Xenios

This isn't even a hypothetical situation for Iran in real life. In 2007, a group of English-speaking commandos (almost certainly Iranian Quds Force members) dressed in U.S. uniforms, were able to infiltrate a joint Iraqi/U.S. base in Karbala. They killed five American soldiers with no casaulties of their own. They could have killed more, but chose to kill precisely five Americans as a message for the U.S. to release five detained Iranian agents.

Tried the alt tab thing, gained an extra 5-13 fps in urban areas. Oddly, v-sync, on or off, has no effect on my fps. Really, only AA affects it.

BI used the language and landscape of the Czech Republic simply because it was the easiest thing to do--local voice actors and local terrain available right outside their office. Where would they get Georgian voice actors? Politically, the conflict fits most closely with the Ossetian war because it is the only such conflict with such a close connection to the U.S. The Georgians were trained by the U.S. and even used some U.S. vehicles and gear. U.S. trainers had only left Georgia just days before the war started. Some American politicians actually wanted to send U.S. forces into the conflict.

No, Bravo409, you aren't getting it. You are talking about the AI seeing through bushes on unofficial maps created by third parties. You need to complain to the addon makers about their vegetation not working correctly, not Bohemia. The AI work fine (at least in this regard) on Bohemia's maps without any third party addons mucking things up. Here's an example of what I mean: Some independent addon maker decides to make a new gun for Arma 2, but forgets to make any ammunition that works in that gun. If you tried to use AI with those nonfiring guns, would you then complain to Bohemia that their AIs aren't programmed correctly? No, you wouldn't, because the AI clearly shoot just fine with the guns in the stock game. You would complain to the addon maker that his gun doesn't work correctly. And when you do complain to that independent addon maker, you should do it politely and constructively, since they are working for free.

Geez, easy on the new guy, [GLT]Myke. Not everyone's a hardware expert. Cyrussm: I can answer your question pretty directly. The 4250 gpu is too weak for Arma2, and the phenom II 1.6 is too slow. I have a phenom II quadcore 2.0 ghz and a 5650 in my laptop and I can play on medium settings. That's the minimum I would recommend for a budget gaming laptop for Arma2. On the Intel side, the minimum you would want in a laptop is a dualcore i3 or i5 2.4 ghz or higher--or a 1.6 ghz or higher quadcore i7. Again these are budget laptop gaming specs, so you can only expect medium settings in a demanding game like Arma2.

It's Farsi.

Like Beagle said, the AI do sometimes use RPGs against infantry when they feel like it. (But you can't really order them to do.) In my experience, they seem to fire rockets against infantry more when the enemy is using cover or around buildings rather than out in the open. This is actually a sensible tactic, as the rockets most AIs carry are anti-tank rockets--which are only marginally effective against infantry. They are at least good for blowing up hard cover that infantry may be hiding behind. The HEAT rockets (PG-7) are built for armor penetration, and do not have shrapnel effects like the HE (OG-7) rockets do. You hardly ever see AIs carrying OG-7 rockets, however. On the US side, the HEDP rockets (high explosive dual purpose) are effective against both armor and infantry. And the M203 grenades used in the game are HE, so they are actually more effective against infantry than the much larger but armor piercing PG-7 rockets.

As already said, more than one 4 GB won't help with Arma 2. (Unless you wanted to load the whole game in a ramdrive, in which case you'd need a lot more.) Actually your system isn't bad at all, assuming you've got your 9950 black edition overclocked to around 3 ghz, which would be almost as good as a stock 955. The things a faster cpu helps with are: view distance, managing lots of AI units, complex mission scripts, and of course if you're hosting (or a set up as a dedicated server) an online mission. It won't really help with texture loading. And the GTX 260 isn't a bad card at all. The texture loading or texture popping issues seem to affect just about everybody--if you're experiencing it with your present card you might be disappointed to find it still there even with an upgrade. Some people say that a good SSD can improve performance more than anything else in an already decent system. If I had money for an upgrade that's what I would get.

I actually have a similar laptop myself--Phenom II N930 (2 Ghz quadcore) and Ati 5650. I was initially worried that the low cpu clock speed would be a problem, but it does just fine and runs cool. It gets about 32 fps in the OA benchmark mission. Not as good as my desktop setup, but I'm quite pleased that Arma 2 is playable on it when I'm away from home. And a 2.3 Ghz cpu would be even better. Got mine for $630 at Newegg, which was a steal for a budget gaming laptop while they lasted.

I hope you've got a very edible hat, because there absolutely is a penetration system for vehicles in vanilla Arma 2 OA. :) You can test it yourself in the editor. Place a very lightly armored vehicle like a BRDM or BTR-70 and set it to zero ammo so you can test without get gunned down immediately. Place yourself next to the BRDM with a Barrett and fire into the turret and drivers positions. The crew will die if you hit them, and you can now commandeer a perfectly intact vehicle. A .50 cal. round will pass right through the thin steel armor or armor glass without significantly damaging the vehicle itself, just as it would in real life. The vanilla system is still not as good as the system in ACE 2, but it's come a long way from Arma 1.

You don't need any fancy scripting to do this, assuming you want your scout to target an armored enemy vehicle. If the scout is under your command, then you can order him to move to a good position with a view of your intended target, but without being spotted. I would order him to hold fire so he doesn't start shooting at any infantry patrols nearby. When he has the vehicle in sight, then order him go prone to reduce the chances of being spotted. Next, order him to target the vehicle--he should switch from rifle to the laser designator when ordered to target a vehicle. You can't order him to switch to the laser through the action menu, but fortunately the AI are actually smart enough to use the designator on their own when targeting enemy armor. Finally, order him to fire, which will turn on the laser designator. You can now get a lock on the laser designator target when you are in range. This works with laser guided and Hellfire missiles.

There is a mission script (setcaptive) that can allow you to capture surrendered enemies, which places them under your command. It's actually been around since OFP. You can order them to follow you, move to locations, board vehicles, etc. This script was used in Evolution missions in Arma 1. In Evolution, you could herd prisoners back to base to gain bonus points. If captured enemies moved too far away, you lost control of them. Players can be captured too, if the mission is set to allow it. There was an old OFP mission where you were captured and ordered around by Soviet troops; they would shoot at you if you tried to run away or pick up a weapon.

This message tends to occur when you issue a fire order to a MLRS or Katyusha truck that is too close for indirect fire. They can't be ordered to fire within their minimum indirect range radius and they won't do any direct fire. If you order them to fire at a target very far away, then they will fire.

For those who are experiencing worse performance in OA than in Arma 2--despite having high end hardware--there may be a reason. In the 'will my pc run this' thread, some people have noticed that SLI, X-Fire, and dual GPU cards are performing worse than modest single GPUs. Arma 2 had the same problem initially. Renaming the oa.exe to a profile the video drivers can recognize, like crysis.exe, seems to help some people.

Chernarus may be geographically modelled after part of Bohemia, but politically it was meant to resemble Georgia on the Black Sea coast of the Caucasus. And for that to make sense you have to imagine a reversed mirror image of the Chernarus map, so that the Green Sea represents the Black Sea. Takistan is meant to geographically resemble Afghanistan but apparently with a Saddam Hussein-style dictatorship in place. Of course, neither Afghanistan or Iraq are really close to the Caucasus--so at that point BI's alternate world map starts to become even further removed from real world geography.