Jump to content

Whiplash

Members
  • Content Count

    440
  • Joined

  • Last visited

core_pfieldgroups_2

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1732 profile views
  1. Thanks for your extensive reply. As you seem to be running what I am considering I will just use your post to further dig into some of the points mentioned. May I ask, how much space do you occupy with only the OS, ArmA 3 + Mods and Squad? As I will primarily use the system for gaming (and use my current laptop for other purposes), that would match my current planning pretty accurately. I figured starting with a 256GB SSD might be wise. But is there enough free space left to allow making use of the SSD's potential? I recall that you should not fully use the whole capacity as it will impact the SSD's performance (or life time?). The plan would be to get a 2nd SSD later on for another, primary OS I will use for anything non gaming. Anyone able to make a educated guess on this? Would 3000mhz be beneficial or just wasted money? Still unsure if I should go for 8GB of fast memory or 16GB of normal ones. This is another item I will most likely upgrade after some time and start off with 8GB initially. Is there anything else one would have to take into consideration regarding unlocked processors? Guess I will go do some research on this now. I honestly have no clue what that even means and if I need to "actively" manipulate anything or not. Would this be a normal processor unless I actively overclock? If so, then I feel this might be a good call as I could use it normally for now and if I start to struggle running a game, then I could power up without the need to spend money again. Cooling is something I would probably do by gut feeling. If I should end up with a configurator, I would trust the company to offer choices that make sense and fit the processor respectively. I do aim at 1080p. Given the performance factor , I figured it'll do for me and seems to be more pragmatic.
  2. Disclaimer: I know we have (or had) quite a few such threads around here, but since it is always a rather specific request and things change over time, I figured a new thread might be suitable. So, after years of gaming with a laptop, I am finally considering investing in a nice desktop setup. Ever since getting into ArmA and the occasional other games, I was limited to a laptop system. Granted, my current laptop is rather powerful and well suited for games, I am nonetheless sick of the crazy heat and the limited possibilities (lack of screen size, lack of cooling, lack of performance, ....). As I never used a desktop within the last decade or so, I figured I might aswell ask you guys for some advice. I have no fixed budget yet. In fact, I would like to first determine the right components needed for a nice experience and then calculate and consider investing or saving more money. I am basically seeking advice on any parts needed to build a system. Since ArmA would be the main focus of mine, I am looking for parts that would help me achieve good results in ArmA but also on other games, such as Squad or other recent games. It should be as future proof as reasonable possible. After some first research I was looking at the following hardware parts: CPU: i5 8600K --> Is a i7 worth it performance wise? GPU: GeForce GTX 1060 --> Too much or too weak? 8GB Memory (3000 Mhz) --> Less faster memory of more slower ones? 500GB SSD (maybe a 250GB will do) HDD for files (possibly added later) Motherboard? Cooling? Case/Tower? Power Supply? Anything else I need to consider? I am considering a dual screen setup, but that is yet to be seen. I did start by getting a 24" monitor as I will start using it with my laptop until I made up my mind regarding the desktop setup. I will not go for 4k or other crazy stuff. Is there anything I should keep in mind with the focus being ArmA? Will a system focused on ArmA have trouble running other, more "mainstream" games? Building this myself is probably the last resort and only an option if I do not find a company that will build it for me for a reasonable price. I am willing to pay extra to avoid the struggle and time needed to do this myself. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks to anyone taking the time to help me out here! Cheers, Whiplash
  3. I find that although mission like Insurgency and Domi surely are script heavy, that does not mean that a randomized mission must be script heavy by design. A lot can be achieved by working with the editor attributes. Probability of presence and conditions of spawning are your friends. I have only released a good handful of missions for UO ever since I joined, but most of them featured exactly that. With no scripting needed. You can even find a lot of nice BI commands you can use in a units init field that allows for more randomization options. One of my missions currently online now even features different enemy locations depending on the time of day you choose in the parameters. So you can replay the mission at a different time and the enemy will behave differently than before (e.g. the enemy is much more active at night and stays mostly hidden during day time). And all that with hardly any scripting (only parameter selection, units init fields,...). Scripting may help but is not required for some sort of randomization. You can achieve enough with the editor attributes to have a mission with a certain level of randomization; enough to enjoy replaying it.
