Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ChrisWerb

  1. Suicide (lock on and attack like Spike) mode for in-game fixed wing drone. Justification: suicide drones are becoming increasingly prevalent with State militaries and Non state armed groups.
  2. I understood your point and responded to it. If you go back through this thread you will see many examples where a content request led to interesting and informative discussion on the thread. The trouble is, if I started a new thread for every follow-on question to a thread, the sub-forum would end up cluttered with one question threads. Perhaps a catch all "Content list follow on questions" thread would be the way to go? What do you think?
  3. I was curious as to what other players consider their favourite vehicles and why. I am having a hard time quantifying why I like my top three, but I'll have a go. Spahpanzer 2 Luchs A2: This is the hardest to quantify. It's not that great on mobility, firepower or troop carrying ability and its gun is unstabilised. It also (IIRC) doesn't have an APDS-T option unlike the Marder and carries far less ammunition than the latter vehicle (the Rh202 was primarily for limited protection, presumably). For all that, I just think it's cute and I have had a whale of a time playing it. I operate them a two vehicle section. I find I can sneak up on enemies and have the two scouts pop out of the vehicle to look over crests or out of woodland etc. I give them rifle grenades and an AT weapon and a perhaps improbable 4 reloads so they can inflict pain of their own. As far as I know it was never used in combat, so can only be used in speculative scenarios, but since they take place in an era that really interests me, that is not a problem. Marder 1A3: This is the most fun IFV to play. A really well balanced vehicle. There are a few downsides to it in that you can't mount the MILAN (the reason for this was explained a while back) and the HEI-T ammo is a bit too lethal (known bug, being worked on by ESimGames) but it's fast, has reasonable armour for its time period and role, relatively great firepower vs its potential opposition and is easy to hit with - I get far quicker times on target with this by watching fall of shot with the Marder than with vehicles that have much bigger cannon and LRFs. German infantry are well armed with ATGW, AT weapons and RGs. The vehicle covers quite a time span, especially if you let it substitute for earlier variants - albeit the mechanised vs mechanised scenarios are still speculative. A real bundle of fun! Leopard 1A4. This is the hardest to quantify. It's obviously less technologically advanced than later Leopards and Abrams, but it just makes me smile, particularly as I do a lot of late Cold War scenarios. A really fun vehicle to play as commander, gunner or driver. I prefer the reload arrangements to the Abrams and the means of generating dynamic lead seems more intuitive than either system used with M1 variants. It also looks Teutonic and "warry" as do most former W. German vehicles.
  4. It's a workaround (subjectively) because using the cursor from F8 view to move short distances in game is more precise and immediate. For example if you want to have your section leader with the AT weapon sneak around a corner to launch or avoid a branch from a tree that's blocking your line of sight/likely to prematurely initiate the rocket/projectile (sometimes because it's not possible to shoot the AT weapon from prone). You can only see the latter obstacle in 3D view. If you can Scout to etc. using the cursor yet, in a different view, have a workaround that lets you advance prone, there is no logical reason for there not to be a Crawl to 3D cursor option IMHO. The reason I put the question here is that it followed on from someone's suggestion in response to a wish list request. Next time I have a follow-on question, I'll put in a post flagging a move to a separate thread. PS, the "victim actuated" mobile VBIEDs are really working out. Thanks to everyone for your responses.
  5. Thank you Mirzayev. That's a good workaround.
  6. That is awesome. Thank you. Two more requests (and I know I'm trying my luck here) New type of movement for infantry - Crawl to. At the moment, you can get infantry to crawl by setting them to Scout to, but they stop when they feel it prudent and always err on the side of caution. I would like to be able to force them to crawl into a position taking an additional level of risk to get closer - for example when stalking an AFV in woodland. Alternate prone firing position for hand-held AT weapons. Bear in mind that you have to keep your body at at least 45 degrees to an M72 and 90 degrees to an AT-4/M-136, which does look a bit strange.
  7. With it painted in that colour, squint and you might see an Armata.
  8. I can see an option to destroy the vehicle if X happens in the scenario editor right mouse click menu, but not to make it explode. Where exactly is that option?
  9. Thank you MAJ. That really helped. The Claymore implementation in game is wonderful, even if it's a bit more fidly to employ them in scenario editor. It would be nice to be able to put down and command detonate a Claymore manually in game. I know in reality it would usually be very hard to spot a claymore or IED, but I would like them to appear visually in game with some chance of spotting them*. Likewise to differentiate between radio and wire initiation with the IED, some chance of spotting a wire (user selectable probability or degree of hiding) and RF jamming of radio links would be nice. I know some might see that as gilding the lily, but IEDs and counter-IED operations/considerations have been a major part of recent operations. *I realise there would be a CPU penalty for this as it involves calculating probability of detection for a potentially large number of units.
