New Finnish OOB [Archive] - .com.unity Forums

Zipuli

March 1st, 2008, 08:47 AM

Please if you find bugs etc. do tell, and I get them fixed...

so far I fixed/added/changed following:
-ITO 96 Buk is no longer areal SAM, but SP-SAM (icon fixed), and has its own formations in misc. section
-BTR-60PB dates corrected (formations also)
-MLRS with ATACMS (M39) fixed (ammo quantity + type from HE-> CM)
-APILAS expire dates fixed (don't know when that will happen, but I use the guess of 2013...)
-to replace the APILAS I have added a "what if" AT weapon, the AT-4HP (Swedish pskott m/86HP) as NLAWs will most likely not be numerous enough to equip more than the operational units (which leaves only some 250000 to equip http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
-AT-4 patrols and Urban/PzJaegers with AT-4 added as options
-added Super Puma chopper (used by the border guard, 3 in use)
-fixed AB206 dates (goes now up to 2010)
-added 95 S 58-61 Musti unit with LRF (handheld) from 2000 ->
-SPAA platoons (2/3) expired the wrong way round... SPAA Plt/3 now lasts untill 2020, while SPAA Plt/2 goes to history in 2007...
-122 Rakh 89 now has double the ammunition as it should as the vehicle has 2 salvos, 1 ready to fire and second one carried by the vehicle itself and changed quickly by a hydraulic reload device
-Off-map AMOS ROF from 12->15
-new pictures: ITO 2005 (better one), Rann-Ohj 06, MLRS with ATACMS, Super Puma, AB206, AT-4, Rakh 89 platoon)
-added some 40 text files

New version released when enough testing and bug hunting is done.

EDIT:
-Landsverk Anti II icon changed to appropriate one
-Added 7.62 RK +Optics -weapon (represents RK 62 and 95 models with added optical equipment) - main users being Urban Jaegers, some later Paratroopers and Special Jaegers (other troops also use extra optics, but they are dispersed so that in section 1 guy may have extra optics, so the original iron sight weapon is more appropriate here!)
-"reserve company" (representing all those ad-hoc units like Artillery Bn's "torjuntaosasto" etc.) organization changed (HMGs removed prior to NSV)

Zip

Warhero

March 1st, 2008, 06:33 PM

^^ Hey Zipuli, but how about brigade generals;)...

Sorry, this is not SP3:)!

LonelyRider

March 2nd, 2008, 10:27 AM

Good work there Zipuli! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Hey do the AI know how to use this also or is it just for human play?

One thing you can fix is the icon for the Landsverk AA tank it still uses in your version the US wolverine TD icon when in the official 3.5 version it has its own neat icon number 2582.
Your LBM for the landsverk however is correct while in the official 3.5 version it uses some strange picture which is not Landsverk Anti http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/redface.gif !

Heh maybe the devs should change the unit LBM picture for the next patch to use the picture you have for it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Zipuli

March 2nd, 2008, 10:40 AM

Oh thanks for the tip - as always I did search the default OOB for any icons (like the AMOS), but missed that one!

The AI "picklist" is not finished yet for this mod, so the AI will buy quite funny stuff at times http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Zip

cbreedon

March 2nd, 2008, 04:15 PM

Not sure if it's something with my Russian OOB or not but most of the units in the scenarios with the Russians/Soviets are not displayed correctly. For example mech squads show up as tanks, etc. I looked in Mobhack and the correct icons are assigned to infantry. Is anyone else having this issue?

BTW
I really like the Finnish OOB. Thanks

LonelyRider

March 2nd, 2008, 05:05 PM

cbreedon using the modified Finnish oob should not affect in any way your russian oob.

LonelyRider

March 2nd, 2008, 06:07 PM

These are just wery little things, but I thought Id mention them anyway... Dont take any stress from this! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

The T-26E vickers should have a Suomi BMG, that is the English vickers that got it's crew increased to 4 and the 37mm bofors replaced whit the soviet 45mm gun (well the gun change actualy happened after winterwar). The no. 4 crew man was added already when those vickers tanks came to Finland in 1938-1939.

They were originaly meant to have a custom engine (and shipped to Bulgaria IIRC), that changed the turret to be offset to the right to give room for bigger side mounted engine. But since they were refitted whit the standard size engine and sold to Finland instead, Finns used the extra space on the left hull on these modified Vickers tank hulls to add that fourth guy and a Suomi BMG as hes arnament on a fixed mount of domestic design.

