Gibsonm Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, ChrisWerb said: Weapons that were designed as anti armour weapons most often are not used for that purpose in combat. They're just way too useful for a myriad of other purposes. Really? As someone with over 30 years service including: - In my earlier days qualifying on the weapon (Carl Gustav), fired lots on nice black HEAT rounds, HE and Illum as well as buckets of Prac - More recently deploying and having people under my command use it I'd never have known. However those asymmetric threat environments tend not to have a lot of AFVs running around. Your average Steel Beasts scenario does. If I face an armoured threat and if my guys only have 4 - 6 rounds (not the re-mount / refresh experience of SB) then I'll direct them to use them to fire at primarily AFVs (i.e. maybe use 1 of the 6 rounds on a bunker). I see no point using them on buildings and other things when Murphy's Law says that as soon as you fire the 6th round an AFV will drive around the corner. Apart from that the 84's signature will attract a lot of interest when fired so you need to ensure you pick your targets. So by all means waste the ammunition (IMHO) on lower priority targets in SB, but please don't tell me how to employ the weapon system in real life until you know a bit more than just copy and paste out of Wikipedia or whatever. Edited October 24, 2017 by Gibsonm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12Alfa Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 12 minutes ago, Gibsonm said: Really? As someone with over 30 years service including: - In my earlier days qualifying on the weapon (Carl Gustav), fired lots on nice black HEAT rounds, HE and Illum as well as buckets of Prac - More recently deploying and having people under my command use it I'd never have known. However those asymmetric threat environments tend not to have a lot of AFVs running around. Your average Steel Beasts scenario does. If I face an armoured threat and if my guys only have 4 - 6 rounds (not the re-mount / refresh experience of SB) then I'll direct them to use them to fire at primarily AFVs (i.e. maybe use 1 of the 6 rounds on a bunker). I see no point using them on buildings and other things when Murphy's Law says that as soon as you fire the 6th round an AFV will drive around the corner. Apart from that the 84's signature will attract a lot of interest when fired so you need to ensure you pick your targets. So by all means waste the ammunition (IMHO) on lower priority targets in SB, but please don't tell me how to employ the weapon system in real life until you know a bit more than just copy and paste out of Wikipedia or whatever. I too was scratching my head over that comment. Never told my troops to fire a anti armour weapons not used for that purpose in training, or my deployments either, just wondering where that came from? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12Alfa Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) So now we have vids of troops firing AT wpns at non AFV's.. Not trying to cause shit here, how ever, Is this the best tactical use of said wpn system?, or I got his wpn and I can fire it, so I will? Like I stated I don't see any purpose in doing so. Can anyone explain why one would use a limited wpn system, on a non armoured trg when a AFV threat, could appear at any moment and leave the unit without that capability? Just how would the on the ground leader justify the it's use if it was needed,but unavailable when needed and lives were lost. Not pointing fingers here (just my personal education), just trying to understand the thought process, as one who has been in situations where this behavior was not tolerated/encouraged working with other nations other than my own, and I've worked/deployed with a few. Plz don't let this go pear shape. Edited October 25, 2017 by 12Alfa 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingtiger Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) Well it's not totally insane. In the Swedish army (the longest user of the Carl G?) We basicly have 4 rounds for it, HE, HEAT, SMK and ILLUMINATION and what we load up is mostly mission specific, or more precisly threat specific (Even if we have a default loadout as well that I dont remember in my head). And we are quite happy to fire HE on infantry, trucks and buildings with infantry in it,(with airburst function on the HE as well) use SMOKE to screen of enemies or our self and ILLUMINATION to... well illuminate (guess this round is getting more and more obsolete with NVGs...) So I am one of those who want to specify in SB what the Carl G are carrying and also be able to force the AI what round to use against what (for example a building with troops in it). I guess different countries have different SOP's but to Swedish army the carl G ist not only a AT-weapon but a multi-purpouse weapon. /KT Edited October 25, 2017 by Kingtiger 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12Alfa Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 Agree, we do the same with the Carl G, and use the rounds aligned with the target, although we don't fire a A/T round when we have Heat for that use, I suppose if all you had was AT left, and had to fire to save lives, but this would be in extreme cases. Personalty. I never seen this in trg, or deployments, But it could have happened. Do you you use the TP RAP FFV 552 ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj.Hans Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 I'm guessing some of the recent uses of what are meant as anti-tank weapons against non-tank targets has simply been the lack of tanks to shoot. If you're fighting against an insurgent force that simply does not have armored vehicles, I imagine it could be tempting to fire an AT weapon at them for various reasons. Be it the morale effect of doing so, the physical effect of doing so, or simply having an excuse to get rid of it so you don't have to carry it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bond_Villian Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 On 10/24/2017 at 5:47 PM, Gibsonm said: On 10/24/2017 at 0:49 PM, Bond_Villian said: Some kind of UI function that would list all units that a player has under their command/ownership. (For Multiplayer). Doesn't the current colour coding / shading achieve that? Allow me to clarify; Some kind of UI function that would list all units that any given player has under their command/ownership. (No more; "Who has 1/A"...."Who has 1/A?"...."EVERYBODY CHECK YOUR MAP AND SEE IF YOU HAVE 1/A!" ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 Ah, got it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingtiger Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 11 hours ago, 12Alfa said: Do you you use the TP RAP FFV 552 ? When I google this comes up as a training round? to be honest I don't know, we have our swedish names for the rounds and I have no clue what the are called by SAAB. