Jump to content

thewood

Members
  • Content Count

    291
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About thewood

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 11/18/1963

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. So what the heck were you talking about. I have absolutely no clue.
  2. I am pointing out I was not mistaken. None of the links you provided show my original supposition as wrong. Please show explicitly now, where there is any ambiguity between pedigree of LAV III or the Stryker in regards to the H. You keep posting links that have no bearing on the original wish I had. Please tell me you haven't just wasted my time by not reading what I wrote originally... "The Piranha IIIH, which led to the LAV III, which led to the Stryker only seats 8 in game, while the Stryker seats 9 or 10 in the world. The H also, for some reason, doesn't allow an RWS in SB. While you can use the C, I am assuming real-world differences between between the C and the H are reflected in SB. Namely mobility and some limited armor upgrades. " I feel like this is where we started and this is where my previous post ended.
  3. I can't see where any of the links you provided talk about the connection between the Piranha IIIC or H to LAV III or Stryker, other than the last link you listed states the LAV-III is based on the Piranha IIIH, which makes my point. We aren't discussing DF30 or 90, I think. My wish was for either a specific Stryker variant or a Piranha IIIH with some upgrades to make it equivalent (with less squinting) to the Stryker. Nothing I have seen from anyone says anything about the Piranha IIIC being in the variant chain that leads to the Stryker. I have four links and a couple books that state explicitly that the variant chain is from the H to the Stryker, through the LAV III. I am not talking about the DF30, DF80, Piranha II, NZLAV, ASLAV, LAV-25, etc. I have noticed that every vehicle supposedly based on the H is just under 7M in length. Every vehicle based on the C is 7.5m or greater. Even without explicitly stating the H is a base platform, approximate hull length draws a pretty good correlation between H-based and C-based So my conclusion boils down to how we started this discussion. The LAV-III and Stryker are built on the Piranha IIIH platform. Even the LAV-III 600 is built on reworked IIIH platforms that started out as LAV-IIIs. No one has presented any thing to refute that or the now four links that possibly validate that. I can double check Jane's 2005 and 2010, but don't really want to. Of course. the mitigating question is; does the game really expose the differences between the C and H? I know the dismounts are 20% greater in the C. But other than that, does the C have slightly greater armor, speed, or acceleration? I assume if the devs went to the trouble of explicitly putting both models in, that there is a game worthy difference.
  4. OK, I thought the H was used for initial LAV III and Stryker platform base. btw, where did you find that source that makes the detailed distinction? I have been trying to track one down and the only design timeline I could find was in an osprey book. And that made no distinction between the C and the H. Part of the confusion comes from these two sites stating that the C didn't enter production until 2006 and the H was the original basis for the LAV III and then the Stryker. http://www.military-today.com/apc/stryker.htm Which might align with what your saying if they redesigned the LAV III and Piranha IIIH for the Stryker and then marketed the redesign as the IIIC. http://www.military-today.com/apc/mowag_piranha_IIIc.htm https://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=1104 http://www.military-today.com/apc/stryker.htm Just checking length and weights on a few sites and the IIIH is the same as the stryker at like 6.8M. The IIIC is around 7.25M. I also noted that the IIIH seems to weigh around the same as the Stryker, which is less than the IIIC. Also noted that the original LAV III was that same 6.8-6.9M length. Again leading to the confusion that the IIIC is a heavier and longer vehicle than the LAV III, Stryker, and Piranha IIIH. Of course weapon stations and era/slat armor screw up weight comparisons on "as fielded" configurations.
  5. There was the whole LAV series prior to the LAV III. But the current LAV III design was based on the Piranha IIIH. The Stryker was based on the LAV III hull. Hence the IIIH connection.
  6. I would consider that incredibly unrealistic to be jumping around between vehicles, vs. maybe commanding from a map. So you aren't really playing a simulation. You seem pretty hardcore about sticking to the procedural simulation aspect. Just wondering how often real tankers jump from one vehicle to another. Or is it that everyone has their own threshold of realism? All I am asking for is the ability to do exactly what you just said you do. Be able to jump from one vehicle to another. Just not do it with a hot key or by the map. I'm wondering if you use real tankers as your benchmark for realism, I'd like to hear how realistic it is to jump from vehicle to vehicle. It must be some relatively new technology.
  7. So you never change vehicles in SP? Just curious.
  8. And that's a distinction, as I have explicitly called out, between a wargame and a procedural simulation. I'm not arguing for some group of features that will somehow transform SB into a game that it isn't. But when asked what makes it difficult to play SB, whether as a wargame or as a single large unit commander in SP, its managing large numbers of friendly units. And I'm not alone in that. In the thread about complexity and in this thread, more than just a few players have mentioned this feature. Some of them playing in-vehicle. Whether as a wargame feature or a simulation feature, its a potentially key feature to remove some complexity and improve the a player's quality of game life.
  9. Again, wish list. This is in direct response to the devs asking about game complexity. And another player mentioning the same potential solution. If the game wants to stay exactly as it is, that's the dev's choice. They know their business better than I do by far. But if you don't like the "wishes", ask the devs not to solicit feedback. And to be repetitive, don't use the new feature. Just like Overhead view, I use it all the time. But not everyone has to. And you can't tell me that something as simple as expanding the in-game log and letting me click on the message suddenly harms the game as a simulation. If you want to make this true hardcore a simulation, ban all jumping around to units completely start enforcing random radio failures.
  10. And as I said, it shows the divide between simulation and wargame. And also as has been said before, you, as a player, don't have to use it.
  11. Yes, most definitely. As you probably know, there can be multiple units being fired on. And sometimes you want to jump back and forth quickly. Or maybe jump to unit having pathing issues, etc. I find this kind of weird that the concept of a "jump map" or linked messaging, etc. is such a foreign concept. I think it highlights the gulf between a simulation and wargame. Here is the new version of Command that shows what I would expect.
  12. The Piranha IIIH, which led to the LAV III, which led to the Stryker only seats 8 in game, while the Stryker seats 9 or 10 in the world. The H also, for some reason, doesn't allow an RWS in SB. While you can use the C, I am assuming real-world differences between between the C and the H are reflected in SB. Namely mobility and some limited armor upgrades. I might have confused my self with this one.
  13. The above is one of the top asks on my list as well. Its been mentioned several times in this thread and came up in the thread about the complexity inherent in SB. Small battles or plans are manageable. But for single player, its a killer to search for units. A combination scroll-able unit and message window that could be separated from the main UI and shown on a second monitor would be best. when you have more than 8-10 units. I'd also like to see as non-playable: A Piranha as a stryker with proper dismounts and slat/era armor, as well as a properly located RWS. A more modern T-72B3M Bradley M2A3 and M3A3 with ERA M3 Halftrack for use in Mideast wars South African Ratel variants T-10M A few of the MT-LB variants, including an anti-tank variant AMX-30B2 AMX-10RC EE-9 armoured car for Iraq/Iran war and beyond Some modern Chinese tanks and APCs, especially ones that sub in for Pakistan units. I know that's a big list, its basically in order of what I would like to see to build more wargame-like scenarios for Angolan wars, Iran/Iraq, and a few potential modern conflicts.
  14. They generally smell the same.
  15. Not a content wish, but a general wish. A low profile USB stick instead of the old school 2" stick that sticks out from my laptop. I have a low profile one that holds 64Gb of data and cost $US5.99 as a one-off. I would bet you can get 16Gb in quantity for much less than $US1
×
×
  • Create New...