Improvements for Dismounts?

[Apocalypse 31]

Will we see any improvement for dismounts with the coming 3.0?

Dismount-specific formations? More fluid movement - particularly in urban settings?

It's nice to see some of the asymetric forces, but currently, city fighting is like pulling hair with the way dismounts get stuck on objects.

[Gibsonm]

Well breaking the "Parent - Child" link improves things like having specialist teams mount up.

And pretty sure the scripted mounting and dismounting helps.

Scripted mount/dismount command

Any infantry unit may mount any vehicles (the days of the parent-child relationship are over).

Small steps though on a long road, if you want some sort of fully featured, Infantry centric, MOUT Sim.

[Apocalypse 31]

Well breaking the "Parent - Child" link improves things like having specialist teams mount up.

And pretty sure the scripted mounting and dismounting helps.

Small steps though on a long road, if you want some sort of fully featured, Infantry centric, MOUT Sim.

Dismounted movement in urban areas is quite difficult (not challenging) with the current squads. Also movement speed and the lovely 100m move-then-prone dance

[Tacbat]

Also movement speed and the lovely 100m move-then-prone dance

That has been reworked.

[cata]

Yes despite all the amazing things we are seeing in the new release, urban fighting is still a major issue, well on my list anyhow, in fact near on impossible for infantry. Unless you specifically designed your urban settings to compensate allowing a street wide enough for 6 inf in a line, and don’t use walls or fences. The other way to deal with it is to use one solider per unit, then move a man at a time, that’s the best way to get around the issue and go house to house in a realistic setting. Its micromanagement gone mad but you feel you have some control.

Been able to load any unit on any vehicle might help in this department, guess we will have to wait and see.

[Hedgehog]

Yes despite all the amazing things we are seeing in the new release, urban fighting is still a major issue, well on my list anyhow, in fact near on impossible for infantry. Unless you specifically designed your urban settings to compensate allowing a street wide enough for 6 inf in a line, and don’t use walls or fences. The other way to deal with it is to use one solider per unit, then move a man at a time, that’s the best way to get around the issue and go house to house in a realistic setting. Its micromanagement gone mad but you feel you have some control.

Been able to load any unit on any vehicle might help in this department, guess we will have to wait and see.

I guess using that method,

You could have a brothel taking issue with the vice squad increasing their "Take" and things get violent... :biggrin:

(Hey that gives me an idea! )

[Ssnake]

I think you will see substantial improvements in this area. I will not claim that all issues will be solved, but it'll be a major step in the right direction. For every scenario, Steel Beasts will by default generate a nav mesh now that will allow infantry (and vehicles) to avoid obstacles when planning a new route.

There are still things on the development list that won't make it into the initial release, but the foundation to solve the typical issues has been laid. The nav meshes not only allow autonomous (civilian) characters to find their way from starting point to their destination without any user input whatsoever. They will also assist in obstacle avoidance when plotting new routes, and therefore increase the infantry soldiers' chances substantially to actually reach their destination even if there are walls and hedges that restrict their movement.

[companyteam]

The other aspect with Inf that'll hopefully be fixed at some stage is their inability to enter all buildings.... and even for the ones that they can, being limited to only a couple/one entry point. All doors and windows at ground level should be able to be used, and the real truth is that most conventional forces will usually be able to manually and explosively breach most walls anyway!

[Hedgehog]

The other aspect with Inf that'll hopefully be fixed at some stage is their inability to enter all buildings.... and even for the ones that they can, being limited to only a couple/one entry point. All doors and windows at ground level should be able to be used, and the real truth is that most conventional forces will usually be able to manually and explosively breach most walls anyway!

There is always this option:

:biggrin:

[TankGirl90]

There is always this option:

:biggrin:

That is so me :biggrin:

[Stemik]

There is always this option:

:biggrin:

My thoughts exactly! :biggrin:

[Gibsonm]

Not if its not covered by the ROE.

Enjoy Leavenworth.

[Tread_Head57]

Not if its not covered by the ROE.

Enjoy Leavenworth.

You always have the right to self defense. Sometimes the coax "malfunctions" and you have to use the main gun.:biggrin:

[Gibsonm]

You always have the right to self defense. Sometimes the coax "malfunctions" and you have to use the main gun.:biggrin:

So what is wrong with your MG or the loader’s MG or your side arm ....