T-26 m 1939 should have a DT bmg not suomi BMG, that is the OT-133 modified to be gun tank and fourth crew member added whit a fixed DT BMG mount. Same thing basicaly as whit the Vickers tank, but for a different reason. The OT-133 (and OT-130) had it's turret offset to the right to give room for flame fuel tanks on the left hull. Finns removed those and put a fourth crew man there. Also the flamer was removed and replaced whit a DT cmg and 45mm gun in the turret converting these flame tanks into gun tanks. Whit better availability of captured stuff now they added the DT bmg instead of the Suomi SMG as hull arnament.

These modified T-26 and vickers tanks are unique for the Finns (well ofcourse not all captured T-26 tanks were modified this way in finnish use just the OT-flamethrower ones). Normal Soviet T-26 had 3 man crew and no bmg. There are pictures of finnish modified 4 man OT-130 and OT-133 below:

OT-130 FINN MOD:
http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/galleries/T-26/2/T_26_1.jpg

OT-133 FINN MOD:
http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/galleries/T-26/3/T_26con1.jpg

And here is a normal Soviet T-26 for referance so you see the horn and also the headlight on the front hull, but no BMG mount. This particular one also has additional lights on the turret for night fighting use.
http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/galleries/T-26/2/T_26M35RT_3b.jpg

Btw. Only difference between the OT-130 and OT-133 was that the 133 had a sloped turret.

Wow quite a long text for simple thing really, hope you can make sence of it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

SPWW2 fin oob has these pretty much correct so you can look there for better referance if you like.

cbreedon

March 2nd, 2008, 06:17 PM

LonelyRider said:
cbreedon using the modified Finnish oob should not affect in any way your russian oob.

Are the scenarios using a custom Russian OOB then?
edit
Evidently it was me. I replaced my Russian OOB with the one in the default folder and presto. It worked. Funny I don't remember ever playing around with the Russian one...

BTW
Thanks for all the work on the Finnish OOB. It looks great!

DRG

March 2nd, 2008, 08:14 PM

cbreedon said:
Not sure if it's something with my Russian OOB or not but most of the units in the scenarios with the Russians/Soviets are not displayed correctly. For example mech squads show up as tanks, etc. I looked in Mobhack and the correct icons are assigned to infantry. Is anyone else having this issue?

BTW
I really like the Finnish OOB. Thanks

Let me guess, you installed the Russian third party Modified OOB that we specifically warned people would totally bugger up their scenarios.

Does that sound like the problem?

Don

cbreedon

March 3rd, 2008, 01:23 AM

Zipuli

I just played your Leopards on the Prowl scenario. It was fun. I ended with a marginal victory.. very close to decisive.. I got too cocky at the end with my Leo's and loss one and had two immobilised.. Fun none the less. Kiitos

Zipuli

March 3rd, 2008, 02:42 AM

LonelyRider,

I will check that info and edit if needed - I have no reason to not believe that info you gave is incorrect (especially the number of crew, that one I noticed as well now that you noticed it!), but just to make sure http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Zip

PS. I may try to "defaultize" my OOB (if time/interest permits) so that when loading a scenario with old OOB used, it would work normally - which is NOT the case at the moment.

LonelyRider

March 3rd, 2008, 03:36 PM

Yeah it was something of a mystery to me before too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

About the sources:
Firstly the book - Suomalaiset Panssarivaunut 1918-1997 (toinen laitos 2003)

Secondly I eyeballed the Vickers 6-ton and the gun tank converted OT-133 at the parola armored museum last summer. And surely enough both had the fourth crew man whit a bow mg mount (suomi for vickers and DT for OT-133). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

LonelyRider

March 3rd, 2008, 03:57 PM

Post deleted by LonelyRider

Zipuli

March 3rd, 2008, 04:17 PM

Thanks, got that same book too, in addition to the piles of others, and I did use it to check data, but... ah well http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif I am sure that's not the only little detail I missed, so keep 'em coming as you find them!

