Jump to content

Maj.Hans

Members
  • Content Count

    1,517
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Maj.Hans

  1. Wonder if this is connected to the new HE model somehow?
  2. Just curious what kind of damage you're seeing from these explosions? I can't say if those are realistic places for those missiles to explode, but I have to think that they could make enough fragmentation to perhaps damage optical devices, radio antenna, exposed crew, etc.
  3. Copy existing AT-2C Swatter/Falanga missile from MI-8MT/MI-17 "Hip-H" to existing MI-24V "Hind". Maybe it's not specifically correct to that specific version of Hind but I would be more than happy to slap it on there and pretend it's an older version. ETA: While we're at it... Could the "Set Look of Carried Troops" option be expanded so that it includes the various other nations infantry? For example, so that Blue can have some M1IP Abrams and some M2 Bradley using the US1980 camo, and then also have some Leopard 2 and Marder 1 with their carried troops set to the "DE1980" setting so they appear as West German infantry?
  4. Would love to have a generic winter infantry camo that we can use for the US1970, US1980, and DE1970 slots. I think it would be more than good enough to just have one plain winter over-white pattern to use with all three.
  5. This is strange... I'm positive we had this in the past...but I think it may have been before the 113G2 was separate... Wonder if we lost that option in a patch with the new 3d models. But yes 113A1/A2 with M240 would be great for use as 432 substitutions.
  6. I thought we had that as an option already? At least we did in the recent past. I know I asked for this once before and I know we were able to do it in the past... I think there is an M113G, 113G1 and or G2 with the MG42 (I mean MG3...) on them, without the chicken fence, and it may have the M240 as an option? Ill have to look later. In fact...I thought I uploaded a scenario in the past with M240 armed 113s as 432s... I used the ShotKal as a Centurion...
  7. +1 for the observer view. I see how it might be easily abused in multiplayer. Going back to views, I would like a way to tell the gunner and driver *NOT* to stop what they are doing when the TC enters a weapon sight view. I'd like this to be an option in the drop down menu so that default behavior is still "textbook". Particularly on the M60. Sadly any time I use the front vision block my gunner just stops. I would really like to be able to use my .50cal and sights to observe, or to be able to spray some suppressive fire without my gunner stopping his scan, or blast an ATGM team with all MGs at once.
  8. @Ssnake I'll request again if we can get the loader to stop playing with the stab, pretty please! Also while you're at it I would like a way to look look through the cupola and the .50 cal sights without causing the gunner to stop scanning. Its almost impossible to see out when you're buttoned up without interrupting the gunner right now. That shouldn't happen unless your units are on a route that has them assigned to be on, or if you press SHIFT+TAB to turn them on. They might be turned on by default on "Retreat" routes. It could also be that you were on a map set to have very dusty conditions which creates a trail in the sim that can resemble smoke.
  9. I *think* I had this happen too, with the M60A3 TTS... I had the tank loaded with APFSDS and HEAT only, and I'm pretty sure it not only loaded those back up, but also crammed in WP and HEP into the ready rack that I'd never even had in the tank before then.
  10. Think I've just stumbled across a bug. When giving on-map M270 MLRS launchers a command to fire, they will gladly fire the M26 ICM rockets, as well as the M30 GMLRS-ICM rockets. However for whatever reason, when I had them loaded with M26A1 in a scenario I absolutely could NOT get them to fire. With no other changes to the scenario, they would fire when loaded with M26 or M30 GMLRS.
  11. Set up with a platoon *EXACTLY* as demonstrated in the first half of the video except for using a platoon of PCs instead of a single PC, including waiting for mission time of 4 minutes before proceeding from the first waypoint. The infantry move out ahead of their PCs but still take routes that converge them all into a tiny little point. Ok fine, but I did use M113s. And I didn't use "Suppress". Let me do it again using a platoon of three Armatas and suppress. Once again it appears, at least to me, as if all infantry crammed themselves together into a single point. They get dropped off and the AI knows to let them move out ahead of the PC's before the PC's move out, but the troops assigned to the "left" and "right" PC in the formation converge to meet in front of the center PC.
