Jump to content

companyteam

Members
  • Posts

    68
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by companyteam

  1. One option is to use an editor that enables you to trace areas and save as "shape files". I've used this successfully with "FalconView" (among others). Trace the roads/vegetation/rivers etc. Save as shapefile. Use Map Editor to import into the map. If you've done it properly, will automatically geo-locate.
  2. Simple technique I use is just to set "assault" route to a waypoint. Speed on this leg can be whatever is appropriate. Add a waypoint just short of the objective at an appropriate dismount point. Set "Troops-Dismount" at this point. Add another assault leg through the objective. Set speed on this leg to "slow". Dismounted Infantry should now deploy, move forward of the vehicles and commence their assault. Vehicles should follow a tactical bound behind. Infantry should, by default, move upright, but will drop to prone and fight through "on their guts" while under fire. Only real shortfall is that the assaulting Inf tend to all focus toward a single end point rather than remain dispersed in a linear formation.
  3. Without going too "technical" on equipment like UGS and other sensors.... a lot these days are set up in conjunction with remote cameras - the sensor detects "something" and an operator is alerted. The operator can then access a feed from a ground emplaced video camera to confirm what the "hit" is. So... it's entirely plausible that a fairly accurate assessment could be made of what's in the NAI.
  4. Gibsonm - call me sometime about some of the newer stuff!
  5. ...and maybe (?) an abilty to designate HVT (in order of priority)?
  6. Modify the Infantry model to include "damage" as opposed to kill (similar to AFV crew model?). Reduce A Veh ability to instantly detect hidden (in treeline/cover) Inf at range. Sniper (LR engagement to 1500+). Dismounted/mounted sensors (seismic and battlefield radars).
  7. I understand the point regarding the police headgear etc, but in regard to aircraft - yeah, while it'd be more appropriate to have a "fixed wing" aircraft, I have seen a number of companies flying "chinook" variations, including currently in Afghanistan. The other helo are "easier" options - Police (again), mining companies, charter companies and the like. "Immersion" factor is really for multi-sided scenarios - If I'm going to be "playing" as an internal security organisation such as Police, it'd be more appropriate to have a vehicle or uniform that looks appropriate......
  8. Guys - Don't know if this has been raised before, but has anybody any thoughts or work done regarding civ skins? Thoughts: - civ "airline" skins for Chinook and other "transport" helo - "Police" variants for a couple of the cars (inclu the HMG 4x4) - "Police" uniform option for civ "troops" - Civ Ambulance - "Commercial" versions of trucks etc (advertising logos etc) Would make for more "immersion" - or at least that's my argument! Cheers and thanks!
  9. ....and it's not the "direct fire" wounding/killing of Inf that's the biggest problem, it's the artillery! Wounding is probably irrelevant for short scenarios.... arguably, by the time you can get the guy treated, the "game" is finished. But by that argument, why bother with repair or resupply at all? From an Infantryman's perspective, I just want to see a fair(ish) fight....... on my terms.
  10. Completely agree. Statistically, if prone even on flat ground, Inf have a pretty good chance of surviving a close miss unscathed, and in bunkers or in folds in the ground would be almost invulnerable to anything but a direct hit. Sure, their hearing might not be the best, but I'd classify as "stunned", not killed outright!
  11. I've got to admit that I agree with SSnake on some of his points about the LMG being carried by Inf. To a limited degree I don't really care about what the gun itself looks like....If I'm running a simulation where THAT much detail is essential, I have to admit that I'd probably be using another program completely. What I am more interested in is some of the Inf behaviours, and having them more accurately replicate reality, so as to develop a better combined arms simulation. Inf formations, their ability to jump walls or mousehole into buildings are all part of this. If I was to be really, really demanding, I'd be advocating for wire obstacles, command detonated mines (claymores), better modelled fighting positions (including trenches), and sudden and irrevocable death to the artillery model which instantly kills all Inf within sight of the burst....... not to exclude yet another one, the inclusion of an"injured" status to Inf. Crew can be wounded and later "fixed" by medics, so why not?
  12. I get that armour can blow big holes in buildings for Inf to exploit..... and I wish we could replicate that in SB. But I'd also love to be able to have Inf do it. Maybe not with graphics showing a big explosion (at least not straight away!), but it's frustrating watching Inf mill about in a street outside a building that looks as if its got doors and windows that they could use, but won't. Just as frustrating is seeing them "stuck" outside a "compound". Imagine Inf being able to "mouse hole" from building to building in a complex environment!
