A Canadian Cat

Naw, they are watching you and aiming

Glad you got that recommendation for using PowerPoint - good idea actually. I had a suggestion for a simpler editor on the PC but then I saw you were on a Mac. I am a heavy photo shop user and I certainly appreciate the down-loadable resources Chris provided but I can sympathize with people feeling not up to the task. There are just so many moving parts to keep track of. I hope you can get a set of basic tools that allow you to get past that briefing hump. Just think of that time spent as an investment in making it easier for you to make more scenarios.

All set for the forklift racing module. Hey, Arma3 has its go kart add on so why can't we have a forklift racing module.

Yep, that is the main point of having multiple media sources (and why many are concerned about the trend of media consolidation but that is a concern for another thread). One media outlet cannot get away with putting out lies or propaganda or even making a mistake without one of the other guys calling them on it. And yes sometimes there is a near total failure (for example the reports on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq) but even then the truth comes out in the end. So, you can trust, in a big picture sense, that the free western media basic will eventually sort out the basic facts and the discussion can then happen about what the right course of action should be or who is to blame for where we are at. I know you guys like to pull at any little thread that looks out of place but the thing is there will always be something that is reported incorrectly or some twist of the story that is not right. But my point is the big picture will be clear. That is how the free media works - checks and balances. The trouble with some of the discussion going on here is that all the energy is being spent on asserting or denying some of those basic facts. We should be discussing who should be punished and who should do what to allow everyone to move forward but instead we are still discussing the basic facts. In my opinion that is all part of the plan. If Putin's regime can keep his citizens engaged in an argument about what is true and what is false rather than what he is doing right or wrong he wins. There is plenty of room to disagree and discuss things even when the facts are straight but without that it is not a discussion or a debate it is just a waste of time. Again that waste of time is all part of the plan. IMHO.

No there is not. However if you don't use the QB system and instead create custom scenarios - by having an umpire form the battle for you or having extreme trust you could use the core unit concept then. I just played around with doing it in CMRT. You can create a scenario file with the units you want it it. Give them custom names, stats etc. Then you can load those units into any other scenario or map by using the "Import Campaign units" option when selecting Units in the scenario editor.

LOL or add 30s more so @rocketman feels better.

LOL nope just me. I suppose he could have locked me out of my account and be the one typing this pretending to be me, pretending to be him, pretending to be me. Or something insane like that

I am not aware of anything resembling "a consistent method to fix". If I learn anything of value that can be passed on I will. I do not remember the resolution the time I had it happen to me - which probably means there was nothing I could have done to fix things.

Yeah if you make the reinforcements follow on units coming in behind the force that started and the lag time is not long then you can be pretty much guaranteed that those initial forces will be close by and no enemy units have passed behind them. An even simpler solution.

And none of the debate is even relevant to determine why they are or are not in the game because the official position is they will not be in service in 2015. Not with standing @panzersaurkrautwerfer's excellent point: I am picturing scenarios for that accident in my head now...

The trouble with this is when the scenario is played H2H those forces are available immediately. That changes the balance - big time. Just adding more space is not a solution - cause you never know what the human player might do. During play testing of new scenarios I have had this happen - designer did not think I would do that or be so reckless and get there that quick - suddenly reinforcements are spawning on top of my attackers. Yuck. However having triggered reinforcements means the AI designer can set them to arrive at a certain time or when the opfor reaches a certain point. That way they can totally prevent the spawning on top problem and it would always just look like you came over the hill, or out of the woods and ran into opposition. All pretty natural and works for both single play or H2H.

Nice!

Excellent then you can answer my question. What is the RHS mod - I have seen it mentioned but I could not find out what it was.

Sure I'll help you out however I can.

http://cmmods.greenasjade.net/mods He accepts scenarios too.

While many people have found opponents here there are a few other places to look. Check out this thread for ideas: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/107265-pbem-opponent-wanted/

I may not be totally in the loop so I might be wrong with what I am about to say. I am not aware of any swapping issue that has not been resolved. I some how missed this thread - can't read everything. As far as I am aware each time a specific repeatable test case has been brought forward it has been fixed. If this is still happening I would be happy to help get it logged correctly. @WynnterGreen you said you have one or more maps that you see the problem. Could you send them to me (I'll PM you with my email). Could you please tell me step by step what you do to setup the QB that triggers it - no need for pictures but you can if you want. I will try to reproduce the problem and get back to you. @kohlenklau and @Bud_B same. Are you guys seeing this with the shipping QBs or something you created?