PS. EDITED:
T-72M1 icon -> 2673 (no fuel tanks, tho no camo either)
BT-42, T-28 icon -> correct ones
T-54/55 -> winter icon
BMP-1TJJ -> ROF 7 (same as BMP-1!), BMP-1TJ carry 5
Itpsv 90 ammo load now 20 HE, 2 Sabot
152mm howitzers (except H 55) removed from use around 2010 (swimming in same pots as BMP-1s etc. Soviet stuff)
APILAS expire date no longer a guess - I let them be there till 2020 (we will know one day anyways...)
T-26 data, see previous page, post by LR
added NSV armed Masi/Rasi 1992->
Removed "dead" stats (FC/Stab) from helos with no weapons and prices dropped, yippee!
Added BA-20M picture
XA-203 FC = 10 for all XA-203's
AMV APC now has fully stabilized (5) weapon, as it should be
Some formation corrections
Added Mech FO's (the ones that move with BMP-1TJ) with 3 men, BMP-1TJ carry = 3...

Following data in the OOB is speculation (/not 100% sure yet - tho the ideas are not from thin air either (NLAW speculation anyone?)):
-Leopard 2A5FIN (2A4's will most likely be upgraded sometime, but into...?)
-84 RsKES AT-4HP (APILAS is at the end of its road, but what will replace it, will it be replaced in the end?)
-66 KES 2010 (M72E-9 LAW, improved penetration, Finnish company owns ~50% of the company that makes M72 versions in Norway... the ones in use now won't last forever)
-AMOS with STRIX (expensive... but fits with the "Iskukykytutkimus"-results)
-BMP-2FIN (BMP-2 needs to be upgraded as they are to be held in the roster for a looong time (Mech BG), packages exist... will exists, but does the money?)
-XA-360 AMV IFV (not bought yet, will it be bought as it costs big ��? I truly hope so!)
-Sisu HMTac vehicles (in 2009-2010 some 500-600 new vehicles are to be bought, Sisu being a STRONG candidate with these vehicles - some already in use as Bridge laying vehicles (5x5 variant))
-Patriot SAM (new SAM system was 100% sure to be bought to replace Buk, but it's the green stuff again that dictates, or the lack of it! Used Patriots are there to be bought, need is also there...)
-MRLS with CM ammo (AT-2 in use now, Finnish politicians waiting for the more humane CM ammo... The systems were bought to enable using ATACMS -type munitions, but then again would not be our first half-assed purchase with great ideas but lacking in results... Vickers anyone?)
-Hornet AG ammo (is 110% sure to be bought, but type of ammo/amount of it is unsure...)
-Lockheed C-130 (was rumours from quite high level in the air at the same time as CASA/Spartan tests were on... same with flying tankers for our Hornets. Latter did not materialize, C-130 may become true as our involvement in "peace keeping" is ever growing... (and what is more humiliating than lendind an Antonov?))
-Jurmo NEMO (tests have taken place, results seem satisfactory, currently coastal troops' mortars are towed with trucks... 1+1=?)

Another quick note, about vision setting I've used for infantry...
-10 = hand held II device, such as Wild Big, or bit older II device that can be used as a sight, such as Pilkington)
-15 = VV2000/VV2002
-40 = Matis Handheld Mk 3

Zip

pdoktar

March 4th, 2008, 10:16 AM

Some rumours about Leo2A4 upgrade is the Strv122. The L55 seems to be a no-no due to barrel lenght in close quarters.

NLAW:

http://www.saabgroup.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2007/saab_receives_new_antitank_weapon_order.htm

and some discussion:

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=23693

pdoktar

March 4th, 2008, 10:21 AM

check stats for NLAW from GB OOB and MBT LAW. The same weapon, however not a TA-ATGM in a true sense. So acc. 80 is bull.

Zipuli

March 4th, 2008, 12:11 PM

pdoktar, I've copied the weapon stat for NLAW from Swedish OOB and also rechecked with GB OOB, and yes, it's classed as TA-ATGM (weapon type 20) with accuracy of 80 and penetration of 150 (!!!!). I would also question if that penetration value would be a "bit" over the top...

Also Strv122 original designation was Leo 2A5S, and I used that data (Strv 122) for the "Leo 2A5FIN"... I am quite sure we wouldn't call it Strv 122 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Zip

DRG

March 4th, 2008, 01:08 PM

We've modified the penetration of the NLAW / MBT LAW in the next patch. It was put in years ago when nice little "details" about it's potential capabilities were not available.

It will have 100 pen in the next patch with a WH size of 8 not 5.

And yes, it's already been put into our Finn OOB

Don

DRG

March 4th, 2008, 01:26 PM

pdoktar said:
check stats for NLAW from GB OOB and MBT LAW. The same weapon, however not a TA-ATGM in a true sense. <snip>

Oh really ? Not a "true " TA ??

