Jesus you guys, I said EASY stuff, not whole projects.

The HAM 3 feature page has been completed. It includes all features from HAM 3 (but not yet HAM 3.1).

Visit here

Eerie silence ensued...

whoa.
how did you get all this done and debugged in so little time? on extended holiday?

Externalising animation triggers...

Therefore allowing modification of the RR properly and also use of it's firing anim outside of it's slot. Shotty anim for underslung when it gets allowed by the code. etc...

Firstly you could say I'm always on extended holiday. Secondly, I only make very small changes if I can, and I make sure to study the code beforehand so that it's easier to anticipate the results, and hence usually there are no bugs to debug.



@ Kaerar: I don't even know what the hell that means.

Quite simple really. The Shotty animation is different to the flying pixel and the rocket animations. The starting point of the RR animation is different to the starting point of the shoulder mounted bazooka's. Allowing those to be chosen in xml form for the different guns would be a great help, especially if Flamers are to be introduced to 1.13.

I'm even more confused now than I was before. This sounds like something I couldn't possibly help with.

I think I know what Kaerar is asking for, it is something I asked for years ago. He wants the ability to define specific "attack" animations to weapons.

This was something they hacked into the original Urban Chaos for their implementaion of the RPG-7 and RPO-A. In the original UC, the RPG-7 and RPO-A are magazine fired (ie. gun), but on firing the LAW animation and movement by the merc was used, though the "output" was a bullet (or multiple bullets with the tandem RPG-7 ammo, buckshot).

Essentially a weapon would be defined with an additional few variables:
1) governs if the weapon calls up the LAW animation/firing stance, mortar firing stance, knifing, etc...
2) weapons output: bullet, grenade, mortar, knife...

Oh. Well, again, that's something I wouldn't be too good with.

I did have a look at it just now, and yeah it looks way too complicated for me.

Hello everyone, long-time-lurker and first-time-poster here.
First of all: outstanding work on 1.13 in general and on HAM in particular. This whole project and all its sub-project exceed pretty much every modding attempt for every other game i know in a lot of ways.

Like all first-timers though, i´ve come bearing many...errr...problems. (what, you didn´t expect gifts, did ya?)
Actually, it´s just one problem:
I´m using the german version of 1.13, updated to the latest version via SVN. Everything working so far, SVN check gives me green light on all files i need.
However, the new burst/auto-fire cursor that HAM is supposed to feature just won´t show.
I tried all possible settings concerning the cursor in the .ini and made sure the "Show CTH" option in-game is set to on.
Still no new cursors. Tried this with several new campaigns as well as a couple of exes (even some english ones) just for the heck of it.
Any guesses on the source of this?

That's really bizarre. For the record, the INI setting is "NEW_BURST-AUTO_CTH_BARS", and should be set to "1". Then in the preference menu, make sure CTH bars are on. The problem is that I understand you've done this, and it still doesn't work. I wish I could say something reassuring, but this is the first time that such a problem has been reported. I'll look into it, but I really have no idea.

Please make sure that the INI you're editing is the correct one! This should be the \data-1.13\JA2_Options.INI. Also, it would be useful if you could tell us what you _DO_ see. Is it the old CTH cursor, no CTH bars whatsoever, or is the targetting cursor completely missing?

I double-checked it; i edited the correct .ini-file.
Also, as far i can tell the burst- and autofire cursors are the old, standard versions.
CTH-bars are present when i activate the corresponding option in the preference menu.
...hm according to the splash screen at startup 1.13 is otherwise installed and working correctly. Suppose that rules out a broken installation, hm?

Which version number is displayed on the splash screen, just to satisfy my curiousity?

[EDIT]: Also, do other HAM features appear to be working properly?

Release v 1.13.2445, Build 08.12.05, just to satisfy your curiousity
Regarding other features: i haven´t played long enough to notice anything related to supression etc.
However, when i used a different savegame earlier the new hotkey to switch between glasses and night-vision didn´t seem to do anything at all. =/

OH! Hhahahah, my dear sir, you're using an old version of SVN which does not include HAM.

Well, at least that solved the enigma. Apparently, wherever you downloaded your version from, that was not the cutting edge SVN, which should be release v1.13.2660 (at least) to include HAM.



Well, once you get HAM and activate its features properly, you will definitely notice suppression straight away.

Weird...i set up two seperate folders for my english and german files and updated both just before posting my first question here to make sure an old version wasn´t the cause of it.
I´ll try redoing that process and report back afterwards.

Regardless of the outcome of that: thanks alot for your swift help, Headrock!

@ Egoboo

Don't use the 2 .exe's 2445 and 2124 to start your game. Use the .exe called ja2. I think that's your problem.



Those 2 .exe's need to be removed now from the SVN download.

Redownloading everything from scratch und using ja2.exe solved that problem.
Thanks to both of you for your help. That´s what i call active community!

Now please do excuse me, time to go visit the Queen once more...now with suppressing firepower

(but first, i shall bang my head on the desk for failing at the basics in such an epic manner)

Don't worry, this s*** confuses even us sometimes.