  4. Thanks for the additional info. I am just slightly confused now cause the two replies seem to contradict each other slightly. It is probably due to slightly different methods you show, but I just wanna make sure. In the first example above you mention that C and D are always used for the individual Charlie and Delta Fireteam. However, in the second post with the picture, each fireteam of the platoon seems to be getting an individual letter assigned (C-H). Are we talking about two different methods here? Seems like one method follows the LETTER-NUMBER-NUMBER and the other a NUMBER-NUMBER-LETTER. I do enjoy the (maybe older) "LETTER-NUMBER-NUMBER", so I will probably go with that one as it seems the most forward method and requires not too many changes to my comsig. I would intentionally keep the company letters not only cause we would have different attachments from different companies, but to also enforce strict comms discipline which is one of the key purposes of this specific mission. So, I will probably try and adjust the current signals card to match with the following: // PLT HQ 2PWRR / A-COY / 2-PLT -- T-2 2PWRR / A-COY / 2-PLT Signaller -- T-2-0 2PWRR / A-COY / 2-PLT OC (Mission CO) -- T-2-A 2PWRR / A-COY / 2-PLT SGT -- T-2-B // Sections (3-SEC detached) 2PWRR / A-COY / 2-PLT / 1-SEC -- T-2-1 2PWRR / A-COY / 2-PLT / 1-SEC SL (FT C) -- T-2-1-C 2PWRR / A-COY / 2-PLT / 1-SEC 2IC (FT D) -- T-2-1-D 2PWRR / A-COY / 2-PLT / 2-SEC -- T-2-2 2PWRR / A-COY / 2-PLT / 2-SEC SL (FT C) -- T-2-2-C 2PWRR / A-COY / 2-PLT / 2-SEC 2IC (FT D) -- T-2-2-D // Recce Attachment to A-COY 2-PLT from D-COY 2PWRR / D-COY / 1-PLT / 1-SEC -- K-2-4 (OR K-1-1) 2PWRR / D-COY / 1-PLT / 1-SEC SL -- K-2-4-C (OR K-1-1-C) 2PWRR / D-COY / 1-PLT / 1-SEC 2IC -- K-2-4-D (OR K-1-1-D) // Mortar Attachment to A-COY 2-PLT from D-COY 2PWRR / D-COY / 3-PLT / 3-SEC -- K-2-5 (OR K-3-3) 2PWRR / D-COY / 3-PLT / 3-SEC Gun-1 -- K-2-5-C (OR K-3-3-C) 2PWRR / D-COY / 3-PLT / 3-SEC Gun-2 -- K-2-5-D (OR K-3-3-D) // FST Attachment to 2-PLT from a totally different unit FST Attachment -- L-2-6 FST Attachment SL -- L-2-6-C FST Attachment 2IC -- L-2-6-D FST Attachment FAC -- L-2-6-J FST Attachment MFC -- L-2-6-M // Air Attachment (needs some special love later on I assume) Air Attachment Flight-1 -- Eagle-1 Air Attachment Flight-2 -- Eagle-2 // EOD Attachment (will keep as is) EOD Attachment -- Blaster I am a little unsure if the Recce and Mortar would be having the same Letter assigned, cause they would actually be from the same company within the 2PWRR. So following your logic from above, they should probably be assigned to the same letter. Due to gameplay I might give them different letters just so it is easier for players to distinguish the units better. But since they would be attached to A-COY 2-PLT they would ditch their original platoon and section assignment and "inherit" the 2-PLT assignment and whatever section number is free? The specific vehicle callsign is probably only for mechanized units? I assume when operating Landrovers or some MRAP's that the callsign would not be issued as E or Z? I hope the above does make sense now. But I feel like I can live with it and it looks a bit more proper than it was before.