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mbt_law/
MODES OF OPERATION
The soldier selects top attack mode to engage tanks and armoured vehicles in order to strike the least armoured area on the vehicle's roof. In the Overfly Top Attack (OTA) mode, the missile flies at about 1m above the line of sight. The missile's sensor initiates the warhead above the roof of the target.

The soldier can select the Direct Attack (DA) mode to engage light vehicles, buildings and bunkers. In the Direct Attack (DA) mode the missile flies directly along the line of sight towards the target. The missile fuse system is disconnected and the warhead detonates upon impact, after a short delay.

That certainly sounds like "top attack " capable to me.

pdoktar said:

So acc. 80 is bull.

Well then, do tell what you think it should be and why.

Don

wulfir

March 4th, 2008, 05:39 PM

New Finnish OOB

Perkele!

Pretty ambitious stuff there, Zip! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

pdoktar

March 6th, 2008, 07:51 AM

Not a true TA-ATGM. Top Attack yes, but ATGM.. no? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

pdoktar

March 6th, 2008, 08:20 AM

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mbt_law/

"In the Predicted Line of Sight (PLOS) mode, the gunner tracks the target for three seconds and the missile's guidance electronics makes a record of the gunner's movement as he aims and computes the flight path to the predicted position of the target."

So we have a ballistic computer, but the projectile itself can not correct its flight path during flight, so no ATGM there although it is referred as a missile.

Given that the PzF3 IT-600 should have a ballistic computer and laser rangefinder, giving it acc. 5 and MBT LAW acc. 80 is misleading.

DRG

March 7th, 2008, 07:23 PM

pdoktar said:
Not a true TA-ATGM. Top Attack yes, but ATGM.. no? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

Up until about 6 hours ago if you wanted to model a TA weapon there was one and only one way to do that and that was with WC 20. As of this morning there is now a WC23 for NON ATGM TA weapons

pdoktar said:
Given that the PzF3 IT-600 should have a ballistic computer and laser rangefinder, giving it acc. 5 and MBT LAW acc. 80 is misleading.

Did you not notice that the PzF3 IT-600 has a laser rangefinder rating ? The acc. 80 of the MBT LAW is under review

Marek_Tucan

March 8th, 2008, 04:53 AM

DRG said:
Up until about 6 hours ago if you wanted to model a TA weapon there was one and only one way to do that and that was with WC 20. As of this morning there is now a WC23 for NON ATGM TA weapons

Triple Hooray and Cheers! Thank You for your efforts to make the game even better!

pdoktar

March 8th, 2008, 06:19 AM

Great work. Thanks!!

And I did not notice the rangefinder value but at least WG unit 207 has it, but it is listed as 5. Does RF 5 represent a laser rangefinder in LAW-type weapons?

DRG

March 8th, 2008, 10:16 AM

pdoktar said:
Great work. Thanks!!

And I did not notice the rangefinder value but at least WG unit 207 has it, but it is listed as 5. Does RF 5 represent a laser rangefinder in LAW-type weapons?

That RF 5 was put in for the last patch but we both just realized that will only work with dedicated Inf-AT units and only complicates regular infantry units that may carry those weapons so we are looking at bumping up the accuracy of the weapon itself to 15 or 20 but we are still experimenting.

Don

Koh

April 29th, 2008, 11:59 AM

I must say, this is quite impressive. You've clearly put a lot of work in this and as far as I can tell the formations are way more accurate than in the standard OOB. I was thinking of doing one of these myself so I wouldn't have to change things manually every time I create a scenario for myself to enjoy, but with this I don't have to. Just a few questions and suggestions for the hopefully upcoming new version:

- Special Jaegers are classed as commandos, which is of course accurate, but given how they are also para trained would paratroops be a more appropriate classification? I mean as far as I know, commandos don't get the "less casualties while paradropping" bonus. And the commandos bonus for passing difficult terrain is, from what I've experienced, really not that useful.

- The infantry and jaeger (90, not 05) formations have radios way too often. The only radios they have are the FO radios and a few others in a company. Now I keep seeing radios on individual squads way too often. Is this a balancing issue?