Be sure to use the INI Editor (included with the download) to activate HAM features. By default they are NOT activated, and getting the hang of what to turn on can be confusing.

You can visit this page for some advice on good settings to use.

HAM 3.1 will contain a couple of INI settings that allow us to determine WHICH MINE WILL RUN OUT OF ORE during the campaign. You can choose everything except Alma and San Mona. I might remove the Alma restriction, I was just copying the methodology of the original code (Alma can't run out in a regular game). Also, you can use these two settings to DISABLE the entire mine depletion event, so that none of the mines will run out at all.

HAM 3.1 will also include the very important fix that will FINALLY allow a character's APs to drop below 0 effectively, as it was always supposed to be. This means that sufficient suppression fire can actually cause a character to lose their ENTIRE next turn due to cumulative suppression. Of course, other HAM settings (like the per-turn ap-loss limits) must be set to support this, otherwise you will feel no effect.

HAM 3.1 will be released within the next few days due to the importance of the hotfix, even if one of the 1.13 coders implements that hotfix in the main SVN branch sooner than that.

Woohoo! I've finally been able to track down a piece of code that's been a riddle to me for almost a year. This bit is involved with determining where vehicles can go. I introduced a little "kludge" and an INI setting to match, and now we have a feature that enables the Humvee to go OFF-ROAD into mild terrain, like plains, hills and light forests that have no road. Again, at the moment this is quite a Kludge, and only works with the Hummer. Maybe in the future if someone takes a look at what I did they'll be able to fully externalize vehicles in the same way.

This change will also be a part of HAM 3.1, which by now I think has enough features for a release.

Progress!

HAM 3.1 has been released. Please visit the top page of this thread for more details and download links.

HAM 3 user manual has been expanded and now includes all new features from HAM 3.1.

Far out dude. I was hoping to have my new pc set up and running for the weekend, but the f***ers have not even shipped it yet. Anyway, I hope to give 3.1 a whirl this weekend.

GET LOTS OF AMMO. You'll need it.

P.S. this was my 4000th post. :P

Playing HAM 3.1 with the Negative APs fix... man this is even more weird than regular HAM suppression. I'm playing INSANE with a full squad of 32 mercs (actually 23 at the moment, I'm just starting out), so you can bet there is a LOT of lead flying about. Everybody gets seriously suppressed half the time - making a straight charge is usually suicide. My guys have to keep defending one another as they advance, and if the enemy chooses to suppress heavily in one location, you could have an entire squad prone and out of APs for the entire turn. So the squads need to cover each other and divide their counterfire properly to keep the enemy guns silent. This is VERY cool, but already after one attack (Drassen SAM site) it's pretty hard and VERY fun.

Battle reports, anyone?

does it break anything if i assign the INI to notepad++? that would give me the chance to use colours, different font-sizes and such (i'm very optical)

Let's keep this about HAM 3.1 folks. I don't mind spamming or going off topic in "dead threads", but I don't like it in active threads.


Thanks

you should restore my comment, it was about the structure of ja2options.ini relative to the HAM settings
(i generously assume you just didn't see that when deleting it)

Of course it wouldn't. I edit everything in notepad++.

This should work fine with latest SVN right? Can't wait for the AP Fix. :>

The AP fix is already part of HAM 3.1, so you can download and play with it as soon as you'd like. It should be compatible with the latest SVN, and will probably continue to be compatible for a while more.

I'm thinking of something that may work great with suppression tactics: Increasing a character's tolerance when he/she is moving. This way, a character in full-run has much less chance of getting suppressed. This would be great aid for our flankers and assaulters, who are currently still too easy to hit as they charge in for a kill. Their movement is already very detrimental to the enemy's CtH, but suppression fire can stop them in their tracks rather easily. With increased tolerance, they can run from cover to cover without putting themselves in undue risk.

In addition, I'm going to include a feature from the defunct HAM B2.9, which was completed but never released. This feature also affects tolerance, by increasing it in the presence of a strong Leader, and decreases it in the presence of dead bodies.

Also, I want to make grenades cause suppression, but I'm not sure how to go about doing that at all.

And lastly, I've added a "radio locator" that blinks over a character when they are fully suppressed. This accompanies the "Suppression Fire has neutralized X!" message we have in HAM 3. It makes it easier for us to understand who exactly was suppressed. Also, the message for Cowering characters will now only be displayed if an enemy is CURRENTLY VISIBLE. It's obscene that I haven't fixed that yet.

Also could you prevent Mercs from suppressing themselves or has that been resolved already? I'm not playing Ham because my own snipers force other squad members to duck, because the shot is "close" >_<

there's an older issue which might be related... sorry if i derail the thread, plase don't delete the posting; when your squad members are firing close to each other, the ones that aren't firing would often make that "too close for comfort" comment too.

if you can find a way to have our squad members not getting supressed in such a situation, maybe you can also find a way to reduce the probability of this unfitting comment. that'd be cool, to me it's an old bug not yet squashed

Are you serious? Friendly fire SHOULD cause suppression if it comes from behind you, and I see no issue with the merc quotes when it happens. Codewise, in the vanilla JA2, there's a hardcoded distance in which friends are safe from one another's suppression, but as far as I'm concerned there's no reason why either of these effects should be removed. Still, if it really bugs you, I could externalize that value.