I have seen too many people suffer administrative pain because they thought they could use a sledge hammer to crack a sun flower seed.

[Tread_Head57]

So what is wrong with your MG or the loader’s MG or your side arm ....

Because then you're unnecessarily exposed to enemy fire. If you have a remote operated MG, then by all means use that. If you are in an M1A2 (without TUSK), or in may case, a Bradley, then better to put a large hole in the building then be shipped back home in a box with a large hole in your face.

[Gibsonm]

Well then select reverse, clear the stoppage and come back.

Your defence doesn’t work in court - I’ve seen people try it.

[Gibsonm]

Because then you're unnecessarily exposed to enemy fire. If you have a remote operated MG, then by all means use that. If you are in an M1A2 (without TUSK), or in may case, a Bradley, then better to put a large hole in the building then be shipped back home in a box with a large hole in your face.

Even without Tusk you have the Commander’s 0.50”?

[Tread_Head57]

Even without Tusk you have the Commander’s 0.50”?

Which in the M1A2 you have to expose yourself to use. Not very smart to do when under small arms fire, especially in an urban area where the rooftops provide for a dominant firing position.

[Gibsonm]

Well I guess its “agree to differ” time.

[Tread_Head57]

Well then select reverse, clear the stoppage and come back.

Your defence doesn’t work in court - I’ve seen people try it.

I've heard stories similar to what your saying. I have no doubt that there are commanders who prefer friendly casualties over dealing with civilian casualties/collateral damage. It all comes down to the situation. I agree, putting a 120mm into a house because you saw one guy run in there after hearing a gunshot is probably a bad idea. Using the main gun during a high intensity fight, probably going to be ok. There were times in Baghdad 2006 where I had to use 25mm HE. Large fight, dismounts taking effective fire, etc. Wasn't specifically in the ROE, but if they gave me the ammo, it's up to me as a commander to (in good faith) use my discression to determine the best means to eliminate the threat and safeguard my soldiers.

Edit: Didn't see your post above this one. Agree, I see your point, but I don't think we're going to be totally eye-to-eye on this one.

[mpow66m]

So what is wrong with your MG or the loader’s MG or your side arm ....

I have seen too many people suffer administrative pain because they thought they could use a sledge hammer to crack a sun flower seed.

what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas :sonic:

[companyteam]

I get that armour can blow big holes in buildings for Inf to exploit..... and I wish we could replicate that in SB. But I'd also love to be able to have Inf do it. Maybe not with graphics showing a big explosion (at least not straight away!), but it's frustrating watching Inf mill about in a street outside a building that looks as if its got doors and windows that they could use, but won't. Just as frustrating is seeing them "stuck" outside a "compound". Imagine Inf being able to "mouse hole" from building to building in a complex environment!

[Ssnake]

As fun as that sounds when you have arms and your voice as an interface to do this in real life, as a computer player, think of the user interface. You are the equivalent to a mute ghost who can take over people on a battlefield, and you can poke buttons with a single broom stick. Your soldiers are autistic zombies. They are amazingly capable for zombies (like, they can successfully operate complex machinery), but they are zombies nevertheless. It's important to keep these limitations in mind because these limitations dictate what can actually be accomplished and which things will never work, irrespective of the qualities of the underlying simulation.

[Tac197]

There is always this option:

:biggrin:

Now That's what I call destructive clearance, but seriously any improvement on the infantry movement in 3.0 will be better than the current situation.

It would also be nice to be able to give infantry a "dug in" status( at the different stages)with out having to put then in a obvious bunker from the start. Maybe it could be set from the start in planning and if the unit moved a distance say 500m it would have a time factor built in to represent the fact that the troops are required to "Dig in". Each stage 1( shell scrap), stage 2(chest height pits),stage 3(fighting positions with OHP) can be given set game times.

I know this is a tank sim but it is just an idea....

[dpabrams]

We have been given much but I have to ask if small arms will see an update? In particular LMG's. As it stands now there is only a MG3 and from there we jump to a M2. A few additions like an M240, GMG, SAW, RPK, PKM and M60 would be great.