- 95 S 58-61M platoons should actually have four apilas patrols. And speaking of APILAS patrols, the amount of APILAS and KES seem to be reversed. Shouldn't they be carrying 3 APILAS and 6 KES? Again, this seems to be a balancing issue as 6 HEAT seems to be the standard load for anti tank patrols, but wouldn't the KES rounds compensate for this?

- Also on the topic of 95 S 58-61M, I read that you are planning on adding laser range finders for 95 S 58-61Ms. However even if they would be issued those, it would be one per platoon. Both mustis having them would be somewhat wrong. But then again, most of the possible target areas would probably be pre-sighted before the battle so that wouldn't actually be so wrong.

- Infantry and Infantry Bn AT Companies lack their AAMGs. Infantry company has two, AT Company three. Adding them shouldn't upset the balance too much and would also give them some of the much needed close range anti air defence.

And as a final note, I really enjoyed the scenarios you made for this OOB. The terrain and usage of troops was amongst the most realistic ones I've seen in scenarios involving Finland.

And Jaeger Business really, really reminded me an awful lot of an attack excercise we did in the army. My money is on you based this on something you yourself did once.

Looking forward for the next version
- Koh

Companion

April 30th, 2008, 01:13 AM

I had a peak to see what you had done because it seems every Finn interested in SP has had a hand in modifying the MBT and WW2 Finn OOBs at one time or another. I'm starting to think it's a national pastime

I think I saw a moderator in steelbeasts forum asking Finnish people the secret behind the commercial success of the armor simulation (SB Pro PE) in Finland.

So yes, I think every Finnish is a warrior and every game connected to warfare is a national pastime.

Off-topic: Zipuli, I get mauled by godlike RPGs invisible and safe in buildings almost every time I pass that cursed town in one of your SB scens: section attack.
Am I supposed to blast my way and put every townspeople into grief? Gah, those truly divine RPGs can even penetrate LEO2A4s frontally.

- Comp

Zipuli

May 18th, 2008, 06:14 AM

Koh said:
I must say, this is quite impressive. You've clearly put a lot of work in this and as far as I can tell the formations are way more accurate than in the standard OOB. I was thinking of doing one of these myself so I wouldn't have to change things manually every time I create a scenario for myself to enjoy, but with this I don't have to. Just a few questions and suggestions for the hopefully upcoming new version:

- Special Jaegers are classed as commandos, which is of course accurate, but given how they are also para trained would paratroops be a more appropriate classification? I mean as far as I know, commandos don't get the "less casualties while paradropping" bonus. And the commandos bonus for passing difficult terrain is, from what I've experienced, really not that useful.

- The infantry and jaeger (90, not 05) formations have radios way too often. The only radios they have are the FO radios and a few others in a company. Now I keep seeing radios on individual squads way too often. Is this a balancing issue?

- 95 S 58-61M platoons should actually have four apilas patrols. And speaking of APILAS patrols, the amount of APILAS and KES seem to be reversed. Shouldn't they be carrying 3 APILAS and 6 KES? Again, this seems to be a balancing issue as 6 HEAT seems to be the standard load for anti tank patrols, but wouldn't the KES rounds compensate for this?

- Also on the topic of 95 S 58-61M, I read that you are planning on adding laser range finders for 95 S 58-61Ms. However even if they would be issued those, it would be one per platoon. Both mustis having them would be somewhat wrong. But then again, most of the possible target areas would probably be pre-sighted before the battle so that wouldn't actually be so wrong.

- Infantry and Infantry Bn AT Companies lack their AAMGs. Infantry company has two, AT Company three. Adding them shouldn't upset the balance too much and would also give them some of the much needed close range anti air defence.

And as a final note, I really enjoyed the scenarios you made for this OOB. The terrain and usage of troops was amongst the most realistic ones I've seen in scenarios involving Finland.

And Jaeger Business really, really reminded me an awful lot of an attack excercise we did in the army. My money is on you based this on something you yourself did once.

Looking forward for the next version
- Koh

Thanks, I really have put some time and thought on this one...