You can also log a help desk ticket http://battlefront.mojohelpdesk.com/click the New Ticket button. Presumably after you have a search in the knowledge base.

I was able to reproduce it. And I have logged it. I believe this is just a mislabelling of the Force vs Force choice and not a more serious issue. Report here if I am wrong about that.

I think the only value there is to keep from repeating those poor guys in the 1960s who had to eat stuff packed in 1945 If you keep eating into the stock pile during training the stock pile does not get older and older.

Indeed. Also the recent games have shipped with two manuals. One dedicated to the setting and equipment - for CMBS a preview was recently provided. And the other dedicated to the game system, which includes said play modes. I did not see any announcement that would suggest a change will happen for CMBS.

But the game is set in 2017 and the forces available to scenario designers are based on some educated guesses as to what equipment and resources are going to actually be available. It is not based on fitness for use, or fitness for the modern battlefield. Just like the US AA defence is not filled out with hypothetical future equipment just because some might feel that role is missing, there is no A10 cause it is due to be retired. That call has nothing to do with if the equipment is up to the job or not. Wait I can do brain surgery with my leaf blower. Time to convert the garage into an operating theatre and make some real money

Indeed, and even if we did know them it could very well come down to the command decisions of the generals at the time of the conflict. So it is good that: Exactly. Once the game is out a huge amount of variations on the out come can be made by anyone who wants to. It should be very interesting.

In general, normally, in a typical software development process when you decide you are done (features are all in, all major show stopper bugs are fixed) you produce a final candidate or release candidate (mean the same thing) build. From then on each build is considered a possible release build. You never just release it, you always test it 1) to make sure the last fix you made did not accidentally break something else and 2) make sure the nasty show stopper bug you just fixed is really fixed 3) give testing a little longer to make sure no other nasty show stopper bugs are easily found. The issue then becomes deciding what to do when you hit a bug because leaving it has obvious risks but fixing it does to. The big boss has to make a call. If the call is fix it, you make a fix and a new build and start the final test cycle again. The absolutely right thing to do is not to have an actual hard release date which leaves you free to delay things for another build if you find something you think your customers are going to hit often. I am speaking here in general terms. I have worked at five major companies and multiple products and the end game is always just like I describe above with variation in the terms and variation in the care given and variation in results. Having done software development for 20 years I have seen this process handled really well and really badly. I don't speak for BFC but they are a software development company and the tend to do the right thing in terms of quality. I suspect all of us will see that reflected in how the end game plays out. Well actually you will not see it I guess - sorry - but the results will be good. What you should know is that they have an excellent track record of doing the right thing - even if you don't get to see the inner workings. Having played these games for several years now and now having helped out with testing I will say the BFC is on the best end of the scale at handling this end game of the release. So, if there is a delay - don't think "damn that's bad, what is wrong with them" - instead think "whew good for them, they are making another fix that would have made me miserable if they just shipped it".

Well I am sure Moon is busy working away in the background... There are a lot of disclaimers on this post I'm just speculating with absolutely no real knowledge. I have no idea what Moon is working on or what the plans are for the repository or what the time frame is. I just think that you should just hang in there and see. If you want to see what it might look like this site is now powered by IP Board so one logical assumption you can make is that the repository will be replaced with their download solution. They have a page about their download service (note this is targeted at selling to admins and they have pay options that I have never seen BFC discussing so don't freak out when you read the feature list): http://www.invisionpower.com/apps/downloads/ That page leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to what the user experience might be like. So I poked around and found a site that looks like it is powered by the same software. Again more disclaimers. I have no idea what customization Moon might make or as I said earlier if this is even the software he plans to use but it looks pretty good to me actually - make sure you ignore the content cause it looks pretty silly to me: https://rathena.org/board/files/ I can picture various game and sub categories on the tree on the left.