on the map (this all seems simple).
However it then asks which Company or Platoon you want?? - And it seems to only give you "one circle" to choose from (yet there are many soldiers on the map near the helicopters...prior to take-off to choose from).
Additionally the more I'm playing the Anaconda Ops......The more I'm starting to lean towards the idea that the DB needs to be tweaked slightly. The kills odds seem slightly high for several enemy factors.
AI run F-15s and 16's have been shot down a number of times (in over 4 years in Stan to date we have yet to lose a single fast mover to enemy fire in real life -- It seems the AI is either flying at much too low an altitude and/or combined with enemy kill ratings/odds being tweaked too high).
Just an observation thus far - Having played strickly the Anaconda Ops over the past 3 days - RPG kill odds are very high as well (ditto for MGs).
I know DB are made to be map specific in some instances....but a second look at the Anaconda DB may be needed.
CPangracs
20 Dec 06, 00:14
Additionally the more I'm playing the Anaconda Ops......The more I'm starting to lean towards the idea that the DB needs to be tweaked slightly. The kills odds seem slightly high for several enemy factors.
AI run F-15s and 16's have been shot down a number of times (in over 4 years in Stan to date we have yet to lose a single fast mover to enemy fire in real life -- It seems the AI is either flying at much too low an altitude and/or combined with enemy kill ratings/odds being tweaked too high).
Just an observation thus far - Having played strickly the Anaconda Ops over the past 3 days - RPG kill odds are very high as well (ditto for MGs).
I know DB are made to be map specific in some instances....but a second look at the Anaconda DB may be needed.
I agree, but to a point...I don't want to sound flip or dismissive, but if we modeled everything to the exact degree, then there wouldn't be much fun in just running in a company of M1 Abrams against an Iraqi tank division of T-55s if you KNOW that you can't possibly get killed...there is absolutely no "play value" in that.
Try using correct ISR plans to find, fix, and destroy the enemy with long-range fires. In doing so, I rarely lose any air assets because I kill the identified air defense units first, if at all possible, before calling in the CAS - which IS doctrine!
This is a game, and there has to be SOME balance, or there is no risk or reward. That may not be an acceptable answer for you, but if you use tactics well, you will be rewarded. We aren't trying to exactly recreate battles, we are setting the stage for you to fight battles on the same ground and with relatively the same equipment. It will NEVER be possible to either exactly replicate the vehicles and weapons or the exact outcomes. It isn't designed to be predictive. Even though some people do use it to train in tactics and to test certain systems and prtocedures, like any other commercial game or sim, it can't use informattion that is classified, and because it depends on an electronic "roll of the die", you cannot prevent the possibility that a certain vehicle won't get hit and/or destroyed/damaged. Again, there's just no fun in completely invulnerable equipment at all!
We CAN mitigate this with an increase in the friendly "training level" and the decrease in same for the enemy, which enhances the odds that the vehicle or units will survive a certain tactical failure.
The real beauty is the editability of the entire game - don't like a particular vehicle or group of vehicles? Use the base database, create your own vehicles or alter existing stuff, create your own scenarios with invulnerable M1s and take your platoon to victory against a battalion of T-72's! It's only limited by your imagination and the time you are willing to spend learning the scenario editor! The maps are there and you don't have to make them yourself (believe me, they are not really finished when you build a map using James Bailey's guide - if you don't add any artwork, things look mighty bland!).
I hope I've addressed everything okay and I didn't put you off. Please continue to ask questions and point out things you find important in the game - we build these games for you!
Curt
I agree, but to a point...I don't want to sound flip or dismissive, but if we modeled everything to the exact degree, then there wouldn't be much fun in just running in a company of M1 Abrams against an Iraqi tank division of T-55s if you KNOW that you can't possibly get killed...there is absolutely no "play value" in that.
Try using correct ISR plans to find, fix, and destroy the enemy with long-range fires. In doing so, I rarely lose any air assets because I kill the identified air defense units first, if at all possible, before calling in the CAS - which IS doctrine!
