stoex

I second stikkypixie's assessment. There could be a more explicit, or more visually obvious statement about the license number in the email. On the other hand, I am musing about what ever happened to safeguarding, or at least making an effort to keep information regarding money one spends on products? People used to print out such things as an email containing a license number. Or at least make a backup of their email folders before they formatted their hard drive. After all, the email containing the license number is (at least in my understanding) a part of the sales contract between BF and the customer. It's just common sense for both parties to keep a copy of it at hand for later reference and not toss it out like some downloadable freeware when someone changes their OS. I'm sure BF doesn't handle things this way, as Darryl will probably admit eventually when he gets the nerve up to go through the moves with BF customer support.

Folks, As always sorry if this has been mentioned. It seems so obvious it would almost have to have been noticed before, but I searched and found nothing, so: When playing a campaign, since v1.11, when each battle ends two things happen: First, you are offered to save the game. After that you are given the choice of whether to play the next battle in RT or WeGo. However, when I load one of these between-battle campaign saves, I do not get the choice of RT or WeGo for the next battle. Next battle loads immediately in the play style of the last battle (RT in my case). Apparently the style of play is coded into the between-battle savegame and the ability to choose is lost because the engine doesn't give me the option box when loading from the file and not continuing directly from the last battle. Although these are the most common saves for me to load from, I had never noticed the absence of the choice box since I haven't ever had the urge to play WeGo. Which might be the reason why nobody else has posted about this, I guess most players don't change their style of play frequently. Either that or it has been noted and I just can't find it . It just became important because I wanted to send a save to a beta tester and was loading it to be sure it was the right one. And I know the testers like to have stuff in WeGo, so I was waiting for the option box which never came... Issue? No issue? Known issue? Silly me for missing something obvious? Comments welcome

pkjsmith, You cannot give a deployable weapon the order to deploy while you are ordering it out of a vehicle. Could this be your problem? If so, the deploy order can be added to whatever chain of orders you have given the unit once it has exited the vehicle. Otherwise I don't know

dan, I concur with the reinforcements making a big difference. LARGE reinforcements set to arrive at or after the end of the battle are a good way to prevent AI surrender. However, I would like to add two observations to this issue: 1) I don't know how the AI regards the reinforcements yet to come, exactly. I am certain, however, that force composition makes a big difference here as well. If the reinforcements are too small, or if they are unsuited to the task of effectively fighting the player's remaining forces (e.g. no AT assets vs. a player with a fully functional tank platoon in good positions, heaping hurt on the units on map before the reinforcements arrive, it won't make a difference. The AI will surrender before the reinforcements show up, or immediately after if they appear before time is up. Which brings me to 2) Only strong reinforcements set to show up after time is up are a real guarantee. If moderate to strong reinforcements appear for the AI shortly before the end of the battle, the AI will hold out until they appear. At this point, however (it seems to me), some part of the AI does a check to see whether it can gain anything worthwhile using the new units, and if this check fails, the AI surrenders immediately. In fact one of the favourite times for the AI to give up appears to me to be right at the time when it receives its final reinforcements. I have seen this regularly, looking at the map after an AI surrender, where I find a sizeable but not too heavily armed AI reinforcement group obviously at their deployment point. This may be due to bad or no orders given to the reinforcement group by the scenario author, but I doubt it. I have never actually checked this in the editor (been playing mostly campaigns lately, where I can't look at the orders in the editor post-mission), but I strongly doubt that the laudable authors of the campaign scenarios have simply forgotten to give orders to these units. It just seems that once the AI has everything its ever going to get on map, it assesses the situation and makes a decision. My $0.02.

