Koen Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Marder platoons have one Milan launcher which can be dismounted or remain mounted on one commander's station (which is what they are doing in SB Pro). Remember that you should also order your IFVs to suppress the defenders; mechanized infantry is weak in dismount strength. This weakness can be compensated by the much higher firepower that a squad plus IFV has. But in order to make this work you actually need to apply that firepower to enable movement of your squad.This "suppress" order is a really interesting one - can add some spice & variation to scenario's.2 questions though:* Mechanized Infantry are still only carrying RPG (= short range) with them and no ATGM's. Is this realistic ?* And if it's not realistic, why not give them - in the upcoming patch/hotfix - some 1 or 2 ATGM's as well ?Maybe it's not too time-consuming for Al to implement this,while at the same time it would greatly increase the appeal & capabilities of both infantry and IFV's (now too often cannonfodder ?) in the sim.I know Infantry will undergo a major overhaul in the medium/long term. But eventually you might consider this short term fix as well ?Rgds,Koen 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koen Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Taking the liberty to bump this thread/question back up:Would it be desirable/feasible to add in the upcoming hotfix some ATGM's to the standard loadout of Mech. Infantry in IFV's ?THX,Koen 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted July 3, 2009 Moderators Share Posted July 3, 2009 No, infantry in the update won't be carrying around ATGMs. However, the infantry in the update will be much more deadly than they are in 2.460 just by the bugs that was addressed with them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koen Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 (edited) * "Infantry much more deadly":OK, good to hear that - thx for the info.* Just for the sake of discussion, about the idea to add in the upcoming hotfix some ATGM's to the standard loadout of Mech. Infantry in IFV's - what does eSim think:a) no, unrealistic idea, so will not be included.b) yes, realistic and needs to be done, but only when all of the infantry is overhauled = other priorties are more important right now.c) yes, realistic and needs to be done, but taking too much time to implement now for the hotfix, so see b.d) yes, realistic and needs to be done, and now that we (re)think about it, actually very easy to implement, so ... on 2nd thought, will be included in the hot fix ...e) another thing is ...:-) nevermind, just being curious.Rgds, K Edited July 5, 2009 by Koen 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalAB Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 a) Able to set and call for airborne troops just like arty (set types, troop size and weapon load outs in the mission editor similar to setting support values then during game player may call for airborne any time any place, no mission scripting required).b) Thermal binoculars for TC position on the M1HA.c) Third playable force. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShotMagnet Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 a) Able to set and call for airborne troops just like arty (set types, troop size and weapon load outs in the mission editor similar to setting support values then during game player may call for airborne any time any place, no mission scripting required). You can sort of do that anyway, by using the Spawn if... feature and detailing when and/or where you want the infantry to show up. Sure, it involves a bit of scripting. So does calling down artillery.Shot 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted July 5, 2009 Members Share Posted July 5, 2009 - what does eSim think:b 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted July 5, 2009 Members Share Posted July 5, 2009 a) Able to set and call for airborne troops just like arty (set types, troop size and weapon load outs in the mission editor similar to setting support values then during game player may call for airborne any time any place, no mission scripting required).I have to stare in your eyes now, and ask you in my most serious way, Is this realistic?Would air mobile troops land without contingency planning for one or several landing zones, ingress and egress routes, a plan for the sequence of combat and combat support troops as well as logistics, e.g. ammo for mortars?Just watch "We Were Soldiers Once..." and tell me with a straight face that these guys don't need no stinkin' planning phase.b) Thermal binoculars for TC position on the M1HA.Night vision - Yes.Thermals - probably not.c) Third playable force.Yes, but not immediately so. Multisidedness is pretty high on our list of strategic development goals. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackDeath Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 What about a "destroyed if/unspawn if" option in the scenario editor? Would be quite useful for sce editing and relatively easy to implement, wouldn't it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hackworth Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 you can destroy units with the scripting in the mission editor -- well close enough. you can destroy main components with any condition, or you can use a penalty zone and kill them completely. why would "unspawn if" be realistic? please explain how we could use it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GH_Lieste Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 you can destroy units with the scripting in the mission editor -- well close enough. you can destroy main components with any condition, or you can use a penalty zone and kill them completely. why would "unspawn if" be realistic? please explain how we could use it.Killing all the crew components is killing the vehicle completely btw. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryOwen Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 why would "unspawn if" be realistic? please explain how we could use it.Tank gunnery tables have targets that have a limited exposure time. Unspawn if would allow scripting that could replicate gunnery ranges and duplicate the scoring formulae. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hackworth Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 Killing all the crew components is killing the vehicle completely btw. heh, yea, that's what i was getting at. you can "kill" it even though there isn't a kill if condition. hmmmm, good point Gary i also started thinking about how we could use it with INF in order to simulate them going into caves, or tunnels and such. then you could spawn another INF somewhere else as if they surfaced again. or the same unit in the same location if they return the way they "entered". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tacbat Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 A "Spawn if..." for obstacles so that Engineers could "build" them during the mission. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hackworth Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 A "Spawn if..." for obstacles so that Engineers could "build" them during the mission. better yet, Engineers that drop concertina wire, etc. yup, one-upped ya again Tac! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LtGeorge Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 you can destroy units with the scripting in the mission editor -- well close enough. you can destroy main components with any condition, or you can use a penalty zone and kill them completely. why would "unspawn if" be realistic? please explain how we could use it.Is the intent of this to just remove the unit during a scenario? This would be very handy:1. You could remove units that pass out of bounds, thereby conserving processor horsepower.2. You could do a helicopter LZ pick up - if the helicopter reaches the waypoint and stays for 10 seconds, remove the infantry unit below it and call it airborne.3. You could do the same with trucks or PCs, such as a SAR or extraction situation.3. The tank range already removes units from the field during the scenario. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hackworth Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 for 1 i use penalty zones that give the "player" the unit when it's within the zone. but the region also acts as a destruction zone. give the player the unit well within the zone (i.e., player if: unit is in X zone for 3 minutes, while it's still traveling deep within the zone. no way out if the player realizes he owns it. dead within 30 seconds.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalAB Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 A humble request to the Sim designers.During scenario creation I've found that the map can become quite polluted.If I build a large scenario where one side is controlled by the AI it starts to get a little overloaded with the necessary units/way points/zones and routes used in building the automated/adaptive script for the AI behavior during the scenario. I personally can get bogged down and a little lost with what it is I'm trying to do. I use a type of programming software where I'm employed and this software offers me a feature where by I'm able to isolate whatever operations I wish to do into levels that I number and can also name. I may have as many as levels as I need and I can view any of these levels by themselves or collectively. What I'm getting at here is lets say I have a large amount of pre-planned arty/air strikes that I want to lay out along with the advance of the AI forces. By the time I'm done setting up zones for logic along with all of the routes etc that are tied in with the advance and then start dropping in the support elements, my map for the AI looks like a painting done by someone on LSD and I need to do LSD to try and figure out what the hell I was upto in the first place. If SB had a level feature I could isolate each and every action; recon on level one, mech infantry level two, heavy armor level three..you get the idea. Editing the scenario after play testing would be a breeze. Just a thought. I know this would probably increase the price of the Sim but it would be worth it for ease of scenario design. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
congo Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 I want big parabolic mirrors mounted on the vehicles so I can see the suspension in operation from the TC,s station. And wipers on the mirrors so I can see the suspension in operation when its raining. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
congo Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 A humble request to the Sim designers.During scenario creation I've found that the map can become quite polluted.If I build a large scenario where one side is controlled by the AI it starts to get a little overloaded with the necessary units/way points/zones and routes used in building the automated/adaptive script for the AI behavior during the scenario. I personally can get bogged down and a little lost with what it is I'm trying to do. I use a type of programming software where I'm employed and this software offers me a feature where by I'm able to isolate whatever operations I wish to do into levels that I number and can also name. I may have as many as levels as I need and I can view any of these levels by themselves or collectively. What I'm getting at here is lets say I have a large amount of pre-planned arty/air strikes that I want to lay out along with the advance of the AI forces. By the time I'm done setting up zones for logic along with all of the routes etc that are tied in with the advance and then start dropping in the support elements, my map for the AI looks like a painting done by someone on LSD and I need to do LSD to try and figure out what the hell I was upto in the first place. If SB had a level feature I could isolate each and every action; recon on level one, mech infantry level two, heavy armor level three..you get the idea. Editing the scenario after play testing would be a breeze. Just a thought. I know this would probably increase the price of the Sim but it would be worth it for ease of scenario design.Hey when you start doing the LSD can I come up and help? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalAB Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 Hey when you start doing the LSD can I come up and help?Sure no problem, you dig native girls? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
congo Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 Sure no problem, you dig native girls?There's native girls living in Canada,wonders never cease. I'll check in with the misses and get back to ya!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 A humble request to the Sim designers.During scenario creation I've found that the map can become quite polluted.<snip>Just a thought. I know this would probably increase the price of the Sim but it would be worth it for ease of scenario design.Agreed.I've just had to save a second copy of a scenario so I could have one that was "cluttered" with all the waypoints, etc. and the other was "clean" so I could display the SOM graphics, etc.Being able to switch off certain layers would be a boon.At the simplistic level, settings for just the map, the map + support graphics and the map + AI routes, etc would be good.At a more detailed level, settings for the map, support graphics, obstacles, indirect fires, and maybe each CT (or perhaps by recce / main body / admin areas) would be great. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted May 10, 2010 Members Share Posted May 10, 2010 Additional (customizable) map layers are on The List, but don't expect them this year. I should also point out that SB Pro was originally designed for the company team level, not necessarily task forces of several battalions' size. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell_Hound Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 I should also point out that SB Pro was originally designed for the company team level, not necessarily task forces of several battalions' size.We can't help it. We're so good that any fight we touch becomes the Schwerpunkt for everybody within several map sheets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.