This is a game, and there has to be SOME balance, or there is no risk or reward. That may not be an acceptable answer for you, but if you use tactics well, you will be rewarded. We aren't trying to exactly recreate battles, we are setting the stage for you to fight battles on the same ground and with relatively the same equipment. It will NEVER be possible to either exactly replicate the vehicles and weapons or the exact outcomes. It isn't designed to be predictive. Even though some people do use it to train in tactics and to test certain systems and prtocedures, like any other commercial game or sim, it can't use informattion that is classified, and because it depends on an electronic "roll of the die", you cannot prevent the possibility that a certain vehicle won't get hit and/or destroyed/damaged. Again, there's just no fun in completely invulnerable equipment at all!
We CAN mitigate this with an increase in the friendly "training level" and the decrease in same for the enemy, which enhances the odds that the vehicle or units will survive a certain tactical failure.
The real beauty is the editability of the entire game - don't like a particular vehicle or group of vehicles? Use the base database, create your own vehicles or alter existing stuff, create your own scenarios with invulnerable M1s and take your platoon to victory against a battalion of T-72's! It's only limited by your imagination and the time you are willing to spend learning the scenario editor! The maps are there and you don't have to make them yourself (believe me, they are not really finished when you build a map using James Bailey's guide - if you don't add any artwork, things look mighty bland!).
I hope I've addressed everything okay and I didn't put you off. Please continue to ask questions and point out things you find important in the game - we build these games for you!
Curt
Curt - Actually on the whole I agree completely with what you are saying - My post came off with slightly the wrong tone (now reading it back).
And playability along with replayability is key (as is the notion of not simply trying to recreate past events detail by detail.......my bad).
Additionally you are right. The complete editability is absolute great in AATF. My comments were more "throwing something out there" and trying to see what others opinions were......not as much as a critique (as it came off).
CPangracs
20 Dec 06, 00:58
Curt - Actually on the whole I agree completely with what you are saying - My post came off with slightly the wrong tone (now reading it back).
And playability along with replayability is key (as is the notion of not simply trying to recreate past events detail by detail.......my bad).
Additionally you are right. The complete editability is absolute great in AATF. My comments were more "throwing something out there" and trying to see what others opinions were......not as much as a critique (as it came off).
No worries! I actually embraced it as an opportunity to (re)educate people that the ATF/AATF series is a game, albeit a very detailed and engrossing game that borders on a serious simulation, but it's meant to be fun. You wouldn't believe some of the emails and comments we get about the inability for an M1 to ever be destroyed by a T-72! Most people don't realize that invulnerability is fun once! ;)
Even the folks at the NTC and JRTC realize that not giving the OPFOR the ability to kill the BLUFOR doesn't result in better-trained troops.:D
I may be completely blind, and it may have been covered already, but where is the AATF powertool kit?
Pat Proctor
20 Dec 06, 10:25
Curt hit most of these on the head. Far be it from me to disagree with my esteemed colleague on any point, but... ;)
I have, obviously, played through all of our scenarios in all of our games, and, while one could rightly disagree with a database value he and there, I do not feel the games inaccurately reflect the capabilites and vulnerabilities[/b] of the respective weapon systems (with the possible exception of the ATF scenarios at the National Training Center and the JRTC scenarios in AATF, which are designed to replicated the enemy-heavy weighting that makes those battles tougher for BLUFOR).
Technological advantages are an important reason that western armies have an advantage over other armies, but it is not the overriding reason. Despite protestations to the contrary, the M1 Abrams is not impervious to all weapons forged by man. It is not the [i]weapon systems that are successful. It is the armies that employ them. The tactics were what permitted the US Army to roll over Saddam Hussein in two wars in a row.
James Bailey's comments in another thread about Iraq's tactical innovations in the Iran-Iraq war are very illuminating on this point. Iraq had a superior Army in technology and equipment, and was still getting its butt kicked by Iran. It was not until they developed and employed combined arms tactics that they were able to turn the tide. Same armies, same equipment, vastly different results.
