Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Maj.Hans

  1. In the case of the Milan, particularly as this is a "vehicle centric" simulator, I would be more than happy to have it permanently attached to the vehicle.
  2. The problem is that when you, as a human, attempt to perform the "suppress" command with a machine gun from the TC's position, the crew will drop everything and sit there like idiots. We need a "KEEP FIGHTING!" command for them so that they don't cease all meaningful activity while I attempt to merely fire in a general direction.
  3. Oh. I derped. I want a button to tell the Artificial Idiot gunner what I want him to do...
  4. I'll point out that I've been asking for years to have an option to tell the human Computer gunner to keep shooting, both in the M1A1 and M1A2. There are some occasions where I might want to send a bunch of .50cal slugs flying in a certain direction, but don't want the gunner to stop what he's doing... I'm thinking of a certain scene from the movie "Spaceballs" right now......You know the one...
  5. The flyboys can't hear you laughing anyway because they used to fly the F-4, and went deaf from converting fuel directly into noise.
  6. That system is just.....No. Too much complication for little or no benefit. By comparison I feel like the M2/M3 and Marder have an on/off switch inside next to a little label that says "KILL"...
  7. Hm, a valid question. And now that you mention it I'm not sure when the last time I had to engage infantry with Coax at a distance was... But I want to say that you could reach out to 1000 yards if not more with it and be effective against infantry, situation dependent.
  8. I think most if not all RPGs are well within Coax range though.
  9. I don't know if I want to see tanks wasting precious main gun rounds on infantry groups, but I would like to see APCs and IFVs with cannons (M2/M3/BMP1/2 etc) fire their main guns at infantry groups, and possibly at identified ATGM teams that are outside coax range.
  10. Yes, the AT-3D, which we currently have in ProPE
  11. Yes, exactly. Perhaps at this point it isn't possible to simulate an AT-3A or AT-3B because ProPE can't/doesn't support the MCLOS guidance method. But, currently, if I want to put a Sagger team into a Suez scenario, it means I have the opposing side facing down missiles from the future... If you include AT-3A/B/C in the simulation right now, although they might be more accurate than the historical MCLOS missiles, having the weaker warhead, shorter range, slower flight time, etc, of an earlier missile would make the match up "less unfair". A scenario designer could start the AT-3 missile teams off with 1/2 of the ammunition depleted to simulate the misses they would have had from a real human guiding an MCLOS missile, or perhaps you could make 20 or 30% of the AT-3A/B simply fail to detonate, thus simulating those instances in which a missile team took a shot, guided the missile, and missed. Simulate what you can simulate 100%, and then find a way to make the rest of it work.
  12. Didn't they used to be pretty useful in the past? Didn't Germany have a bunch of F-4's and other stuff back in the 80s? Also....That seemed, uhm, pretty explosive for a blue painted dummy bomb!
  13. I would disagree on the "game like" comment. To pull from some examples we already have... Ssnake and his team have no idea whatsoever how much armor the M829A3, DM53, or BM42 actually penetrate. They don't have (or at least should NOT have) test results, they did not fire them into blocks of steel and measure the depth of penetration, etc. What they do have, however, are some estimates, and a calculation that helps them come up with an estimate. A very close estimate, but still an estimate. Is that "game like"? It's not as high-fidelity as possible, I know that for sure, because it is possible to conduct live fire testing of those rounds...Just not for people to model them in a game. So they made something up... Now, they did NOT "make something up" in the game-like style of WOT where you can buy magical powerups to make your tanks go faster, or your crew work harder, or sprinkle gold fairy dust on your M5 Stuart to turn it into a Tiger-II killer, but they still sat down, crunched the numbers that they did have, said "we think this is pretty close", and put it in...
  14. Simple: To produce a more complete product. If you told me that either I could have one new vehicle with an awesome 3D model, 100% accurately modeled fire control, and a full 3D interior, some time in the next few years, OR, I could have three or four new vehicles with sight, periscope, and head-out views only, and fire control modeled as accurately as possible with some artistic liberty taken for areas that you don't know about, I am going with the second option. How about another example? Right now ProPE only models a 1980s era AT-3D Sagger missile that operates as a SACLOS system. I would absolutely, hands down, 100%, no questions asked, be F***ING THRILLED to open that dialog box and see the AT-3A, AT-3B, or AT-3C missile as an option, even if they still worked like a SACLOS missile, because it would be less wrong than using what we have NOW in a 1973 scenario.
  15. To be blunt for a second: MAKE SOMETHING UP! I would, by a margin of INFINITY PERCENT, rather have you say "This is our best guess at the inner workings of the Merkava Mk2/Mk3 because it isn't public info yet" or "When humans play the Merkava Mk2/Mk3 they will use the M1/Leo1/M60 fire control" and have it as a partially playable vehicle than to NEVER see it... At the end of the day, while I prefer to have everything accurate and perfect, if you come out and say "Look, it's like this because reasons and here they are" I think I can live with it if it means we have a "new" playable vehicle for scenarios...
  16. I submit the following for consideration: Earth isn't a flat glass plate! The rail network had to deal with roads, rails, lakes, rivers, hills, mountains...
  17. Looks like they catch a main gun round or a missile at the end.
  18. A little compilation of the Cobra doing what it did best - breaking things and killing bad guys.
  19. I agree on bailing crews. Even if all they do is jump out, scatter, go prone, and disappear, I think it would add immersion. Plus I agree with the option to tell a crew to just forget it and bail out. If only to help clean up a scenario by making sure that realistically knocked-out vehicles won't be left hidden in a clump of trees screwing up a trigger/objective.
  20. Where did you read about a Panther made from a wood? Throw that book away and never look at it again! Edit: For those not in the know, this was originally a response to someone claiming that Spitfires were made from wood, to which Oleg's response was "Where did you read about a Spitfire made from a wood? Throw that book away and never look at it again!"
  21. I suppose that if it caused full auto coaxial fire instead of a single round or a 3-round burst, I would look at it as a feature instead of a bug!
  22. I guess you might consider allowing a SLIGHT amount of zoom (like 1.5x) to represent maybe really getting up close and squinting to get a nice good look through the vision block, but from what I've seen of vehicle hatches, I feel like using binoculars even in the overhead protected mode would be tricky without practice due to how crammed in you are.
  23. Would be interesting to know what the results are. This has been an issue that's not really been a huge issue in the sim for me but sometimes obvious and annoying.
  • Create New...