[Collab] F2 - 2-7-0 - Better than Appletini!

[wolfenswan]

Keep in mind that most or all trucks have room for 50 weapons and 100 1slot magazines while IFVs usually only for 10 weapons and 50 - 100 magazines.

I'd suggest that mags, grenades and smoke grenades are enough for IFVs, with maybe a few AR and RAT (more important for certain BLUFOR with their M136).
Trucks could be more diverse as (at the moment) they aren't pre placed and could provide the mission maker with a convenient way of dropping a mobile ammo stash, carrying most of the factions armament. I'm thinking of the same loadout as IFVs but also 1-2 HAT, SAM, Satchels, carbines and other misc. stuff. Point is that a truck is frickle and still has to be kept safe if people want to re arm at it. With our new gear scripts most units come with full inventory and backpacks anyway so it's less important to prevent them from loading up with gear they aren't supposed to.

[Black Mamba]

So I actually mad a working pull request? Yay. I'm getting my hopes up now: maybe I'm not that stupid.

Regarding the vehicles ammo cargo, I'm all for it. I've done it in Utes Landing already. Working a bit on ammo resupply and avoiding always ending missions firing an enemy weapon is a good point.
Regarding the AT, wouldn't it be a good point to include a disposable AT4 script in F2?

[fer]

RAT and AR supplies, plus smoke and greandes, were certainly part of my thinking when I suggested that the cargo should allow a standard squad to re-supply - I wasn't just thinking about rifle magazines. For IFVs, which may well be moving alongside the platoon, this focus on the standard ground-pounders makes most sense to me. The same argument goes for trucks, which can linger at the jumping-off point and/or be driven up to a line of advance later in the mission - but again, the focus should be on replenishing the main platoon.

I'm very wary of making trucks carry extra supplies for the special attachments by default b/c I think mission makers need to consider carefully - on a case by case basis - how many HAT rockets/HMG boxes etc. to supply. This approach doesn't preclude a mission maker adding vehicles to support attachments - e.g. giving the HAT team a UAZ with some rockets in the boot.

[Tigershark]

Isn't there some kind of party hero medal I get for kicking this all off? Perhaps given the unequivocal right to pilot little birds and make myself sniper in any mission?

[wolfenswan]

Isn't there some kind of party hero medal I get for kicking this all off? Perhaps given the unequivocal right to pilot little birds and make myself sniper in any mission?

You're surly jesting comrade. We all know the usage of github was already outlined in Fer's 3-year-plan.

[Tigershark]

Oh yeah. Along with aim points for everyone.

Actually. I was thinking today, the weak link in the F2 framework chain is the mission.sqm file.

I was thinking how to make F2 more a framework that allows me to recompile existing mission using the new shit. The problem with that is the mission file. I understand why we need the mission sqm but I wonder I we can't put our brains together to figure out we can really make F2 a framework that can be included into a mission and auto updated when changes are made.

[wolfenswan]

I know that SvDvorak is working on a tool that is able to parse mission.sqm files and then modify them via UI. Maybe from there we can take F2 to be some next level shit.

[Black Mamba]

Isn't there some kind of party hero medal I get for kicking this all off? Perhaps given the unequivocal right to pilot little birds and make myself sniper in any mission?

Come here. I'll give you a medal.

[Tigershark]

Your "medals" make me feel dirty BM.

[fer]

Success accrues to the Party, but we take personal responsibility for failure.

There's a obvious avenue to upgrade support, which is to slam much of F2 into an addon. My understanding is that ShackTac took that route when it developed STMF, which is their current mission framework (ST used to use a customised version of F2). This has very clear advantages in situations where you want to effect some kind of policy change, like giving everyone Aimpoints where once they had only iron sights, or changing the spectator script.

Another option is to become even more brutal about keeping each component of F2 standalone, but the way key files like unit.sqm and description.ext work makes that tricky at times. It also doesn't work too well with the SQM file unless ...

... we decouple the framework and template elements of F2. For example, ditch the pre-placed platoons from the core, and reduce the scope of the supporting marker and group ID components - then develop mission *templates* that take the core and implement specific platoons, markers etc. using a unique mission.sqm file and standalone configuration files.

I think it's a fair criticism of F2 that today it struggles to reconcile its official 'framework' and de facto [Folk] 'template' roles.