So, I, personally, don't think their is any "beefing up" of the enemy or "balancing" of scenarios going on at all. To illustrate, take the ATF Power Toolkit, make the enemy less formidable, and then try an RTS-style tank rush. Unless you made the enemy completely impotent, you will still get your butt kicked.
Just a quick question.....is there a way to print the OPORD?
CPangracs
20 Dec 06, 14:19
Just a quick question.....is there a way to print the OPORD?
Yes - you have to print the correct html file located in the data folder. Give me a bit and I can give you a list of the right files you can print. Best thing to do is open them in Word and format it as a document for printing.
CPangracs
20 Dec 06, 14:20
BTW, Meade, you CAN destroy caves with INDIRECT FIRE form your AC-130! I just took-out 5 of them while playtesting an updated Anaconda 1 scenario!
BTW, Meade, you CAN destroy caves with INDIRECT FIRE form your AC-130! I just took-out 5 of them while playtesting an updated Anaconda 1 scenario!
Glad to hear this! - Here I have been trying to figure out how to get my 16's to drop 1000/2000 pounders on those caves....instead I should have been thinking KISS!...and just blasted them away with my AC-130!
Thanks for the info -
Any ETA on that updated Anaconda Op (ha, no rush!). Also does ProSim plan on putting out any other downloadable missions over the coming months? (or are they mostly going to just come from us in the community)...
CPangracs
20 Dec 06, 17:41
Glad to hear this! - Here I have been trying to figure out how to get my 16's to drop 1000/2000 pounders on those caves....instead I should have been thinking KISS!...and just blasted them away with my AC-130!
Thanks for the info -
Any ETA on that updated Anaconda Op (ha, no rush!). Also does ProSim plan on putting out any other downloadable missions over the coming months? (or are they mostly going to just come from us in the community)...
I am currently testing an updated scenario now and hope to have something for you by tomorrow, but I promise nothing! :D
Most "additional" scenarios are created by the community. I would think that 14 scenarios should keep you busy for at least a few months, unless the only thing you are doing 24/7 is playing AATF! In that case, I can't help you! ;)
Pat Proctor
20 Dec 06, 20:28
We have been talking about offering a free scenario pack. Stay tuned...
In FRAGO 1 scenario i tried to insert D coy 1-7 CAV into LZ X-ray with A Coy 229 AVN using an insert dismounts order. A window came up saying mission failure..... i couldn't read the rest as it crashed to desk top. I think the slicks have enough capacity to move D coy so i don't understand why it went CTD on me.
I haven't re checked this out, but in the first vietnam scenario when the IF and DF AMMO are available i flew my slicks over to the AMMO pallets, pressed mount, the green circles appeared but no yellow cross appeared on the pallets. As my ARTY batteries were in need of re supply i tried to insert the entire re supply platoon (using insert dismounts order) with A coy 229 AVN to FALCON. Some of the pallets were loaded , although not all, then all of A 229s helos froze over the airstrip.
I appreciate pallets are not dismounts i only tried this as i could not load the pallets using the mount command.
In Vietnam 02, the message comes up saying that IF and DF AMMO is available but the pallets are not visable at the AA.
CPangracs
21 Dec 06, 10:20
In FRAGO 1 scenario i tried to insert D coy 1-7 CAV into LZ X-ray with A Coy 229 AVN using an insert dismounts order. A window came up saying mission failure..... i couldn't read the rest as it crashed to desk top. I think the slicks have enough capacity to move D coy so i don't understand why it went CTD on me.
I haven't re checked this out, but in the first vietnam scenario when the IF and DF AMMO are available i flew my slicks over to the AMMO pallets, pressed mount, the green circles appeared but no yellow cross appeared on the pallets. As my ARTY batteries were in need of re supply i tried to insert the entire re supply platoon (using insert dismounts order) with A coy 229 AVN to FALCON. Some of the pallets were loaded , although not all, then all of A 229s helos froze over the airstrip.
I appreciate pallets are not dismounts i only tried this as i could not load the pallets using the mount command.
