Volcano

...actually, the roof texture doesn't seem to have been that difficult to locate, and edit. So that is fixed too for the next update. 😎

OK fixed now. Anyone can fix it in the meantime by going to their game install path... ...\textures\woodland\uk and rename "austriandecals.dds" to "ulandecals.dds". As for the roof texture issue, yes, but this is whole other animal. Maybe it will also get a texture change, maybe not, we will see (two different artists here).

Thanks. Looks like I overlooked the filename, I will fix it for the next update.

22 MAY scenario: !Test of Metal 2013-OMU-4163 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes. Random CO selection? Yes. Minimum # players: 8. NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.

15 MAY scenario: Valley of Tears 4163 FMU SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes. Random CO selection? Yes. Minimum # players: ~12. NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.

A Windows migration assistant would be nice. 2020 and we can't just plug something into two PCs and and it handles most of the work -- we are supposed to be flying around in jet cars by now! 😎

8 MAY scenario: Relief to Defense 01-multiparty-smaller-4163-OMU SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes. Random CO selection? Yes. 3x COs, US & DE vs. OPFOR. Minimum # players: 12 (FMU for less players), US: 4; DE: 2; OPFOR: 6 NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.

Apologies on dropping the ball on announcing the scenario last week -- I was knee deep in a new-PC-migration. Such a headache, I am only just now done with that now. Next time I am just going to throw the PC in the trash and walk away when its new computer time.

24 APR scenario: Border Dispute 2013-4162-MAD SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes. Random CO selection? Yes. Minimum # players: 12 (FMU for less players) NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.

Good point, maybe its not too difficult to change the wording there to be more descriptive. We will look into that...

That's nice, but a Javelin has a documented setup time and we went with that. Whether or not a crew can deploy a launcher "instantly" depends on several factors in SB that we don't model, because other ATGMs can also be deployed rapidly (much faster than the by-the-book setup) if, for example, the launcher is moved a short distance and is not unloaded first. If I recall, we went with the difference of the by-the-book setup time, and a video of it being used. Certainly we can have it setup a few seconds quicker, but it shouldn't be much quicker. This is a ridiculous statement. The issue is not how fast they tire out, its how fast they recover. Careful balance has been taken to tire out infantry to prevent someone from sprinting a prolonged distance without having to briefly stop for rest. Your complaint would be valid IF the infantry required 5-10 minutes to rest, and that simply is not the case. The current behavior is a momentary exhaustion, to prevent all sorts of stupid and gamey behavior (ARMA/VBS-like always running behavior -- no need to MARCH). Having been 11B MOS Q'd myself, I can say its realistic enough as-is, given the wargaming design decisions around the behavior. Wearing full gear and running full sprint is not going to last long before you need a short rest, and that is what we are modeling (we are not modeling long term fatigue - rather its short term stamina). VERY SPECIFIC stamina depletion rate decisions were made so that each method of movement has a real pro/con relationship, which is very important to ensure that each movement method has a reason to utilize it. (Also, you aren't the only one around here with infantry experience either.) The infantry have gotten much better with aiming (don't know if you are even looking at it), because a bug was fixed in their aiming behavior. I personally witnessed (a few weeks ago) two infantry units that advanced to contact in the wood and killed each other nearly to the man within seconds. So although it may not have been specifically mentioned in the changes, this has gotten much better -- at least not warranting the level of ridicule that you are giving it. Secondly, everyone has to keep in mind that the infantry in SB are intended to be designed at a wargaming level of detail. This means all sorts of abstractions that cannot be directly simulated at first person shooter level are *intentionally* factored in to the little details like aiming routines, so prevent them from being laser accurate, to allow them to stick around longer, so an entire infantry platoon is not killed to the man in 5 minutes. I agree that behavior is frustrating, but they aren't "freezing", they are getting up to aim and realizing that the LOS is obstructed. In technical terms the obstruction (in any game, actually) is a triangle that would be positioned between the target and shooter. All too often what we think is an absolute clear line of sight under some trees is actually not, because the branches on the trees are handled as panels, where most of it is transparent. Imagine a square shape of two triangles, with a branch texture applied to it. Most of its going to be transparent, but to the AI, who you cannot have determine LOS by transparency on a texture (it would be too costly), it sees a "panel" in the way, that the user might see through. The point is, this one is certainly a valid frustration, and the eventual goal is to have the infantry check LOS (somehow) *before* they get up to aim, and to allow RPGs to be fired from the prone position. But honestly, even if the soldier could check LOS before kneeling, likely the same complaint would be made about the soldier "not firing" when "they should", but perhaps firing from the prone position would be the best improvement there. Honestly, I am not sure what the point would be either way. You have your complaints, and we have some technical level explanations on why the infantry behave the way that they do (not the least because they were initially "tacked on", and because of the "wargaming detail"). We are making improvements but in the end, you will still have your complaints, and there will still be technical limitations and specific design decisions that deviate from what you expect. Certainly if you level these sorts of bombastic complaints then you will of course get an explanation. And no one ever said that upgrading the infantry is not a priority; if that was really the case then we wouldn't have spent so much time fundamentally upgrading the infantry in 4.1 (infantry limbo, loading into PCs with door open indefinitely, infantry aiming improvements, infantry pathfinding improvements around buildings, etc).

OK, thanks for the observation. Yes, 155mm artillery should be able to collapse the wooden bridge from over pressure within about 3-4 meters of impact, and do the same to the 50t bridge at 1 meter impact (basically impact) - going by the math at least. We might make them a little more vulnerable in the future, but the desire was to not have the bridges get collapses unless by very accurate artillery fire. Looking into the ICM issue.... 🤔

Ah one more thing... MAJ_Fubar, in your test, did you use on map or off map artillery? If off map, then when you have a chance, please try it with on map and see if anything is different regarding the wooden bridge. I just am wondering which method you used and whether it makes a different in your observation. We are looking into it...

Thanks for editing the SBwiki page MAJ_Fubar. I was looking at it -- as it is now, it seems to be working as intended (regarding IED and airstrikes). As you mention, IEDs can collapse every bridge, but as you specified in the wiki pag:, it requires different sizes of IEDs, with the most durable bridges requiring 1000lb or 2000lb IEDs. This seems correct to me, at least in what I was trying to do when setting the values. So, the problem seems to be with the ICM levelling the bridges, and that you say HE artillery no longer does, right? The ICM issue is certainly a bug, as is the HE artillery issue, because actually the wooden bridge and the bridge (and to a lesser extent) the 50t bridge via direct impacts, should be damaged by 155mm HE artillery already - so if that is not happening then it also is a bug.

17 APR scenario: TGIF Watan Saraf Ekhlas V8 4163 (We will give this one more try - didn't have 14 last week so we played a smaller scenario. If not enough this week then we will play a smaller one again.) SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes. Random CO selection? Yes 3x, (Blue & Green vs. Red). Minimum # players: 14-16 (ideal is B:8, R:5, G:3) NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.