  12. Well for whatever reason, doesn't matter what I do, I get troops that converge into a tiny little point. As shown by the screen shots posted above. If you'd like to attach a demo scenario file showing them NOT converging into a point I'm happy to run it and see what happens.
  13. Mostly, yes. I've been complaining to @Ssnake for a while, however, that the loader should *NOT* be switching the stabilization off at any point while reloading on the move. It may be something that's in the manual, but I previously got in touch with some M60 crewman and all of them basically said it was something never done in training or in combat. One, IIRC, commented that if his loader hit that switch he'd smack him. Curious to hear your input on that. I also keep hoping some day we'll get the M60A3 Passive so we can have a pre-TIS/TTS tank for Blue.
  14. You might have an older version of the game. The current version offers the T-72M, T-72A/T-72M1, T-72B1 m.1984, and T-72B1V m.1985 as playable vehicles. While I admit that the T-72B1 might not exactly be 'cutting edge' tech, it's quite a bit more advanced than the first few playable versions we had. Plus with the latest game version you can now select AVEPS as an add-on which seems to give an effect similar to Kontakt-5, Relikt, Kaktus, etc ERA. You can always do that and pretend it's the T-72B1 m.1989.
  15. Ooo? Aaaand stand by for test reports! Sorry to say that troops still cluster together. I tried giving BMP-2 platoons orders to "Engage" to a waypoint, dismount their troops, and then "Engage" at various speeds to the next waypoint. If I can figure out where the screenshots folder is I have several screencaps. I am using the latest version.
  16. See that's what I thought. It is *POSSIBLE* to very carefully create individual scripted routes for each platoon of infantry. This takes a very long time. This can not be easily done during a mission. I have had this complaint since the change from the old infantry model management to the new one. I am *NOT* complaining about the new way things are done. We have much more flexibility now, especially with humans who want to play as crunchies, and if you want to take the time you can make very convincing scripted infantry attacks, I just want two features to make it a little easier. I want a mission builder command that will cause Rifle, Scout, and LMG units to get out of the vehicle (while HMG, AGL, missile, etc teams will stay IN the vehicle) and then move ahead of the PCs, we'll call this "Inf.Attack", and gives us an easy way to plan for a PC unit to move to a point, dismount troops, and then together as one attack the objective. I want a one-key command that a human PC platoon commander can press to get his Rifle, Scout, and LMG teams to dismount and move ahead of his vehicle, while leaving missile/HMG/AGL/etc teams mounted.
  17. When doing New Unit -> From Template -> RU I have two entries for "Tank Company, T-72B1" but one of them seems to actually be T-90s.
  18. Not quite. It works in that video with a single APC. If you try to do that with a platoon of APCs, then all of the dismounted infantry will cram themselves together. It's happened every time I've tried it. They don't know to move in a spread out formation. Yes, kinda like that. But I want the infantry not to move ahead on their own independent route, but rather to join in formation with multiple APCs ahead of them. Kinda like it was done in the old days.
  19. Speaking of dismounts, I really wish there was a way to get them to: 1. Dismount 2. March ahead of the AFV they dismounted from. 3. Maintain formation. So that a scenario creator could easily have a group of PC's show up at a waypoint, get in line abreast formation, deploy troops, and move together as a unit to take a position.
  20. To be fair, that is an M60T. It's got new tracks, new transmission, and an engine with 250 more horsepower than the M60A3 TTS modeled in ProPE.