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted October 25, 2017 Members Share Posted October 25, 2017 If it's ammo, and the designation starts with TP, it's usually not rolls of soft tissue paper (but yes, it indicates "target practice" = training ammo). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocalypse 31 Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 Wish list: Being able to place small military structures and force protection in the mission editor. Tents, Guard towers, HESCO barriers, etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bond_Villian Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 14 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said: Being able to place small military structures and force protection in the mission editor. Tents, Guard towers, HESCO barriers, etc. Yeah this would be handy. (Although having the Map editor open in another instance of SB and alt-tabbing to make map changes, then refreshing map in the mission editor works fairly well/quickly too). Having these things as deployable objects in the planning phase would create some possibilities too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocalypse 31 Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 8 hours ago, Bond_Villian said: Although having the Map editor open in another instance of SB and alt-tabbing to make map changes, then refreshing map in the mission editor works fairly well/quickly too) We will not have that luxury in the next patch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bond_Villian Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 1 minute ago, Apocalypse 31 said: We will not have that luxury in the next patch. I wasnt aware of that...bummer 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocalypse 31 Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 Just now, Bond_Villian said: I wasnt aware of that...bummer From what @Ssnake has said, the map system will be much different and not as flexible as we have it now. Custom maps will not be included with .sce files. I may be wrong, but that is how i interpreted it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalAB Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 If that’s the case with maps regarding the terrain upgrade then it will be a pool of sorts. We get to choose a region of a specific map but we can’t alter it. A random battle generator may actually be possible now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parachuteprone Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 35 minutes ago, CalAB said: If that’s the case with maps regarding the terrain upgrade then it will be a pool of sorts. We get to choose a region of a specific map but we can’t alter it. A random battle generator may actually be possible now. Wouldn't I love to see that 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenny Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 58 minutes ago, CalAB said: If that’s the case with maps regarding the terrain upgrade then it will be a pool of sorts. We get to choose a region of a specific map but we can’t alter it. A random battle generator may actually be possible now. We'll still be able to modify maps. But attaching the map to a scenario file, so that everyone loading the scenario in the assembly hall will have the map at the same time...might not be possible anymore. As map can grow bigger with higher terrain resolution. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 1 hour ago, Grenny said: We'll still be able to modify maps. But attaching the map to a scenario file, so that everyone loading the scenario in the assembly hall will have the map at the same time...might not be possible anymore. As map can grow bigger with higher terrain resolution. Yes things like 20+ people at TGIF downloading the scenario + map 2 mins before mission start will be unlikely unless everyone of those people is on fibre, due to the file's size / download speeds required. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted October 30, 2017 Members Share Posted October 30, 2017 It can still be possible if the base map has been distributed previously, and the embedded map is a "delta map" with sufficiently few differences to the base map. In that case the map size remains small to keep it practical to distribute it with the scenario file. And while you are just TESTING a scenario, it will remain possible to edit a map while you are playing a scenario based on said map in its unpublished state. Only when you publish the map (=close it for further editing under the same file name) a scenario based on that map can be played in single player, or in multiplayer mode. All in all the loss of flexibility is minimal, but we need to get accustomed to topics like "publication state" of a map, that maps MUST be fully georeferenced, and that map "packages" are now organized in folder structures rather than a handful of files strewn across different directories. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalAB Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 (edited) 19 hours ago, Ssnake said: It can still be possible if the base map has been distributed previously, and the embedded map is a "delta map" with sufficiently few differences to the base map. In that case the map size remains small to keep it practical to distribute it with the scenario file. So if I read this correctly the delta map is going to be new. Something that we can use to make small changes, like altering a road or tree line. A map feature accessed through the scenario editor? Edited October 31, 2017 by CalAB 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted October 31, 2017 Members Share Posted October 31, 2017 No - delta maps are still to be created in the map editor - but yes, intended for minor variations and "hasty edits" to retain flexibility in use. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalAB Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 Well I, for one, am hoping for a Christmas release of the upgrade. At least it’s on my wish list, and yes Santa, I’m looking at you ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocalypse 31 Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 On 10/30/2017 at 3:30 AM, Ssnake said: with sufficiently few differences to the base map What does this mean? What is the threshold for 'few differences' ? As long as we dont mess with the terrain? Adding/moving tree's, buildings, roads? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkAngel Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 16 minutes ago, Apocalypse 31 said: What does this mean? What is the threshold for 'few differences' ? As long as we dont mess with the terrain? Adding/moving tree's, buildings, roads? It's more about things which would change the underlying height data. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.