  10. Selectable size of IED (at present the only size seems very large/large casualty radius which is great in some scenarios (culvert bombs, static VBIEDs etc.) but not in others. Ability to have IEDs in moving vehicles (at least pick up truck, truck and BMP-1) Buildings you can drive a vehicle into and close the doors to hide inside. Deployable cammo nets.
  11. This was news to me. http://www.janes.com/article/73474/analysis-russia-looks-to-bridge-armour-gap
  12. Long, but VERY interesting JGSDF firepower demo c/o JasonJ on tank-net.com.
  13. Vehicle crews that bail out when their vehicle is KO'd (assuming they are still able to) and the option of ordering them to bail out (or just getting out of) an immobilized (or indeed any) vehicle and re mount it or another one as crew or passenger. Crews that bailed out or left their vehicles would become dismount units for game purposes. Given the emphasis on force protection in current operations and the basic human desire never to leave anyone behind, this could be useful in various scenarios as well as adding to the atmosphere/immersion of the game.
  14. I realise I have to be realistic here, but I would really like to see a HEAT or HEDP rifle grenade added to the rifle grenade selection we currently have. Again, I would love the "Shoot (weapon x) here" option that rifle grenades currently have extended to include nominally anti armour weapons such as M72, Pzf-3, Carl Gustav etc. I suspect that, historically, very few of these weapons/munitions expended in actual combat were launched at armoured vehicles vs a myriad of other battlefield targets so this would add to reality. Anti-structure munitions such as Matador and the M72A9 LASM would be a nice addition that would be relevant to current or recent real world operations. In my dreams I would like to be able to carry multiple ammunition natures for the reloadable anti-armour weapons in the same squad/section or fire team too, as well as multiple natures of M72 and other disposable weapon. Late edit: some way to tell the crew of a crew served weapon like the MILAN to leave it in the IFV/APC and act as pure infantry instead of bringing it with them would be highly desirable as would a "leave the weapon in situ" command so as not to be burdened with the weapon whilst retreating in some circumstances. Obviously it would be nice if they could later pick the weapon and ammunition back up if circumstances allowed. This could happen when you simply want every member of the fire team shooting their rifles rather than manning a useless (in that situation) ATGW launcher - for example if on the receiving end of a close infantry assault etc. I know I'll probably be told that would not have happened if I had done X, Y or Z correctly, and I'm sure that's true, but I would still appreciate the option.
  15. I accidentally discovered that vehicle fighting positions can make highly effective vehicle traps. In one scenario two enemy BMP-2s ended up sharing a position, propped up at jaunty angles, with a still live but immobilised and de-fanged Leo2A4.
  16. Thank you Ssnake. It would be nice to see a new position for infantry where they press themselves flat into the ground when targeted by ground bursting HE or DPICM or otherwise heavily suppressed by fire. They would then stay down for a random number of seconds within a predefined range after the last burst/impact within a given distance. That would presumably help infantry become much more survivable once micro-terrain and the new damage model are implemented.
  17. I may be missing this somewhere, but is there a way that rifle grenades can be enabled for infantry under AI control? I know how to manually launch them, but have never knowingly seen my own infantry so equipped use them when not using the "launch (HE or smoke) rifle grenade at" menu command.
  18. And a similar parade from 51 years ago...
  19. Or, if you wanted wheels... http://kalashnikov.media/en/media/videolibrary/4516381
  20. Thank you for the clarification Ssnake. Is the terrain shown below LIDAR enhanced or the new format dicussed above? (I'm assuming the former).
  21. I completely understand your reasoning, but I don't see SB having any competitors (which probably makes me an SB "Fanboi").
  22. I think (and I'm probably reading too much into what Ssnake said previously here) which maps get upgraded to what extent will depend on the availability and expense of LIDAR maps/imagery of different areas of interest to the user base. I'm not sure to what commercial availability can be suppressed, but I would not be surprised if certain countries would not want LIDAR quality mapping of their terrain to enter the public domain (NL for example still does not allow military installations to appear in google maps and some countries do not allow Google street view at all, let alone of defence related sites). Then there is the expense of LIDAR imagery which would presumably come down over time, but which Ssnake mentioned was currently non-trivial. I would expect military users to stump up the cash and not have any problems with national security for implementing LIDAR enhanced terrain for their implementations, but PRO PE may not benefit from those enhancements for some of those geographical areas for some time, if at all.
  • Create New...