  5. This is not running at the moment cause it never kicked off. I am probably the only one interested enough to try and get something going, but recent personal changes had me pulled back from the intended timelines posted above. I am still planning on getting this kicked off to see if anyone would join and enjoy this idea, but I will probably not be able to commit time to it for another 3-4 weeks (at least). The mission referenced in the first post has been updated, however, and is pretty much good to go. Any changes needed need to be evaluated after playing the mission with couple of people. So, if anyone is willing to plan such a session on a Monday, all you need is a dedicated Mission Commander who lives up to the idea behind this intend, a solid Zeus player who can create immersive additions to the already randomized gameplay and a couple of levelheaded and interested players who enjoy slow gameplay and discourage hasty and hot headed actions. So, unless someone wants to get this started sooner, I will still be trying to get something going some time in the next 1-2 months when I hopefully settled again and got the time and place for some ArmA.
  6. I do kinda like the "Letter-Number-Number" system (I assume that's the old one?) but as I try to settle this in the after 2010's, I would be happy to adjust to whatever that would look like as long as it is feasible and reasonable. Did it change that much?
  7. Thanks for elaborating! The information I have regarding the Rifle Platoon should be on point and pretty accurate. Most of my information is based on internet research and therefore I have no clue how accurate or recent that stuff is. All I found out, however, is that the 2PWRR does have a Fire Support Company and that a FSCOY usually consists of at least a Recce and Mortar Platoon. If the FSCOY of the 2PWRR, however, have such platoons included is beyond my knowledge. For the sake of gameplay and ArmA I will just assume that they do. My apologize for the FIST acronym, it should have been FST or Fire Support Team. I understand, that a FST is what houses the JTAC and support staff for fire support purposes. I also found online, that a FST usually consists of up to 6 men including JTAC, SL, Signallers and drivers. So again, for ArmA I added my MFC to have one team with my fire support specialists as a support element. I just have no clue as to how this unit would be labeled if at all and half accurate. Was hoping you had an example unit designation I could use for such a team to give it a proper unit designation and callsign. Same goes for the EOD stuff. I understand that they would be attached to the COY. In my example, I attached them directly to the PLT as there is no COY present and the high threat of IEDs would probably justify such an attachment. However, I have no idea what a realistic unit designation and callsign would look like for such an attached element. Would they even carry a seperate callsign? Would it follow the original unit structure (composed of the original COY-PLT-SEC), or would they just be given the callsign of the PLT they are attached to? I would love to give the ORBAT a more authentic touch by changing the above to look more realistic and proper. I do not know if COMSIG is used among British forces, but I figured it is a known abbreviation for Command and Signal around here. My apologizes. I am basically looking for a way to sharpen the current callsigns and net assignments to also be more authentic. So far, I found the following structure for "normal" callsign creation: COY-PLT-SEC == Letter-Number-Number. E.g. 2-Section of 1-Platoon, C Company would be something like "T-1-2". Now, this seems alright for my rifle platoon with the addition of A/B for the SL and ASL and C/D for the respective fire teams. However, what is the proper designation for a Signaller on Platoon level? What callsign would a FST be assigned; would it follow the same principles or would it e.g. be a single acronym? How would you address a JTAC/MFC/Signaller within such a unit; would they even have their own callsign? I will at this point not add the pilot attachment to my list of questions My current callsign structure looks like the following and is accurate probably only for the rifle platoon: Sorry to bother you with even more questions in each reply, don't wanna scare you away, but feel free to answer or not answer whatever you feel like. Any help is always appreciated and I think this reached a level where some might consider it nitpicking, but I do enjoy diving as deep into such a topic as possible to make missions as authentic as possible (sometimes even a bit further which is just my bad habit). So thanks once again for any input you or anyone else has on the above.
