Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Mirzayev

  1. 7 minutes ago, Jartsev said:

    1) I'd like to remind everybody, that not every visitor or customer is proficient enough with English, and quite a few are using translation software/services. Please stop trolling.

    2) Dear @Raphael Holstein, as @Ssnake  already pointed out- there are official instructional  videos, which are explaining in great detail, what license you might need and how to activate purchased license.


    We're beyond license activation. He's asking how to play single player scenarios and the hotkey for third person.

  2. @Thrown Tread33 Here is what is happening:


    If you have any off-map artillery the default is that they will fire first. Off-map artillery will execute fire missions until the number of committed batteries is maxed out. On-map artillery will then be called into fire. 


    Included is a quick scenario to demonstrate this. Open it and call in 3x HE fire missions. All of these will be fired by your off-map artillery. If you call in a fourth artillery mission while the first 3x are processing, your on-map M109s will fire it. 


    If you only want on-map artillery units to fire, remove all of the off-map artillery tubes and batteries under the support options. 

    Artillery Test.sce

  3. 22 hours ago, Parachuteprone said:

    Nothing that you are totally unprepared for. No surprises or need to do much in the way of recon.


    I'd argue that if you are making a scenario where the enemy reacts in a manner that the player is totally unprepared for then you are making a bad scenario. 


    A good scenario with replayability should have more than one enemy course of action that the player can determine from reading the briefing. Usually these courses of action are not completely new plans with zero similarities: most COAs will share many similar features. The challenge to give to the player is enough information to know where to look to try to determine which course of action the enemy is using so they can modify their plan appropriately during the execution phase. I'd also offer that all information that the player needs should be contained within the scenario. Having to look up threat task organizations in an external document is lazy scenario design, IMO, but one that is very common in many commercial "military realism" oriented games. There are multiple echelons above a Platoon, Company, Battalion, etc. that would realistically be feeding information to their subordinate unit (IE the player) to allow them to make an actionable plan with a reasonable chance of success. This information will never be 100% correct, but it certainly won't be 100% wrong. 


    You can also add other variations to existing enemy COAs. Maybe there is a 10% chance that the enemy will commit their reserve to your AO, and so now you have to fight two tank companies as opposed to one? Maybe there is a 35% chance that the enemy will commit rotary wing aviation to disrupt your planned offense? Maybe there is a 75% chance that the enemy will conduct non-observed "terrain denial" fires on locations where the player is likely to put observation posts? You can definitely get creative with adding in additional "things" that can bleed over from the area of interest into the player's area of operations. They don't have to be game changers, but they should be something that forces the player to consider them in their plan or face the consequences. 


    2 hours ago, Sean said:

    When I scan the bundle installer with norton/symantec, it doesn't spot anything.  The bundle installer is clean.  Some of the "AI" features in these av softwares may not like the fact that it downloads files.   


    It is important to note that this was just for the server patch sent out by Nils, NOT the bundle installer. That worked fine. 

  • Create New...