ChrisWerb

Carried for resupply on a logistics vehicle?

Nice bit of ad hom as usual Gibson and, as usual, I won't go there. I do respect your experience, but it remains a fact that weapons originally designed for AT use get a lot of use for other roles. The US recently adopted the Carl Gustav M4 as the M3A1 primarily as a non AT weapon, for example. Most AT weapons are designed to be dual or multipurpose. Likewise there are relevant modern conflicts where armour gets little use or is confined to one side which would be interesting to try to emulate here. I love armour on armour scenarios too, but I don't see any point in restricting weapon capabilities in SB to less than they are actually employed for in RL.

Would make for a pretty serious VBIED if we could explode non civilian vehicles. You make a really good point of course. It would be good if you could specify what ammo a truck was carrying - the same would go for infantry ammunition, mortar rounds, ATGW etc.

Often the rocket operator doesn't shoot at all - the example I gave of part of an enemy vehicle poking out from behind a wall being a recurring example. It would also be really nice if when they did shoot, they could shoot from prone. 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. Special versions and ammunition natures for non anti-armour purposes have proliferated. There are shoulder launchers in use that are either dual purpose or not primarily anti-armour - even the US Army, having passed up on the SMAW, is now going to general issue with the Carl Gustav M4 (as the M3E1). Sometimes you really want to put the rocket/projectile where you want it to go. It could be that you want to place it optimally to cover an area target, to hit a weak point on a structure, go through a window or even hit where no enemy actually are - just beyond the corner of a wall to take out enemies behind it. Through a wall. Into a building you suspect might contain enemies etc. At the moment you can do that manually with an HE rifle grenade, but can't do it with a more powerful and versatile Carl Gustaf, Pzf-3, RPG-7 etc. Yes it's micromanagement, but that micromanagement could be pivotal to the success of an engagement. If it is allowed for everything from tanks to MG-3s and rifle grenades, why not allow it for hand-held AT weapons?

Yes, I meant like that Mark/Gibson, I did take your earlier comment to onboard about wanting specific outcomes. What happens is I try to make something happen with the capabilities I see are there (and that works probably nine times out of ten), then search on the BBS - your tutorials have often proven invaluable and are greatly appreciated. If neither approach works (as in this case), I ask. As to specific bits of kit etc. I try to ask for things that will provide the most play/training value. Mostly that's just adding a redundant +1 to someone else's request because a. It's almost all been asked for before, usually multiple times and b. I know Nils and the team will make sensible decisions about what to include for the maximum financial return and play/training value based on their infinitely greater understanding of their business model than mine. I never question the business model or whine about how long hinted at changes are taking to roll out.

That looks really great Abraxas, but viewing is limited to registered Panzerbattalion 911 members.

I'm not sure if this request should be made here or the support forum. I often have my infantry get into situations in urban terrain where they can only see part of an armoured vehicle - typically the nose of a BMP or the rear quarter of a T-72. When they acquire the target, the anti tank gunner gets up onto his knee to take the shot, then gets down again over and over. I am guessing this is because the centre of the vehicle has to be visible for the AI to let him take the shot. One workaround is to take a rifle grenade shot instead, which sometimes results in the vehicle moving and realigning slightly, but with the absence of HEAT or HEDP rifle grenades, it does nothing else but alert the vehicle to the gunner's presence and it would still be a suboptimal solution compared to the Pzf-3 or similar. Would it be possible to code so you could override normal visibility rules and have the gunner shoot the centre of what he could see of the enemy vehicle? Alternatively, could AT weapons please be given a "shoot here" capability like the rifle grenade. This would also be useful in a lot of other circumstances (and yes, it's been discussed here before a few times now). Another request would be for a veriety of death and prone poses so it is not instantly possible to tell if an enemy is dead simply by his pose from a very great distance.

I am very interested in current Finnish and German armies - particularly how various types of battalion are organised and the scale of issue of weapons - including ATGW. Can someone please point me in the direction of this info?

+1 to this + variants. More GTK Boxer variants too please. (That vehicle is wonderfully modelled externally in SB and a lot of fun to play as well as really useful for the "what if" scenarios)

Thank you guys. The error you just correctly pointed out is that I'd applied the condition to the vehicle and not the route. Giving the route a condition worked a treat! Thanks again for your help.