I think Battlefront spent enough time working out how to make it so anything that people can legally produce from or for the game (mods, save games, scenarios) won't actually be of any use to anyone without the game itself. We sometimes chastise the folks at BF because we think they are too slow in fulfilling our fantasies (even wet dreams for some guys), but they really aren't stupid . That said, I certainly am stupid because it took me a minute or two after Thomm's second post to figure out what he was talking about . Weekends are fun

The AI surrenders a lot for me. I would say better than half of my victories are AI surrenders, for whatever that means. It doesn't seem to have any make-or-break condition to it, instead there appears to be a lot of fuzziness involved regarding experience of AI units, damage taken by individual units and the OPFOR as a whole, CO casualties, remaining capabilities vs. enemy assets, objectives held/lost etc. etc. etc. I have had several instances where the AI surrendered with literally twice as many soldiers OK as I had, but no ground to work with. Other times there are only few enemy soldiers left but they are unspotted and have useful assets at their disposal (often craploads of ATGMs that just never deployed/fired, hunkering down on a ridge or on a roof with LOS to my armor). I often don't get why the AI surrenders as easily as it sometimes does. One thing I'm pretty sure of is that the AI has trouble deploying heavy weapons if it doesn't have an AI plan to do so. EDIT: One thing I think makes a difference and brings me a lot of surrenders is that I always attempt to pound everything I spot as hard as possible. There are a lot of battles where the briefing says to not worry all too much about the OPFOR, but to push for the terrain objective(s). Recce battles mostly, but there are plenty others. I tend to ignore this and try to beat the shyte out of everything that comes into LOS. I overdo it too, when I don't need to conserve ammo, and keep area targetting buildings and other positions even when the initial question mark has gone away, just to be sure there aren't any survivors (respecting RoE, of course...there has to be a '?' before I flatten it ). Getting infantry to panic en masse is IMO very conducive to the AI surrendering somewhere down the road. This may even be one of the key conditions for the AI 'commander' to eventually throw in the towel. If he loses C2 to a great deal of his men for an extended period of time, he has to assume that things are going very badly, doesn't he? Even if it doesn't necessarily mean all his men are dead, or permanently out of the battle. Once low experience troops have panicked once, they become extremely combat ineffective .

Addition: What about buildings which are centered on the intersecting point of four action spots?

Language difficulties with 'missiles' vs. 'rockets' here, possibly?

handihoc, I have a save from the end of 'Decisions, decisions' which accesses the 'Pooh' branch of the campaign (so your choice as to RT or WeGo). However I can only send you the file on sunday as I don't have it here, so I bet someone will probably be able to help you quicker than that. Will check in again on Sunday.

I restarted TF Thunder after patching to v1.11 and I did not encounter this behaviour. Though I have to say I found the first two battles of TF Thunder relatively easy nonetheless, at least compared to the Marines Campaign and especially user made campaigns like Hasrabit or TF Narwick. No idea what's causing your problem, guys.

Haggis Flinging was my body's reaction to Haggis Eating. Also known as Haggis Hurling

Lol...If I were you, Steve, I'd never go shooting anything with me! (Except pool that is, or Snooker if you want a real challenge...) Not that I'd pull a Cheney on ya or anything, I'm just not real comfortable around loaded handguns . But that's a different story. I'd take you up for a game of CMSF any day, though! Not that I'd win...

Duh. Just noticed I've been calling the M16A4 an 'M4' all this time. Goes to show ya....I'm a details and logic grog, not a weapons man...in RL, I'd have trouble telling a rifle from a shotgun .

Done . *extra characters*

Hm. Makes more sense than him posting his address here. Thanks Sergei.

With pleasure, JohnO.... uhm, never thought I'd be asking cause I never anticipated having a problem with this, but....how DO I send you an email with an attachment? I can't attach anything in the forum email window, and I don't see an address in your profile. :confused: Help!

FWIW, +1 on Other Means' list

No worries, Steve! I hang in there . I understand you can't see everything...and in my experience the forum logs me out while I write long posts - and you've been known to write long posts occasionally . But maybe as admin your timeout is longer. Whatever. A beta tester taking note of this would have been fine for me, but getting one of the big guns warms my heart especially... I've narrowed this down further and will send my savegame to a tester with info. Just wanted to get basic approval (or a correction of my opinion that its a bug) first. There seem to be no detrimental effects to this glitch, I'm thinking the launcher is always there internally. Maybe just an indexing error in the data structure for the graphics that only shows up under certain circumstances?...well that's a long shot but my programming $0.02 for good measure . Ken, also no worries! The AI thinking about the weight would only make sense if it replaced the launcher-rifle with the regular M4. In my case the soldier seems to be carrying both, however, which is why I think that's not really the case. I'm pretty sure that it's actually a graphical misrepresentation. Anyway, perseverance got me noticed in the end, so I'm happy. And this thread can finally fall into the depths of forum history.