Ok, I've located a prime spot for placing suppression effects for explosives. The only thing I need to figure out now is which explosives cause the most suppression (fragmentation? high-explosive? Stun/flashbang? Maybe those that have a large radius?). Please debate this.

---------------------------------------------------

Also, the "friends affect tolerance" feature from HAM 2.9 which was never released will now be added to HAM 3.2. Here's how it works:

SOLDIER = The merc whose tolerance will be affected
TEAMMATE = The teammate we're checking

The game reads SOLDIER's distance to each of his TEAMMATES. It also reads the leadership of each TEAMMATE.

Find any TEAMMATE who is conscious, has higher EXPlevel than the merc we're checking, and is not seriously shocked (up to shock=Leadership/5).

The game measures the distance between this TEAMMATE and the SOLDIER. For every 15 points in Leadership that this TEAMMATE has (up to 75), he can be up to 3 tiles away from SOLDIER to have some effect. So with leadership 15, you need to up within 3 tiles away. With leadership 75, you can be up to 15 tiles away and still have an effect on SOLDIER's tolerance.

If TEAMMATE answers to the above demands, he/she gives an automatic +1 tolerance bonus. Also, the difference between TEAMMATE's EXPLevel and SOLDIER's EXPLevel is factored in, as well as the distance between the two. This value is recorded in memory as "BEST_LEADER" for later comparison.

If the TEAMMATE is dead, or has more shock than SOLDIER, and is 5 or less tiles away, he will give at least -1 Tolerance. If this TEAMMATE is also of higher EXPLevel than SOLDIER, the penalty increases. Distance also plays a factor here, but leadership doesn't.

The BEST_LEADER found will give his tolerance bonus to the character.

The total modifier cannot go higher than 5 and cannot go lower than -5.

This is all very complex, but the end result is that good leaders with high EXPlevel who stay within range of their teammates can increase their tolerance considerably (+5 is a lot!). Conversely, a character lying in a pool of dead bodies and coming under suppression fire will panic easily (-5 is also a lot!).

Added an INI-based divisor for the CtH of mortars. This should allow us to make mortars far less accurate than they currently are, reducing their use as uber-weaponry (esp. by enemies).

not sure whether simply externalising this value is the right kind of reaction. The point is that friendly fire in ja2 will only be a threat to you if you're standing upright. It is okay if bullets from the own team that pass by an upright merc cause him to cover in fear, but in cases where the player clearly and obviously knows that there is no real threat, the merc shouldn't make a comment a if it was a threat. For example if you have to mercs behind each other, one prone, the other crouched, the latter fires a couple of shots over the former, than that's clearly not a case where they guy at the front should panick because at the very latest after the first shot of the guy behind him, he know's what is going on and will certainly not cover in fear after the same thing happened 3 times more. Soldiers often have to work close together and it isn't like they're panicking every time someone shoots somewhere in their proximity, it is their job after all.

But an externalisation of the value would probably take effect in the case of suppression at least, so this is what's being suggested by majek. The idea here is to also remove the "OMG so man bullets" comment when it doesn't make any sense, along with the suppression effect when there's clearly no threat. But if these are two totally unrelated things codewise, i can see this discussion should be going to the bug reports section, along probably with the case when merc curse even though they succeed in their actions.

The situation you describe will not trigger cowering, because within a certain distance suppression doesn't affect friendlies. That's the value I was thinking about externalizing - the distance required.

still not the thing i'm talking about after the second time.

just spare change.

I agree that after I have 'planned' for my team to lay down fire someplace,
it feels wrong to have them act-suppressed and duck.
Perhaps a merc without a headset, that is left without communication will be surprised/surpressed.

But on the other hand incoming fire/friendly fire seems like more of the same thing, danger.
I think it's similiar to how we look before crossing the road, there's a point to ducking whenever a bullet passes/impacts.

(perhaps instead of bullets flying past, the bullets hitting nearby can be used as suppression-trigger.)

.two mercs in a row, the pointman always packs spare undies.

I could understand that bullets flying all over the place could cause supression no matter who fired them, BUT 1 fucking bullet SHOULD NEVER DO THAT no matter how close it is. What's the point of spotter if they do trust their buddies?

Again, I can externalize the distance variable, and that's really all I care to do about that specific problem, at least for now. You can then use it to disable all friendly suppression, if you want. Your choice.

@ DNAftLl & Majek

I think the both of You have never had the plessure of beeing under fire from behind?

I only had this once - uncommunicated

It was on manouvers but the whole bunch of us found themselves never (before and after) deeper in the ditch.

btw the gun which fired was 20mm BMK Spreng-Brand, it could only have killed us on that range with a direct hit and it was on a 45° angle to above.

Some bloody idiot had armed that gun with battleammo and not with manouverammo.

We knew that, but we heard it was no manouverammo and we were down so quick and all so well behelmed (even me as sparky).

IT WORKS

How is that even comparable?

You are surpressed by any fire that you don't expect!

And by a lot of (friendly) fire that you DO expect.