Splash

Understood.

What about abatis? These are (in SB, anyway) typically used to only block a roadway. They can't be breached but must be maneuvered around. Handy information to have reported by the AI scout.  

Question about the wide array of new panels available for placement at runtime: For the non-military among us, is there some available documentation that details the meanings/uses of the various types, colors and shapes? I took a skim through STANAG2019 in the docs folder to see if it might be there, but didn't find anything.

When friendly AI units encounter/discover a minefield, it is reported by being marked on the map.
However, while doing some testing and experimenting for this thread ...

... I found that the new tank ditch obstacles are not being so marked. Feature or bug? 

Also, dragon teeth and steel beams are reported/marked by AI. Abatis are not (and have not been since before 4.2 -- maybe ever). Feature or bug?  Discuss. 
 

Yes. An AI Humvee with scout tactics will see and mark a minefield with no human intervention. It will also report dragons teeth and steel beams. But not an abatis or the new tank ditch.  Just wondering why. Maybe should be reported as a bug ... but maybe a feature.

Since the thread is about AI scripting of breaches, I have a related question:

Why don't AI report (and mark on map) encountered obstacles like tank ditches and abatis? Like they do for minefields.

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

Personally, I think that'd be a terrible and RSI-inducing-pain type of an idea that doesn't solve horizontal traverse

Well, his idea did solve it for traverse ... with two suggestions.

Whether using the mouse wheel induces RSI, I suppose that would depend on the movement ratio. IMO, turning the mouse wheel would be an improvement over stabbing arrow keys. But, it's all about opinions here.

I think Hedgehog meant the scroll wheel on the mouse.

Yeah, this is getting pretty confusing. But in testing your scenario and one I made myself, it was my experience that the key to getting a Breach route to work is to have it set for "No auto-pathfinding".
Seems counter to what Ssnake was saying.

9 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Note that (only) navmesh-enabled routes will dynamically update where passages through obstacles are being created; whether that's knocking down a wall segment, or creating a mine breach lane, or bridging an obstacle.

Perhaps that is true of follow-on routes other than breach routes?  But for the initial breach, a Navmesh-enabled route seems to make the vehicle want to avoid the obstacle rather than breach it.

How you go about getting "no auto-pathfinding" on the route gets confusing regarding whether one has the "Hold Alt key to plot Navmesh routes" option ticked or not.

6 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

1 x LeoScripted Bridging 4_250 - Nav Mesh.sce crosses the bridge. 3 x Leo wander off.

This particular part of your problem, I'm pretty sure, can be fixed by moving Waypoint 2 away from the obstacle and/or changing the tanks' route from it to COLUMN rather than WEDGE.

As it is, the lead tank is sending a "Wedge" formation order to its wingmen before they even reach the bridge.

That was a suspicion ... though it didn't seem to be a likely feature for the PE edition.

Maybe there are some deep-pocketed players with elaborate simpits, I guess. <shrug>

What's the "Motion Platform Setting" supposed to do? I couldn't find anything in the RN.

I don't seem to have access to it in the Options ... (can't tick the Enable checkbox).

Hey, quick question if anyone is about ...

I'm wondering if I should go ahead and install the map packages (tick the box in the bundle installer) if I already have the maps. I know there's at least one new map (Abraxas') but I've already downloaded it from the downloads section. I notice Mirzayev skips it in his helpful vid ... any pros or cons?

Coupla skins I've been working on ...

In my opinion, no amount of variable conditions can overcome the fact that the mission author knows where the enemy might (or more importantly, WILL NOT) be. 

Randomness helps a little with playability of one's own missions ... but it's no substitute for playing a well-crafted mission by someone else.

1 minute ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

Would this make them less inclined to leave feedback?

That might be a consequence. True. But maybe a separate issue from making mission files more easily searchable. 

5 minutes ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

But what happens when 10 people download it and 5 say it is easy, because they have been playing SB for years, and 5 say it is complex (because they just bought the game a few weeks ago)?

As you and others noted, difficulty is totally subjective/abstract. I would view a complexity rating by a user with the same eye as a product review on the interwebs. Something to aid in my decision whether to try it out ... and maybe as a field to narrow my search. 

I do think a "why" comment with any complexity/difficulty rating should be required.

I also agree scenario size is a more useful filter than complexity.

The other main thing I look for in choosing mission downloads is the featured vehicles. I like that some makers include tags with that information, or it can be deduced from the description or screenshots (if any). But many force you to download and open before you find out it features vehicle(s) you aren't interested in or don't care to learn.

Yeah, the mission editor allows changing vehicles, but only if the file is not password-protected ... and then you run the risk of ruining playability. Grouping missions by vehicle set is an option, but too complicated probably ... but I would really like to see a requirement or searchable fields in the upload process that includes that info.

And I like Ssnake's thought about user votes on complexity ... maybe encourage players to include that assessment in their star rating.

Some Danish kit.

Merry Christmas.

You could try these:

 Instructions for what to do with the maps are a few posts below that:

On 11/27/2020 at 5:31 PM, 12Alfa said:

https://youtu.be/0esf0HoYguY

The new dust effects for choppers are great. Noticed that in one of Grenny's vids, too.

Now I wish eSim would reinstate the dust/obscuration from artillery impacts. It was dropped, I guess, for framerates. Looks odd without it, and I would think there are tactical ramifications for both sides.

Won't be a lot or work, since I've already adapted a template for my DK version. Pretty simple matter of dropping the black part of the camo layer and changing the green ... adding a couple of appropriate Canadian markings. Gimme a day or three (got a lot of real-world OT this week).