  13. The other aspect with Inf that'll hopefully be fixed at some stage is their inability to enter all buildings.... and even for the ones that they can, being limited to only a couple/one entry point. All doors and windows at ground level should be able to be used, and the real truth is that most conventional forces will usually be able to manually and explosively breach most walls anyway!
  14. If you're modelling weather at Puckapunyal, you'll also need to come up with the "raining and STILL dusty" option!
  15. Ability to update or rewrite/retransmit op overlay to players in network session? Something like the functionality of a BMS system. Would be especially useful for the longer scenarios.....
  16. IRT Inf and buildings - any chance of a change in the future to ena ble inf to enter through any door and/or any window? Current models seem to have only limited number of entries, where in reality entry could be made anywhere - even explosively through walls if required. Similar issues for fences - inf should be able to cross almost anything, with possible exception of high hesco style walls and high t-wall.
  17. I don't know whether you'd ever get a complete OOB for an echelon group. Too many variables based on unit makeup, but sounds OK so far. Might want to consider a number of stores and fuel trucks, as well as shipping containers to sim stores dump. Depending on tac sit, I'd expect to see stores and vehicles spread out, rather than just lined up for destruction. Would expect to see strong points in close (to be occ by the ech pers), and an outer ring of strong points (km or so out?) occ by the spring inf. They'd be on the most likely approaches. Would possibly keep TOW and the like in reserve to be pushed fwd where needed. Full Bn ech area could consist of couple of hundred per and 40-50 vehicles or more. Depending on terrain and threat, could be covering area of 5-8 km2. Did a couple of these for try activities a couple of months ago. I can try to dig up some screen shots of coy ech area - from memory even they took up a km2.
  18. Agree wholeheartedly! Nothing worse than trying to figure out which of your multiple events/conditions didn't work and why. Can't wait to see this!
  19. This raises a whole new point, especcially regarding mil use of sims...... Was involved in a discussion the other day where one of the guys told a similar story about a mounted unit using VBS to try and train up on drills. After a lot of training on the program, most were left wondering why they didn't just mount up in the vehicles that were parked outside and head out to the close training area....... Did hear another anecdote regarding "realism" in training though, although can't vouch for how truthful. Story goes that an SF unit was using a first person shooter, but most weren't taking it seriously........ until they wired shooters to a taser. Short hit for a wound, big hit for a "fatal". Instant change of approach!
  20. Agree - good line up. I've only noticed a couple of hills that have appeared, but it adds to it all. Only changes I'll do to terrain are minor and cosmetic.
  21. DarkAngel - Mate, you're a genius. Just downloaded and tried the "30" map. Certainly gets rid of the holes of doom. I've renamed the file to suit the original .hgt, will save to the .ter, some minor tweaks and repost. Mark - Dismantle the Atlantic Wall. An amphib vs Stockton should be a goer!
  22. Knew it couldn't be as easy as all that....... Mate, anything you can do would be better than nothing. Plan B is to just come up with scenarios not using that area - or exploit them as "obstacle" (gates to the nether-world).
  23. Ones I know of are centred on GR: 905 631 and then a string of about 12 or so of various sizes NE along the ridge line to the last big one centred on 965 678; and small one centred on 794 608 Anything you can do would be great. Chuck the hgt file back to me, if you like, and I'll re-embed into the .ter and check the map.
  24. Think you'll find that the AI does that already on "march" orders. Units will tend to just line themselves up and follow along. As was mentioned earlier, though, one of the tricks is to keep units separate as they enter into the march route. If you're not careful, the lead vehicle (for example) of unit 2 gets onto the road between (for example) the 3rd and 4th vehicles of unit 1. That tends to stuff things up. I tend to use about a one to two minute separation, and that works out OK.
  25. OK - have just finished re-doing one of ours using 14 Mech as Red. 3 Mech Bns, Sep Tk Bn and misc COULD be spawned if needed, but generally have only made the guys face two Bn at a time..... Intent (and if seems to work), was for "red" to automatically pick one of four options at game start (using logic arguments). Happy to red-hat it for you......
×
×
  • Create New...