That is something we did NOT encounter in beta testing! The error message is:
Could not execute mission because following condition was not met:
Number of dismount vehicles in A / 2 / 29 Aslt Avn is greater than or equal to 1
I didn't get a CTD. The first scenario shows no problems at all giving an insert dismounts mission. Pat will have to track this down. In the mean time, you can manually insert them, and I recommend inserting them in LZ Tango!! ;)
Thanks!
As for the pallet issue, you can only slingload one pallet per helo, and the air weapons pallets aren't supposed to be moved, you just fly the helos back to the airfield and rearm. You can't do an "insert dismounts" command - you have to fly the arty rounds to the assembly area, but be advised, you MUST find a "clear" terrain spot to do this, and that are is pretty hard to find near your arty. Use the "tool tip" feature to find a clear spot near your arty to plot your ammo drop.
Hope this helps, and I'll track down the issue of ammo not showing - not sure why they aren't showing up.
Pat Proctor
21 Dec 06, 11:15
Could not execute mission because following condition was not met:
Number of dismount vehicles in A / 2 / 29 Aslt Avn is greater than or equal to 1
This error indicates that the mission, for some reason is trying to mount the aviation rather than the dismounts. Sometimes, is the aviation and infantry are overlapping, it is easy to accidentally select the aviation instead of the infantry. The only solution is to zoom in when selecting the dismount platoon/company, and click carefully to ensure you get the right one.
I am more concerned about the CTD (not that I am unconcerned about the other problems.) If you can get a savegame, e-mail it to
techsupport@prosimco.com
along with instructions on how to repeat the error.
The other errors, like aircraft not showing as able to mount is sometimes attributable to lag. When a lot of stuff is going on, it can take a few seconds for the game to catcj up. Try stopping time, and waiting until the game completely stops. Does the aircraft show as able to mount?
Missing pallets could be lag too. Also cjeck to make sure "show vehicles" is active so you can see the pallets.
I hope this helps. Sorry for the problems.
CPangracs
21 Dec 06, 12:01
This error indicates that the mission, for some reason is trying to mount the aviation rather than the dismounts. Sometimes, is the aviation and infantry are overlapping, it is easy to accidentally select the aviation instead of the infantry. The only solution is to zoom in when selecting the dismount platoon/company, and click carefully to ensure you get the right one.
I am more concerned about the CTD (not that I am unconcerned about the other problems.) If you can get a savegame, e-mail it to
techsupport@prosimco.com
along with instructions on how to repeat the error.
The other errors, like aircraft not showing as able to mount is sometimes attributable to lag. When a lot of stuff is going on, it can take a few seconds for the game to catcj up. Try stopping time, and waiting until the game completely stops. Does the aircraft show as able to mount?
Missing pallets could be lag too. Also cjeck to make sure "show vehicles" is active so you can see the pallets.
I hope this helps. Sorry for the problems.
I think this may be the issue with the mission.
The issue with the pallet is fixed, and I almost have the other issues fixed as well. Will be posting a fix some time today!
Curt
ORIGINAL: Curt
...but only the original scenario designer, who was involved in the actual planning and execution of the operation, can say for sure!
Just interrupting briefly to say: holy $h1t guys, it doesn't get any better than this!
Now back to the regular programming. I am avidly reading everything. Sorry for the cursing praise.
Julio
CPangracs
21 Dec 06, 12:24
Just interrupting briefly to say: holy $h1t guys, it doesn't get any better than this!
Now back to the regular programming. I am avidly reading everything. Sorry for the cursing praise.
Julio
You have no idea how nice it is to know you are enjoying the game, Julio! I am too!
This error indicates that the mission, for some reason is trying to mount the aviation rather than the dismounts. Sometimes, is the aviation and infantry are overlapping, it is easy to accidentally select the aviation instead of the infantry. The only solution is to zoom in when selecting the dismount platoon/company, and click carefully to ensure you get the right one.
I am more concerned about the CTD (not that I am unconcerned about the other problems.) If you can get a savegame, e-mail it to
techsupport@prosimco.com
along with instructions on how to repeat the error.