  8. Thanks for the offer. I ended up with the following structure for my mission (with some references from the post above in mind), but any input would be appreciated as to how accurate it is or if I could make it even more authentic with ArmA gameplay in mind. 2nd Battalion PWRR Alpha Company (Rifle Company)2nd Rifle Platoon (Main playable unit)Delta Company (Fire Support Company)Recce Platoon Mortar Platoon My Infantry Platoon (A COY) of the 2nd Battalion PWRR is appended by the following units: A 6-men Recce/FIST section (From the Recce Platoon ???) A 4-men Recce sniper section (From the Recce Platoon) A 4-men mortar section (From the Mortar Platoon) Ideally, they should all be housed under Delta COY (Fire Support COY) of the 2nd Battalion PWRR. Now, I have no clue if this is at all accurate. If there is any way to make the current structure more authentic, without adding/ removing too many units, then I would happily adapt those changes. I do not know if a FIST as described above would at all be part of such a company. But I just needed a "specialized recon" unit to be used as a JTAC/FO attachment with enough manpower to operate independently if needed. I just dropped my JTAC, MFC, Signaller and SL/TL in there hoping it would be alright. I also have a 3-men EOD attachment which I simply added without any unit reference. Would such a team be part of Recce or some kind of Pioneer/Engineer unit attachment to the Rifle Platoon? My pilot attachment is also without any unit reference as I have no clue about british air units and its structures. Might not be your expertise, but maybe you could also give me some hints there. Should you still be interested, the next step would be improving on the COMSIG card for the mission. So far it is half accurate with lot of made up stuff that I thought looks close enough to the real deal. I am happy to elaborate the COMSIG here if you don't mind, or you can also take a look at the mission itself if you ever feel like it (CO42 Boring Monday BAF HC ZEUS v3.0 on PR Fata). So, if you can help me out with any of this it will be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
  9. First event in a long time I would have loved to join in on. Unfortunately, unable to attend that day. I sincerely hope this event will turn out well and that similar styled events will be held/ joined in the near future (externally hosted or hosted by UO). Looking forward for some immersive AAR footage!
  10. Just a heads up: Work on the mission for this is almost done, but due to the new implementations, a mission review needs to happen first. Thus, it will take a while to (potentially) make it through the review. Planning on trying to get something started within the next 2-3 weeks.
  11. Thanks for the replies so far. Concerns have been noted and been taken into consideration. I guess the only way to really find out is to try and organize such a session. In order to not waste an opportunity here, I will try and prepare this a little bit, defining goals, what one could expect from such a session, best suitable times etc. Turnout might be very low and any effort eventually "for nothing", but for me, personally, the effort seems still worth it. Just hope it would be fine from a server administrative view to "occupy" the server (even on a low population day with an average of 0-1 players usually present). I mean, it would be something unofficial, but the intend would still be to have an organized session with a specific (or rough) time-frame. Would be disappointing if the session had to be ended because people (who may not have joined specifically for the organized session) demand the mission to be changed. Maybe a GM or likewise could just confirm here again quickly under which circumstances such an unofficial session could be hosted. Last I want is to piss off people over this. If this has to eventually be ended due to server statutes, then so be it. Anyway, this might be a hit or miss kinda thing. Once I managed to put some time into the organization I will see if I can/ am allowed to "officially announce the unofficial play session" here. Who knows, maybe we will find enough people interested in this to have the numbers to get something going (guess we have to be considered lucky to hit 10-20 players). Would like to aim towards the end of February to have the first (trial) session for this. If you care for something like this, stay tuned.