-Good point about the specjgrs... I really haven't used them so they had less attention from me
-The makers stated that "radio" is used not only for the radio itself, but also to represent certain leadership attributes... So the current numbers are there to "simulate" good leadership instead of having a radio in your back. In one of the first versions I had realistic radio numbers, but changed when I read about the full meaning of "radio"
-About APILAS -patrols, yes, it's a balancing issue. All finnish infantry RPG -numbers are what I find best balance between "what they really carry" and "what they have with them". I think an example is needed here: An APILAS patrol usually would actually carry 3 APILAS and 3 KES, as more than that quite well immobilizes you. But the rest of the weapons are somewhere close by where you will get them quickly -> in attack they are in the APC/IFV or truck that moves with you, or with the company's supply-platoon (that the game doesn't model) that moves with the company's attack. In prep defence there are the ammo "foxholes" and so on. So a patrol has more ammo ready in few seconds than they actually carry on their backs. I use 6 APILAS and 3 KES as it's the APILAS that is the main weapon and KES would be most likely in the sections rather than the "mules" carrying them APILAS and AT-mines etc.
-About the Musti LRF, it adds a lot to the price of the unit (my current version in development has them) but also makes first-shot hit propability a lot higher - as it should be as those weapons are not (anymore) used in attack but rather in prep defence where ranges are pre-measured either by the weapon crew or the supporting FOs. Also now that Musti is making a come back in the training I suppose LRFs are not out of the question. Anyways they also can be understood more of the defence preparations than physical LRF in hand of the weapon commander...
-True about the AAMGs, I've added and deleted them every now and then because I cannot decide which is the best way, as especially the jaeger formations (org 90-91) do have them, but wether they are installed on the Pasi's or mounts depends on mission, leader, situation etc. -> I will look into this
-"My money is on you based this on something you yourself did once." Money well placed http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

After a longer pause again, now that v.4.0 is out, I will update the OOB with some stuff, including anything v4.0 has added - I haven't yet installed the newest version... Downloading now.

Zip

PS. I will also take a critical look at the radios, again as I noticed while playing that there is a big change in how the game now plays!

Koh

May 18th, 2008, 11:49 PM

When you put it that way, the amount of APILAS does make sense. I had something like that in my mind when I was trying to justify a two-man patrol carrying six APILAS in the standard OOB.

On the topic of laser rangefinders, they definitely are not out of the question at least. The Musti companies currently trained have one LRF assigned to them. Giving them to both Mustis would probably be the only reasonably simple way to simulate their use in pre-sighting targets. The older Musti units would probably have to do without LRFs.

Oh and one more thing about Mustis. The OOB currently has their max range as 700 meters which is probably what it was in the standard OOB too, while mil.fi lists the effective range as 1000 meters.

And a few words about XP/morale bonuses. This probably doesn't affect gameplay too much, but PzJaeg/Mech seems to be missing the standard +2/+1 bonus you've given to operational units. Also sissi troops have a bonus of +10/+3 while recce units have +3/+3. Given how the sissi and recce guys are pretty much identical in training, maybe they'd deserve a similar bonus? And then there's the Coastal Jaegers who according to themselves at least are some sort of an elite unit. And apparently according to regular navy infantry are quite the opposite http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

And for some reason the Artillery Bn and Artillery Bty have a +5/+5 bonus. This was present in the standard OOB too and I have no idea what it is supposed to represent.

Oh and one more thing. I'm not sure if you've heard about the somewhat new Special Frontier Jaegers. I guess adding them to the OOB would be somewhat problematic as their organization is probably not public at the moment. For more info: Raja.fi (http://www.raja.fi/rvl/rmvk/home.nsf/pages/6B705EA042C0B19CC225732C00381DF9?opendocument)

Keep up the good work, I'm eagerly waiting for a new version for SPMBT v 4.0. I'm holding off updating the main game before I can get a new version of your OOB http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
- Koh