c3k, Thanks for the reply...unfortunately that's not it at all in this case. Check out my original post in this thread closely and you will find: This effect happened with all my teams in this battle: 1 HQ, 1 Scout team and a sniper squad. The screens are only of the HQ but it was the same for all of them. Four M203s in all. Frankly I'm not 100% sure but I am very confident that not all of these units had performed buddy aid before the incident. I will also add that they never switch the weapons again after the initial stop at their first waypoint. Not in this battle, not in the next, as far as I can tell. Also, I don't quite understand why the AI would grab a regular M4 during buddy aid with a soldier who already has an M4/M203...under what circumstances would the AI possibly consider the launcherless M4 better? I have only ever seen soldiers 'upgrade' to more firepower with buddy aid, not downgrade. The SAW gunner with the M4 I have also seen frequently...I even originally thought they carried an M4 as a backup . EDIT: Well I agree that that would qualify as a downgrade in terms of firepower, but an upgrade in accuracy and ammo amount. A very different weapon altogether with different uses. But an M4 vs an M4/M203? What's the point? Sorry, but I am extremely convinced that this is in fact some sort of bug and not intended behaviour. I repeat that it's not a gamechanging bug, but nonetheless.

Hey Thomm, my first response in this one. Thanks . Also thanks for the clearup on the pistol thing...I hadn't realized that there isn't actually any pistol model. I guess I hadn't really watched soldiers armed with pistols up close before. Makes sense to leave out in favor of other more important things for sure. Man lernt halt nie aus und bemerkt immer wieder neues in CMSF . Well then it's one down, one to go .

missinginreality, It seems that when two buildings are touching, then the rules that Steve stipulated in his post apply. Expanded by the explanation that ANY building side that is the equivalent of a door (meaning a door, a blasted wall or no wall at all) qualifies the two adjoining buildings as being connected on the interior. Only ONE of the two connected buildings needs to have an opening to create interior passability. This is how I understand it, and it seems fine to me....though it is visually somewhat counterintuitive at times.

That's not true, Homo ferricus...I'm certain Steve will have second thoughts about shooting you in the face. Something like this: First thought: "Oh, it's that damn loudmouth Homo ferricus." *BANG* Second thought: "Oh, nice shot, Steve...niiiiice shot!!"

Oh, duh....thanks Sergei. I had never wondered about the nice interior decor. You are right of course .

And for my second trick today, I would like you all to witness the amazing long-barreled pistol in use with the Syrian army. This shot is from Hasrabit Campaign, Battle 4: This RPG team firing at nearby infantry is NOT actually equipped with two AK-74s. The team info panel is correct in showing the pistol, but the engine has loaded the AK-74 model and soldier animation for the AT soldier. He produces no muzzle flash, fires single rounds (as opposed to his buddy who is using three round bursts), and the sound he makes is that of a pistol firing. All three of these facts are unfortunately hard to prove with screenshots, but suspension of disbelief is what magic is all about, isn't it? Reminds me a bit of something missinginreality posted in the 'Favourite screenshots' thread recently, see here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1121687&postcount=368 Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, thank you....tomorrow the great stoexini will be sawing a T-72 in half right before your very eyes!!! Regards

Alright, I get how no one cares about this . Still, I will beef up my case with some snazzy visuals and add another similar issue just to occupy space on the first forum page once more. Yeah, I love reading my name as thread starter . Maybe I'll even turn this into some kind of one-man Peng show eventually.... First, two screens illustrating my original reason for posting: Here is the scout HQ team exiting the LAV, running towards its waypoint. Note the info in the GUI (rifle grenades in inventory, regular rifle w/o launcher shown), and note that all four men are carrying regular rifles as well. Here they have reached their waypoint and the launcher has now visibly appeared underneath the barrel. Also now shown in the team info panel. Ta-Daaaaa