  21. Because I had incorrect info! Better still would, of course, to be to use the already modeled player vehicle.
  22. My wish list as of right now is a bunch of mostly Cold-War era themed things: Most interesting to me: 1. Leopard AS1 with optional PZB-200 passive IR night sights to better replicate the later era Leopard 1A4 with night vision. We need some pre-thermal night vision for NATO. Even if it's "wrong". Even if the 3D model is "wrong". 2. M60A3 Passive - I'm aware these weren't made in large numbers and were mostly or entirely upgraded to the TTS version, however an M60A3 with the older Passive night sights might make a great stand in for several generations of earlier M60/M48 tank. Even if it's "wrong" in details. 3. Marder 1A3: Milan launcher mounted on the Marder 1A3, EVEN IF it cannot be dismounted during the scenarios, OR EVEN IF it requires an entirely new separate vehicle "Marder 1A3 Milan", 4. M113G with Milan on the roof in West German service, and M113A as seen in US service with Dragon mounted. - Less interesting than the 113G+Milan since Dragon sucked anyway...Skip? 5. T-72A with Kontakt-1: Leverage on existing T-72A/M1 since FCS and internals are unchanged, recycle existing internals and FCS views, fills gap between T-72A/M1 and T-72B/BV. Useful to replicate Georgian T-72 SIM1, Indian "Ajeya Mk2", Finnish T-72M1 upgrade prototypes, etc. 6. BMP-1M and/or BMP-1P: Make smoke grenade launchers an "Optional Weapon" for the existing BMP-1 for when it's used in late cold-war scenarios where this upgrade was common. Don't bother with the 1P too much work for what we'd get. Less interesting things: M1A1/SA or any other A1 variant featuring the SCWS for the TC, updated armor package and TIS, based on whatever version is easier for eSim to model, even with incorrect internal/external 3D models, would be an interesting modern era toy. T-72B m.1989 / T-72B1 m1989: Fitted with Kontakt-5 ERA, but otherwise identical to the existing m.1985 vehicles, useful mostly for simulating a more modern OPFOT MBT, requires new external 3D and new damage model but could utilize existing interiors and FCS, sadly needs that new external 3D... Any one of the following: Leopard 2A4M CAN, 2A4PL, 2A4SG. Selection based upon whatever is easier for eSim to model, I think they're all pretty close, but any upgraded legacy 2A4 would be interesting to compare to the 2A5 etc. If we get one we could probably use it to represent all three. T-64BV: AI only would be fine but Less interesting due to no internals done... Not actually that useful for Cold War scenarios due to when it was introduced and numbers built? Skip? T-62 upgrade with gun launched missiles and BDD Armor Use existing T-55AM. Things that I can live without but I'll ask for anyway just in case they're easy to do: A way to set an infantry mortar team to use its 60/82mm mortar in "direct fire" mode so they'll shoot at targets that they themselves can see. Option to select between "Standard" and "Multi-spectral" smoke for *ALL* vehicles and on-map artillery. Option to disable thermals on ATGM launchers. Better infantry control in general. An easy way in the scenario editor to create good spots for vehicles to exit water and to lay down AVLB bridges. T-55M FIN upgrade? Add 105mm L7/M68 ammo options to existing T-55 m.1974 so we can call it an Israeli "Tiran 5"? A playable Merkava 2 or 3 even if its wrong because Israel will never tell us anything about it.
  23. Perhaps my definition of 'modern' is a bit loose. There seem to be plenty of 'modern' designs that aren't up to M1A2 SEP V3, Leo2A6M, and T-90AM3VBS or whatever letter of the month standard Russia is on now. I certainly wouldn't design a modern MBT with anything less than a 120mm L/44. But the 105mm / M900 combo is able to bust open a T-80 from the front if you're close enough and hit the right spot, at least in ProPE, last time I tried, and there's plenty of 'modern' designs out of China, India, Iran, etc with less armor than that! I wouldn't go putting it on any new tank but I feel like its adequate for roles like mobile gun systems, centauro, what the DF90 should have had, etc. Those aren't supposed to take on modern MBTs, but in the event they had to, at least they've got a chance to get lucky. Makes me wonder what you can squeeze out of it with new ammo, but I'll admit that in sure if you did put the latest M829A3/E4 tech into it...I think its the last upgrade you'll see...
  24. But how many of those are backwards compatible to legacy guns? On one hand I know that Taiwan uses, and Denmark only recently stopped using, 90mm armed M41 Walker Bulldog tanks, but considering how lethargic even the 105mm M68/L7 can be against modern armor.... The smallest main gun I consider "adequate" for use against modern MBTs is probably the 105mm. And even then, you need to be slinging M900 or DM63. Makes me wonder if we'll ever see a new 105mm Sabot round developed to stretch the usefulness of that gun in it's modern roles.
×
×
  • Create New...