  12. Background I have been thinking about this for a while and tried to figure out who I could approach this idea with best. Well, since I am not too connected among the Regular base here I decided to just write down my thoughts in this thread and who knows... maybe it will receive a few replies. Disclaimer: This is not my sole idea. The proposed name of this and the general idea has been expressed by a Regular some time ago. I hope it is alright if I use the chosen name, if not, let me know. It's been quite a while since I managed to release the first version of my Boring Monday mission. I usually do not appreciate talking too proudly about ones own creations, but the mission matured to a nice "mini/limited MSO" type mission. Most of my time donated to mission making has been put into improving the mission while being unable to finish other missions I was occasionally working on. By now there are even two versions available. Now, I know that the resonance was not that great and the majority here hasn't played the mission for more than 5min (if at all). Nonetheless, I also witnessed players who were mostly new to the community enjoying the mission because it provided a playground for them to get familiar with pretty much most of the game features while still being in a "live" scenario with some actual and unscripted contacts and firefights. Proposal / Intention Since the server is still empty most of the time during the week, I was wondering if people were interested (or cared at all), if something like a Boring Monday weekday session were to become a thing. This could start off with the mission sharing the same name, but could eventually be expanded way beyond that single mission. The intent would be to allow people who share a similar gameplay style and who may not always get satisfied from the weekend sessions to gather up and enjoy some serious, yet relaxed and slow paced mil-sim gameplay. Key aspects of the play session could include: Having a mission that runs longer than usual Allowing players to focus more on planning, execution and especially logistics with a changing player count and different available units/ assets Providing lots of different assets to choose from which in turn allows CO's for great flexibility Having a regular play session that would be perfect for new players to get familiar with the gameplay on the server Allowing similar minded players to have a fixed day where they could expect to find people enjoying the same boring stuff Eventually, maybe and probably only in my imagination, helping to improve gameplay by drifting a bit away from the very action loaded and fast paced gameplay Attempting to simulate a very limited "mini MSO" type feeling (although it may only last couple of hours) Since there is no intention to make any official event out of this, it would require the understanding and tolerance of the community to take place. But since the server is empty during these times anyway, I couldn't imagine anyone being bothered by having this run (given that people would actually be interested in joining). Final thoughts As someone who not always has time to play during the weekends, I think it would be a great idea to have something run during the week. Even more so if it would suit my personal preferences. Since this idea is fully based on my personal preferences (and since I am even promoting my own mission here), take this for what it's worth to you. Nonetheless, I think it would be something new and different. And maybe something new and different could have a positive impact. I would love to hear your comments on whether or not you think this could become a weekly thing: Do you think this would be possible from a sole organizational perspective? Do you think this would require a more official approach? Would you be at all interested in something like this and intent to join up for this (knowing that it will be "boring")? Do you think my personal preferences do not fit in here and will not see the needed resonance to see this become a weekly thing? I am obviously not a Regular and have little say. Additionally, the state of the community and what the people may or may not appreciate is beyond my judgement. Thus, any input would be greatly appreciated. And with the last sentence, I would like to specifically apologize for appearing to bluntly promoting my own mission here. Cheers and thanks for reading.
  13. Only been present at the very start, but playing that 2nd mission brought back some good memories from Arma2 days. Motivated me to write up a good old AAR again (pictures omitted, AAR replay should suffice). Mission: CO40_OP_Falling_Sword_V2 Platoon Leader: Cunnah Section Leader: Reddish_Red (Section 2'3) Slotted Role: LMG Objective: Mission was to assault an Iraqi airfield by para-dropping onto it. A Pathfinders section was established at an OP NE/E of the objective to gather intel and take care of AAA assets before the insertion. Paratroopers had to destroy a fuel depot, hangers holding enemy assets, and clear enlisted and officer barracks on the premises. Planning: Briefing was rather brief although it took some time due to initial misinterpretation of the objectives listed and some of the final coordination intended by the mission maker. CO tasked the pathfinders to take care of the AAA assets and of possible armour and reinforcement that may approach the objective. Section 2'1 was to drop with flight 1 at the fuel depot SW of the airfield, while 2'2 and 2'3 were dropping with flight 2 behind the enlisted barracks, NE of the airfield. The flight route and resulting DZ's were aligned parallel to the runway from SW to NE. initial attack had 2'1 attack the fuel depot, while 2'2 was to attack the enlisted barracks. 