Forgot your password?
Azure Lion, December 26, 2011 in General Discussion
* I'm assuming infantry can enter buildings still?
Only if they are not occupied by the enemy.
(Building Clearance and Frag Grenade-ing Windows is on the_List)
**ALL HAIL the_List**
I reacted in a similar manner when I found this out, just two months ago or so... live and learn...
Just a reminder
Just a reminder
Major flashback to the many cold and wet days spent at the Grafenwoehr ranges back in '72 - '74.
What about concrete pillboxes?
Or technicals with .50 cals or recoilless rifles?
Also saw some pictures of technicals with AA-styled heavy machine guns in their cargobeds used by rebels in Libya.
Oh, yeah, can infantry enter those sand-box-styled "guard towers" that are 2 stories high?
Expanding the structures list or coming up with pavement that specifically designed to emulate runways or helicopter landing areas sounds nice too.
what about static SAM sites or flak guns? Or, hell, SA-6s and other anti-air systems?
What about using the "search" button?
Some of that stuff has been spoken about and indeed exists already.
There are pictures in places like the "Gallery" if you actually had a look instead of expecting others to do the looking for you.
I want a lot of things that are already included
What version are you using, anyway?
Apologies. Just upgraded to 2.654 from 2.552. Been out of the action for a bit, so I'm still outdated on, well, everything!
Good to finally get things straightened out. Now, as long as I can get my online capacity up to snuff, maybe I can add more to my records than just 3 freakin' scenarios.
Loving the infantry so far! Reminds me of Ghost Recon 2002! This keeps getting better and better!
See you guys on the field.
May I recommend looking at the Release Notes for the current and previous versions. I tried to organize them in a way to list new features first, followed by a list of feature changes, and to be concluded by the list of bug fixes. IOW, the important stuff for most can be found early on in the document, and if you are interested in a specific bug, you can use the search function in Adobe Reader.
One issue that I think needs to be addressed is that of morale and units that break.
Computer controlled units can have morale and unit break/routs scripted in by the scenario designer. Fairly easy to do.
But with human controlled units not so much. When I was actively participating in MP back in the early 2000's human players, almost to a man, played units to the death, last man, last vehicle.
That has always bothered me. It would be a great feature if scenario designers could set morale levels that impact performance and unit breaking such that if set conditions were met then a unit would revert to computer control and rout right off the map.
Ideally the scenario designer could script in what happens when a unit breaks. For example freeze in place, no offensive actions, goes berserk and charges the nearest enemy, retreats in good order, loses it completely and moves at highest speed off the map in a direction defined by the scenario designer.
All these things can be scripted currently for a computer controlled force. Unfortunately that can't be defined for a human controlled force.
In actual combat units don't generally fight to the last man (yes - heroic actions happen, units do act in incredible ways that become the tales of legend but those acts are the exception and not the rule - how many times throughout history have the actions of the Spartans at Thermopylae been repeated?). - It would be nice to be able to enforce some sort of morale and unit break actions on human players. Maybe then the actions human players take would be more in line with what happens during actual combat instead of the BS fight to the last man one used to see so often.
Respectfully, Werewolf, I need to disagree with this.
For guerrilla units or conscripts, I can see morale having an effect, but on professionally-trained soldiers, which, as I understand it, this simulator was designed for, morale is a matter of perspective. You lose men in combat, and while it can detract from your overall mindset, the fact of the matter remains is that you have a mission to complete, and that mission has to be completed until you are otherwise ordered off the objective. I believe that that is a very realistic simulation of what happens in combat... it is up to the unit commander - company, battalion, and higher - to decide if a unit has undergone too much attrition to pull them off the objective and proceed to the rear for re-armament and recuperation.
Speaking from my own experience... when we lost a man, we wanted to get back into the fight and get back at the enemy who killed our man. We didn't want to run, but because we were escorting battalion commander, the mission objective came first. Was I scared? Maybe, I don't know. All I know is that I was screaming for my gunner to engage the enemy with co-ax and kept trying to push through the road. Unfortunately my TC had to expose himself as a result of my inexperience and help guide me some through the firefight, which he later scolded me for, but that was small beans next to losing our man.
Just from a gamer's perspective, I would really hate to be fighting with everything I have as if I were in the gunner's hole, and then suddenly have the computer override my commands and decide that because my platoon had lost two tanks and we were under artillery fire, meant that I was going to suddenly end up running off the map. No gunner that I know of would allow it... in fact, they'd probably push the driver who did it out the hole and either put him in the loader's hole, or just left him with the 9 element to handle it. Cowardice in the face of the enemy is punishable within the articles of military justice.
Sorry, my schpiel is over now, I return you to your regular wish list now. God bless.
But with human controlled units not so much.
Just add a condition where the mission ends after friendly losses mount to the point where you would expect them to be routed. Then add a radio message explaining what has happened.
Leave it to an older, wiser soul to make a simple-yet-brilliant suggestion.......
It's a tough call because there are good reasons for either opinion. From what I heard in military history, losses in armored fighting vehicles seem to have a lesser effect. This not because armored crew men are so superior - it's simply because most crews are oblivious to the suffering of others until after the battle. On the other hand, with 40% losses, infantry units typically are no longer combat effective as the tending of the wounded and securing a local defense perimeter consumes all energy. You could continue to fight only if you abandoned your wounded and the fallen, at which point your long-term morale will certainly suffer.
If we will ever do it, I think we'd make it optional in the mission editor, so the scenario designer can decide whether he wants this to be a factor in a given game (or not).
Erhm sorry to break the thread.....but something that I would like to ask about is if it might be possible that a few dismounts would be added to the Centauro? As it's actually possible in reality....
And regarding the Boxer.....could an RWS with an autocannon perhaps be added once in future?
But what I would like to see the most of the two is a dismount section in the Centauro.
And regarding the Boxer.....could an RWS with an autocannon perhaps be added once in future?...
If that ever gets implemented in reality...maybe
Erhm sorry to break the thread.....but something that I would like to ask about is if it might be possible that a few dismounts would be added to the Centauro? As it's actually possible in reality....And regarding the Boxer.....could an RWS with an autocannon perhaps be added once in future?But what I would like to see the most of the two is a dismount section in the Centauro.
AFAICT, the rear of the Centauro is packed with ammunition racks. Where would the infantry go?
But money is short all over the World......
There is a APC Variant called VBC:
So it´s not that Centauro we have in SB, but it exists.
But money is short all over the World......
Ok Ok, you found it. But thats a prototype...don't think it was even at a range in this config.
Don't know if anyone is up to buy the Lance turret system.
==>no need to train crew on it ==> no hope for a contract for esim so far
Isn't that the: "Retreat to starting waypoint if....." condition, or is that an SB 1 thing?
There are two Centauro variants, one with substantially reduced ammo count and two more seats for dismounts (instead of just two). So far we have only implemented the one with the full ammo count, which would usually not carry dismounts at all even if there is a capacity for two.
And why not this another one??
Y por que no este otro??
You can post now and register later.
If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead
Only 75 emoji are allowed.
Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead
Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor
You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.