Volcano

Yep, classic artwork.

11 OCT scenario: 6k Front 2013-4161-M1A2-OMU SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes. Random CO selection? Yes. Minimum # players: 10 NOTES: Avoid studying the enemy's side; only gather intel from the briefing and exposed enemy unit icons (enemy intel), and briefly looking over both sides to figure out which one you want to CO. Anything beyond that ruins the fog of war element. To avoid passwords, open the scenario in Network Session as HOST and choose the side you want to play and go to planning phase. You may briefly look at both sides like this to see which side you want to play or CO on. As CO, once you choose a side, go to that side and create your plan. Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com community rules.  6k Front 2013-4161-M1A2-OMU.zip

OK, lets be clear about several things: 1. Palm trees always existed on the standard themes, it is no different now. 2. The palm trees look different than how they appeared before, because the old palm trees were "fantasy" and the artist wanted to make some more realistic looking ones. 3. The palm trees on the maps shown in question (shown by Lumi) do exist on the map itself, and they are replaced now with other palm trees. It seems someone placed individual palm trees by mistake, or intentionally, I don't know, but the conversion is correct per se. If the individual palm tree bothers someone, then they would erase/replace it on the map, surely, since it always existed before. (note: One reason why this might have happened is when someone making the map picked several types of "random trees" to place on the map, one of which was the palm). 4. Gibson's issue is something else entirely (apparently). 5. Just changing the default themes (to remove palm trees) is pointless (and a bad idea in general). The theme is embedded into the map, and if someone placed a palm tree on the map originally, then it will always be a palm tree unless someone replaces the theme, or removes/replaces the tree on the map. 6. The wattle tree never had a winter texture, ever, being that it was intended to be used on arid/dry maps. Its no different with that tree in 4.1 since version 2.0 or 3.0 when the tree was added. Like the palms, and all the "AU" trees in general, the wattle was part of the standard map themes so someone must of placed on on this map by accident (or maybe they intended to - who knows).

4 OCT scenario: Brush War-4161-MAD SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes. Random CO selection? Yes. Minimum # players: 12 (if not enough, then we will play something smaller) NOTES: Avoid studying the enemy's side; only gather intel from the briefing and exposed enemy unit icons (enemy intel), and briefly looking over both sides to figure out which one you want to CO. Anything beyond that ruins the fog of war element. To avoid passwords, open the scenario in Network Session as HOST and choose the side you want to play and go to planning phase. You may briefly look at both sides like this to see which side you want to play or CO on. As CO, once you choose a side, go to that side and create your plan. Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com community rules. 

Oh, I noticed the original question was to figure out if there is a way to determine if an RPG (already covered) or ATGM can be fired from a building or not, and this turned into a discussion about RPGs being fired from buildings. The RPGs are already mentioned in previous post, but in the case of the ATGM (who are actually restricted), no, there is no way to tell which one can fire from a building at this time, but the list is very short... AT-4C Javelin Spike

Regarding RPGs firing from buildings: The issue has to do with the fact that we only restrict certain ATGMs from firing from buildings. Why? Because positions of the RPG gunner in buildings are not necessarily always in a "small room" (think of the warehouse, factories, etc), nor are some of the positions actually in rooms at all (many are on the roof). Also, IRL, it is possible to modify your firing position in some way to vent the blast as well (like breaking holes in walls), which obviously cannot be represented in SB. But in game terms, then there is the issue that the user doesn't easily know which RPGs can be fired from a small room in a building (as the original question implies) and which cannot, so you end up with a very annoying situation where troops possibly could fire (literally) any RPG from their location (because they are on the roof or in a large room), but cannot, or in a situation where the user thinks that they could fire the RPG from the building but it won't, or in a situation where you script the AI to occupy buildings but they are helpless because they cannot use their RPGs. So, an abstraction was made to allow all RPGs to be used from buildings, as an abstraction of all the intangibles that we cannot represent. Also, the desire is to give the nod to infantry to give them the benefit of the doubt that they would fire out a way to utilize the RPG from any building they would be located in. ATGMs are a bit different, being much more effective, so they are more restricted.

27 SEP scenario: Mech Company MTC (1975)-4161 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes. Random CO selection? Yes. Minimum # players: 12 NOTES: Avoid studying the enemy's side; only gather intel from the briefing and exposed enemy unit icons (enemy intel), and briefly looking over both sides to figure out which one you want to CO. Anything beyond that ruins the fog of war element. To avoid passwords, open the scenario in Network Session as HOST and choose the side you want to play and go to planning phase. You may briefly look at both sides like this to see which side you want to play or CO on. As CO, once you choose a side, go to that side and create your plan. Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com community rules. 

20 SEP scenario: Symmetrical Attack 11-SC-4161-OMU SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes. Random CO selection? Yes. Minimum # players: 14 NOTES: Avoid studying the enemy's side; only gather intel from the briefing and exposed enemy unit icons (enemy intel), and briefly looking over both sides to figure out which one you want to CO. Anything beyond that ruins the fog of war element. To avoid passwords, open the scenario in Network Session as HOST and choose the side you want to play and go to planning phase. You may briefly look at both sides like this to see which side you want to play or CO on. As CO, once you choose a side, go to that side and create your plan. Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com community rules. 

13 SEP scenario: Hasty Defense 01 (US) M60A3-HTH-MAD-4160 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes. Random CO selection? Yes. Minimum # players: 12 NOTES: Avoid studying the enemy's side; only gather intel from the briefing and exposed enemy unit icons (enemy intel), and briefly looking over both sides to figure out which one you want to CO. Anything beyond that ruins the fog of war element. To avoid passwords, open the scenario in Network Session as HOST and choose the side you want to play and go to planning phase. You may briefly look at both sides like this to see which side you want to play or CO on. As CO, once you choose a side, go to that side and create your plan. Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com community rules. 

Fixed in next patch.

Yes, this is by design. AFAICR, at some point a change was made where the driver will not unbutton if the model doesn't support it (if it doesn't have a hatch that open on an interior model). So, the fact is, these vehicles are older, and we have to come up with a standard. The vehicles would need to be updated before this can be done properly.

Actually, it turns out that no DMP file needed here - I see it too and it will be fixed soon.

Tested it and yes it is indeed caused by that bug. (This is fixed in the next patch - I had a 100% hit percentage using thermal sights on M60 gunnery range.) So, it looks like the issue will go away in the next patch.

No, no RGs for them - its intentional because I don't want them quickly dying when they face each other. Also, I don't really like the elite status idea, because I don't want them to be "OP" (but maybe I will make them regular) -- queen infantry are the only elites.

Those scenarios are very old and it sounds like they need an update to the emplacement position(s). This is a natural problem that comes with carrying all the old scenarios forward, unfortunately. 😑 But yes, in short - the emplacement is conflicting with the tree. The driver wants to go into its "enter emplacement" driving routine, which is conflicting with the driver's "avoid tree" routine, and you get that result. The emplacement is simply in a bad spot now, short of making serious AI changes.