2'3 was tasked with taking care of the officer barracks N across the runway. Final coordination to extract troops via C-130 on the runway was to be coordinated on the ground. Execution: Mounting up was rather quick and happened with no real problems. As a Section LMG of 2'3 I had little situational awareness about the situation on the airfield when we prepared to drop, but given the lack of AA fire, I assumed the Pathfinders did a good job disabling those assets. So we eventually dropped at a rather small drop zone NE of the airfield. With boots on grounds I made it to a small compound at the NE end of the airfield and quickly linked up with friendly units who already were in contact with foot mobiles. Friendlies happened to be part of 2'2 (soviet's section) but members of 2'3 quickly showed up at the same location. As 2'2 was moving out to the enlisted barracks, SW of our position, 2IC of 2'3 decided to no longer wait for 2'3'0 and start moving towards our objective N of our current position (across the airfield). Was a good call from the 2IC as we had little reason to believe that Reddish_Red would link up any time soon with us. At this time I did not know if our 2IC had any coms with command or notified anyone about 2'3'0's status. The following maneuver to the officer barracks was rather poor. We crossed the airfield in a column formation and moved in a somewhat line each time we spotted a enemy at the objective. Luckily, we received little resistance and made it across quickly and safely. Inside the barracks, the squad quickly breached all 4 buildings and cleared them. As the LMG I was covering from the outside and later switched fires to the entrance of the barracks. When I noticed that the talking behind me stopped I moved back in and found that Broadkiller was the sole survivor of the squad. The rest got killed trying to move up a stair case. After couple of minutes we both managed to clear the remaining two contacts inside the building. We proceeded to check our dead buddies for long ranges, but found only a short range radio (which we took along with some demolition charges as I felt they might be needed later on). We setup at the entrance of the barracks and had audible contact with enemy armour to our direct S, SW, moving between us and the rest of the platoon. I used the short range to get in contact with other elements who informed us about their situation (being pinned down by armour at the hangers). While Broadkiller tried to engage the armour (with no effect unfortunately), I had coms with the Pathfinders who were occupying the ACT just S of us. They seemed to have managed to take down the armour and Broadkiller and me started to move S to link up with them. From that time on we sticked to the Pathfinders along with some other units who were either JIPs or other remnants of sections. I passed them my demolition charges which they were in need of to blow up the remaining assets inside the hangars. Just when the team split up to blow up the remaining assets at the hangers and to destroy another enemy tank NW of us on the other side of the airfield, the mission ended with a big boom. Sustainments (my personal remarks): Reddish_Red did a good job having us organized before mounting the plane The plan was brief but covered all the objectives and was promising to be able to liberate that airfield quickly Although I misused the SRR for inter section communication the other sections did not spam it so it allowed me to get a few proper messages through to eventually link up with friendlies. Improvements (my personal remarks): Lots of talking during the approach in the plane and when not in direct contact with enemies made it hard to focus on important information being passed down (often required multiple "be quiet gents") Fire and maneuver did not work well, at least on section level. Everyone was moving at once with everyone looking at the same direction (at least for 2'3 for the short time we were together). PL's plan could have been improved by sections splitting into a BOF and assault element while attacking the objectives in order to help maintain a perimeter defense. Nothing PL could have really planned in advance, rather something the SL's should have done spontaneously on the ground. Final comments: Although the not so perfect execution and loss of out SL early in the mission, I did get a few Arma2 flashbacks of missions I really enjoyed and had good memories of. Few improvements on the section / squad level execution, doing some good old bounding and covering and it would have been a even more enjoyable mission for me. I do not play a lot these days and tend to stay away from larger coop counts because I often end up disappointed eventually, but this time I did quite enjoy it.
  14. So, with thie Enhanced Movement Mod being added since some time now, are there plans to configure it server side (or has this already been done)? It seems, that on my mission a player can climb a >2m high object with 50kg of gear on him. Is this to be expected or may this indicate some error on my end (no values or variables were changed in regards to this addon)? In case the MMs are now responsible to set the right variables to create a somehow realistic setting, could someone provide a good documentation for this? The documentation found on the authors forum posts (BI, armaholic) are rather brief and seem to require a lot of trial and error to figure out which height can be climbed with how much gear on you. Would appreciate if someone could shed some light on this and possibly help with adjusting the values if not setup server side. Thanks!
  15. CO42 Boring Monday BAF HC ZEUS v3.1
×
×
  • Create New...