Hi TankHunter I played the test mission you sent and the BTRs stop, let the infantry disembark, then carry on, which is perfect. I then tried to see how this had been implemented by opening the scenario in Scenario editor. This gave me two problems: 1. Bizarrely the vehicles did not appear to have routes assigned - if so, how would they know to move? 2. The right click menu did not contain a "Troops" menu - the one that lets you set "dismount if" as I would have expected, so I couldn't see how disembarkation had been coded for. I have no idea why either of the above would be the case, but I can provide screen captures to evidence it. Weird!

The M383 (and M383E1) exists or existed - do a find for it in this doc: http://www.trngcmd.marines.mil/Portals/207/Docs/TBS/B3M4238 Heavy Machine Gun.pdf?ver=2015-06-17-145347-963 As of 2003, the M383 was the HE round in use: http://usacac.army.mil/sites/default/files/misc/doctrine/CDG/cdg_resources/manuals/fm/fm3_22x27.pdf https://www.bevfitchett.us/mk-19-40mm-grenade-machine-gun/use-only-prescribed-ammunition-mixing-types-of-ammunition-could-result-in-injury.html This presentation from 2007 claims the M384 was already out of US Army service at that time. https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2007/smallarms/5_8_07/Grassi-Cola_500.pdf A bit more digging and it appears, as of July this year, the M383 was only in USN use. This also hints at the M430/A1 HEDP being the standard AGL round in US use, which would confirm what has been said over on TN on numerous occasions by a particularly vociferous USMC(R) poster who will remain anonymous. https://www.bevfitchett.us/mk-19-machine-gun-40mm-mk-19/note-ein.html

Hi I can get troops to disembark should their vehicle or unit come under fire by setting a condition in "dismount if". The problem I have is they won't do this if the vehicle is moving. "Well duh!" I hear you say. Well, I have seen videos of troops disembarking from moving BMPs - this probably wouldn't pass current UK Health & Safety legislation, but it happened. More to the point though, the only way I can get the vehicles to stop to let the troops disembark is to set a damage to engine condition that activates if the vehicle comes under fire. The vehicle/platoon of vehicles is immobile from that point on, but the troops still don't disembark, even if I set a delay in activation of over ten seconds. It would be good if, when the vehicle/platoon came under fire, it would stop, disembark troops and then resume its route. It would be even better if the infantry disembarked would then adopt tactics or routes of the designer's choice. I admit I'm a neophyte at best with scenario editor and would really appreciate any advice you can give.

Moving to support forum for further questions.

Already there.

How close do near misses have to be for a PC to count as under fire for the purposes of pre-programmed infantry disembarkation and does this also include fire that could not disable the vehicle - rifle calibre small arms, claymores etc.? Does an adjacent vehicle hitting a mine or being taken out by direct fire count?

Could part of the fix please either be to make the default round HEDP or provide an initial choice of HEDP or HE or a user defined number of boxes of each?

Give Rotareneg a coconut! It is indeed an instant action scenario with the M1A2 MBT. I manage to "win" that one every three attempts or so. I put down very slow firing, long duration DPICM (one or two tubes firing one or two rounds a minute into a 100x400 impact area at 0 deg.) to disrupt the enemy behind the wood to the North East and then keep firing through the trees with my sights set to about 2850M until I see impact flashes, secondaries or smoke. I then aim to the right of the estimated position of the KO'd vehicle and slowly move my sights back and forth killing or imobilising more and more vehicles until it causes a road block. I then pour on the DPICM. What I'm guessing here is that I killed something too close to or on a spawn point.

Are the items marked "PV4" some sort of armour or just weights to simulate its effect on vehicle performance etc?

I'm not a programmer, but could you have a system whereby all the detailed stuff only actually exists in World if a unit is within a certain distance of it? Also, could you exclude very small or thin objects like fences, lamp posts, electricity poles etc. from line of sight calculations for non infantry units?

Thank you both.

+1

I'm guessing "Observation".

I asked for this and it was discussed in some depth a while back. The problem (paraphrasing an offline discussion with Ssnake), essentially is there are only one tree and two randomly placed terrain objects allowed per terrain hex (the terrain objects the AI can see through, but human players can't). They could make the hexes smaller but that would result in lots more trees and every tree needs imposes an LOS calculation burden for all units - this would grow immensely with thicker, tank-stopping forests. I am sure this problem will be overcome somehow at some point in the future.