The other errors, like aircraft not showing as able to mount is sometimes attributable to lag. When a lot of stuff is going on, it can take a few seconds for the game to catcj up. Try stopping time, and waiting until the game completely stops. Does the aircraft show as able to mount?
Missing pallets could be lag too. Also cjeck to make sure "show vehicles" is active so you can see the pallets.
I hope this helps. Sorry for the problems.
Pat, i don't have a save game of it as i completed the mission. Honestly though all i did was what was mentioned in the earlier post. The mission failure message and CTD happened moments after i hit execute.
I think this may be the issue with the mission.
The issue with the pallet is fixed, and I almost have the other issues fixed as well. Will be posting a fix some time today!
Curt
The support with fixes and patches from you guys is great. Quick question, do the last set of patches fix the "missing Ugda tank coy" in TSATC and the scenario in RT which the victory conditions could not be met, or do i need the patches specific to those issues? And if i do need the patches specific to those issues and i'm installing all games into one folder does it matter when i instal the patches specific to the issues i mentioned earlier.
CPangracs
21 Dec 06, 20:05
The support with fixes and patches from you guys is great. Quick question, do the last set of patches fix the "missing Ugda tank coy" in TSATC and the scenario in RT which the victory conditions could not be met, or do i need the patches specific to those issues? And if i do need the patches specific to those issues and i'm installing all games into one folder does it matter when i instal the patches specific to the issues i mentioned earlier.
Not sure - I think the updates took care of it all, but you can be sure by getting the RT fix HERE (http://www.xtreme-gamer.com/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=1290), and the TSATC fix HERE (http://www.xtreme-gamer.com/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=1066). If you have everything installed in one data folder, just copy the files right in. Browse there and you'll also see a map fix for RT that tones down the colors a bit!
Hope this helps!
Pat Proctor
21 Dec 06, 20:40
The patches should include those fixes.
This error indicates that the mission, for some reason is trying to mount the aviation rather than the dismounts. Sometimes, is the aviation and infantry are overlapping, it is easy to accidentally select the aviation instead of the infantry. The only solution is to zoom in when selecting the dismount platoon/company, and click carefully to ensure you get the right one.
I am more concerned about the CTD (not that I am unconcerned about the other problems.) If you can get a savegame, e-mail it to
techsupport@prosimco.com
along with instructions on how to repeat the error.
The other errors, like aircraft not showing as able to mount is sometimes attributable to lag. When a lot of stuff is going on, it can take a few seconds for the game to catcj up. Try stopping time, and waiting until the game completely stops. Does the aircraft show as able to mount?
Missing pallets could be lag too. Also cjeck to make sure "show vehicles" is active so you can see the pallets.
I hope this helps. Sorry for the problems.
Pat i've saved the game that you've asked for, i couldn't see any game save files in the Save game folder, just a load of html files and the vpl file. When i say it CTDs, it doesn't quite get to the desktop as there is a large black window that obscures all apart from the bottom toolbar of the desktop. I had to switch the PC off as it froze in the above state. When i turned it back on at start up i had a message about one of my disks needs to be checked for consistency. Any how Pat if you can tell me how and where to access this game save file so i can send it to you in a zip i will gladly do so.
Don't know what i was seeing earlier, e-mail on its way to tech support.
Pat Proctor
22 Dec 06, 09:54
What I meant by "send a saved game" was that, if you could repeat the behavior that caused the error, do the following:
1. Get to the spot RIGHT BEFORE the crash
2. Save your game.
3. Then, confirm the steps that will cause the crash by letting the crash occur.
4. After a reboot of the computer (if neccessary) go to the savegame folder and find the game you saved. e-mail me that file along with instructions to repeat the crash.
What I meant by "send a saved game" was that, if you could repeat the behavior that caused the error, do the following:
1. Get to the spot RIGHT BEFORE the crash
2. Save your game.
3. Then, confirm the steps that will cause the crash by letting the crash occur.
4. After a reboot of the computer (if neccessary) go to the savegame folder and find the game you saved. e-mail me that file along with instructions to repeat the crash.
Pat, the e-mail i sent to techsupport with the game save and what i did, if you follow those steps it should cause the crash. I tested it out from the game save i sent you and it crashed. It doesn't seem to matter at what point within that scenario i try to perform the insert dismout mission outlined in the e-mail it always results in the crash i decribed. However if i move D coy platoon by platoon there is no problem. Have you looked at the e-mail i sent to techsupport? Is it causing the crash i describe?
The FALCON base area is made of mangrove forrest and broken jungle, so when the slicks (laden with IF AMMO pallets) are over it no dismount is allowed, allthough the mount option is green and therefore could be used. I could pick the guns up take them to the AA to re supply, but i wouldn't be able to set them down back at FALCON. Which begs the question, how did the batteries get there in the first place? Drive? And also how were they intended to be re supplied?:hmmm:
CPangracs
23 Dec 06, 02:04
The FALCON base area is made of mangrove forrest and broken jungle, so when the slicks (laden with IF AMMO pallets) are over it no dismount is allowed, allthough the mount option is green and therefore could be used. I could pick the guns up take them to the AA to re supply, but i wouldn't be able to set them down back at FALCON. Which begs the question, how did the batteries get there in the first place? Drive? And also how were they intended to be re supplied?:hmmm:
There ARE a couple of clear areas there - you have to search for them using your cursor and tool tip - look for any area that says "Clear". The dismount radius is 0m, so you plot a node to that clear spot and deliver the ammo.
Pat Proctor
23 Dec 06, 09:15
The "mount" button is illuminated, but the platoon of aircraft will only move to the individual gun locations if they are in clear terrain.
In an air assault, a gun crew will sometimes roll their howitzer manually into a more adventagous position to fire from, or a more easily defended position, after they are set down. It isn't completely unreasonable to expect the howitzer to have moved a bit.
The "mount" button is illuminated, but the platoon of aircraft will only move to the individual gun locations if they are in clear terrain.
In an air assault, a gun crew will sometimes roll their howitzer manually into a more adventagous position to fire from, or a more easily defended position, after they are set down. It isn't completely unreasonable to expect the howitzer to have moved a bit.
I do not find it unreasonable for howitzers to be moved manually, my problem is that i can see no "clear" terrain within the circled area labelled FALCON. I used the tool tip bar as Curt suggested, also i changed the map view to color over contour so the clear areas would be seen as they are in the color view (ie brown) and the other terrain is as it would be in the contour view.
JamesBailey
24 Dec 06, 12:16
I do not find it unreasonable for howitzers to be moved manually, my problem is that i can see no "clear" terrain within the circled area labelled FALCON. I used the tool tip bar as Curt suggested, also i changed the map view to color over contour so the clear areas would be seen as they are in the color view (ie brown) and the other terrain is as it would be in the contour view.
eds-
In Vietnam, it was VERY common for engineers to use chainsaws and heavy equipment to clear and enlarge LZs, especially ones that would be used as firebases for guns. I don't know if they did that in the '65 Ia Drang campaign on FALCON, but it is certainly possible.
That, and those pilots were damn good. They could fit a hovering Huey in a shoebox ;)
Pat Proctor
24 Dec 06, 12:47
I am not in a place where I can check right now, but try zooming in all the way. Somewhere, within 600m of the howitzers, there is a clear spot.
When I get back to my computer, I will try to post a screenshot.
CPangracs
25 Dec 06, 00:00
I do not find it unreasonable for howitzers to be moved manually, my problem is that i can see no "clear" terrain within the circled area labelled FALCON. I used the tool tip bar as Curt suggested, also i changed the map view to color over contour so the clear areas would be seen as they are in the color view (ie brown) and the other terrain is as it would be in the contour view.
eds - there are clear spots, both within and outside of Falcon. Here are four to choose from:
http://www.pangracs.com/AATFSupport/clearing1.gif
http://www.pangracs.com/AATFSupport/clearing2.gif
http://www.pangracs.com/AATFSupport/clearing3.gif
http://www.pangracs.com/AATFSupport/clearing4.gif
Merry Christmas to all, and to all, a good night! http://forums.snapstream.com/vb/images/smilies/santa_smiley.gif
Thanks for those screen shots, they sure showed me, literally. On another subject, i noticed whilst playing JRTC02 that the width of a US fire team 2006 is 17 metres, is that as it was intended, or is it a mistake?
Pat Proctor
25 Dec 06, 16:26
This might be a hold over from pre-BETA, when the team represented a squad. Let me check into it.
Some of the other US 2006 teams also appear to have excessive width values. The US Co HQ Team 2006, US PL HQ Team 2006 and the US Mtr Pl HQ Team 2006 all have a width value of 11.5 metres.
Some of the other US 2006 teams also appear to have excessive width values. The US Co HQ Team 2006, US PL HQ Team 2006 and the US Mtr Pl HQ Team 2006 all have a width value of 11.5 metres.
Good catch - This should be adjusted -
I would also suggest the Anaconda DB needs quite a few adjustments - While there are legit reasons as for why this DB has some differences from the main DB.....I'd still suggest tweaking the Kill ratios.....
Good catch - This should be adjusted -
I would also suggest the Anaconda DB needs quite a few adjustments - While there are legit reasons as for why this DB has some differences from the main DB.....I'd still suggest tweaking the Kill ratios.....
The kill ratios are very unforgiving, also some of the T/AQ teams have very high sprint speed at 22m/s (that's world record breaking)
JamesBailey
08 Jan 07, 10:44
The kill ratios are very unforgiving, also some of the T/AQ teams have very high sprint speed at 22m/s (that's world record breaking)
LOL! :laugh:
they need to drop their rifles and bombs and get into world class track & field.
i noticed whilst playing JRTC02 that the width of a US fire team 2006 is 17 metres,
talking about height, length and width applied to infantry teams or squads, what do these 3 sizes measure? The space occupied when deployed? Or something else?
CPangracs
08 Jan 07, 17:51
talking about height, length and width applied to infantry teams or squads, what do these 3 sizes measure? The space occupied when deployed? Or something else?
It goes towards the chance of being spotted and hit.
Pat Proctor
08 Jan 07, 17:51
Sprint speed is a placeholder for dismounts, as they cannot receive the sprint order.
Sizes in the database are a rough "bounding box" of the size of the unit. It is used for sighting and pH, and is approximate. But we do need to clean the values up a little.
Patrick, Curt - Thanks for the replies!
CPangracs
08 Jan 07, 21:28
The kill ratios are very unforgiving, ...
Could you give some examples, please? We try to make a game that is fun while maintaining some semblance of realism. I need to know exactly which values you find unforgiving.
Thanks,
Curt
Could you give some examples, please? We try to make a game that is fun while maintaining some semblance of realism. I need to know exactly which values you find unforgiving.
Thanks,
Curt
Curt, i used the word unforgiving, and maybe i should have used very challenging. I am having fun, and realism is of great importance to me. Part of the reason i used the word unforgiving is that i had just been playing Anaconda2 and my Afgan allies were taking a bit of a beating just NE of AP Delta. I was also agreeing with meades point that in the AATF db the kill% from an AK-47 is at 1% or 2% whilst in Anaconda db it is at about 30%. The Anaconda2 scenario (with the exception of the unwinable Anaconda1) is the only scenario that i have not successfully completed. It is a challenge to me and one that i find frustrating when i fail. However as i said before realism is very important to me, and i would not like to see the db changed unless it was to make it more realistic. I found TFW very challenging, mainly coz infantry tactics are not my strong point, 105 Lt guns don't pack the same punch as 155mm DIPCM, and the Recce teams see no further than the average squad. My over reliance on scouts and Paladins was exposed. As with TFW I need to learn new ways to achieve the objectives with the assets i have.
Eds, I'm please to hear that you found TFW challenging.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.