Zipuli

May 19th, 2008, 03:10 PM

-Musti range is same as default OOB, this is also true to other weapons, such as APILAS, KES, etc. etc. not to "break" the game's "inbuilt balance" (french Apilas has same range as Finnish etc.)
-I have given the +2/+1 not to all operational units, but only readiness brigade units. Jaeger Brigades (90/91) are also operational units, as were the armoured brigades. I gave it only because readiness brigades have a lot higher amount of professional soldiers and also the troops are the youngest (=less time from conscript training period) and ought to be (knocking wood) most important troops in future refresher training
-I may tone down the sissi's bonuses to match recce, not the other way round... If I change something.
-Coastal Jaegers say they are an elite because they do something that no one else does, speak Swedish http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif I really don't see a reason to promote them, maybe in modern times give them +2/+1 as they seem to adapt to similar system as the readiness brigades when it comes to troops' age and number of professionals...
-Arty bonuses came with the game, propably to represent the well known Finnish Artillery accuracy/firing method training (that has to do with the whole artillery system) - my OOB also brings the quite unique FO system to the game, at least in some sence...
-SFJ's, heard of them, seen them in action too... I think they go well under both sissi and spec jaeger, but do not deserve units of their own, as their organization is not public. They're same sort of special unit as Special Jaeger Battalion (except spec jaegers are NOT conscripts, like paras, divers and SFJ's), but instead of jumping out of perfectly fine planes and choppers, they may do more long range recce -oriented stuff?
-Don't hold your breath mate, next version may take a while. I am currently very busy with real life stuff and also (when I got time) trying to experiment with "realistic-radio-numbers" (tm) for the OOB and see how the game reacts to that. If you want to be of help, please do browse through the text files in the latest version and fix errors and typos, which are plenty http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif, or give your e-mail address to me and playtest the current version I have now. That version has most of the stuff OOB-wise done (plus currently has the radio test going), but I have yet to test it and finish all the other stuff (texts etc.).

Zip

Koh

May 19th, 2008, 06:44 PM

- I noticed that in the last version of your OOB only 05 Brigades had the morale/xp bonuses, but in the current version Jaeger Brigade 90/91s and Navy Jaegers have them too. From what you wrote I can only assume this was unintentional. The 05 Brigades probably deserve their bonuses, but what about infantry formations. In all honesty, most of them would probably deserve some penalties. While at least some of the intantry battlegroups are somewhat recently trained (I know a few guys who were trained to become an infantry BG last year during their conscript service), most of the infantry formations are probably +35 reservists with 2 professional soldiers/battalion.
- While the arty bonuses probably do represent the fast response times and accuracy of the Finnish artillery, it leaves me somewhat puzzled as Heavy Art Bn and Bty and all mortar formations lack the same bonuses that they'd probably deserve.

As much as I'd like to help more, I'm really busy myself with several exams coming up fast. I'm just going to have to settle with bothering you here occasionally http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
- Koh

Zipuli

May 23rd, 2008, 09:23 AM

So far most the above fixes etc. is true. In addition I have:
-Given Marksman (ItPsv 90) the new icon, that is used in the default OOB (finally, thanks devs!!)
-Given NLAW teams LRF stat of 22 (see post NLAW on this forum to see why) - vision remains the same 15 I used so far
-NLAW is no longer in same category as AT-patrols, but in same as Bn ATGM-teams... (in 2009 when you buy a Bn ATGM unit, you get to choose NLAW or Spike) There has not yet been any information of how the NLAWs will be used in Organization, except that they are for operational units. Having them on Company level (as in previous version) seems very unlikely when considering the NLAW deal moneywise (not THAT many units!!!)
-XA-180 and 185 with no AAMGs, as the AAMG is the weapon of the unit the XA is transporting, not integral with the vehicles! (example, Jaeger platoon 90/91 with 3 vehicles has only 2 AAMGs, so 1 XA-18X has no AAMG on it)
-modded BMP-2 has no more extra armour and can swim... It still has TIS and new AP round (APDS)
-the "what if" C-130 was removed, as the Finnish Goverment decided to participate in C-17 deal with some 14 countris instead of buying a plane or two of its own. As these birds are used by Finns 4 days a year, I've not included them in the OOB as heavy transport as in chrisis, what are the odds to get them into use? lol
-Spike teams are now so, that Spike MR is battalion level asset, LR is Bde level and ER is Navy anti-shipping missile...
-any Bn/Bde ATGM platoon -formations all have now 4 launchers instead of the old 2 launchers.
-NSV AAMG will have 1 better RF and FC from 96 onwards
-AMOS from 2009 onwards, as seeing them operational this year seems very unlikely!
-Leopard 2R naming is now "Leo 2R Plow" and "Leo 2R Dozer" to clarify it
-Added 155 K 83-97 from 1998 onwards - this one can fire NATO munitions too, which means ICM. K 83 can no longer fire ICM. K 83-97 / K 98 ammo loads changed
-AMV APC now with AAMG (2008 onwards) and AGL (2010 onwards) -> this is available in Jaeger plt/co 05+ -formation... platoon has 3 AMVs, 2 with AAMG and 1 with AGL (similar to US stryker -platoon, which may be possible here too, who knows?)
-removed RK riflegrenade from all units...
-coast jaegers available from 1961 onwards (they started in early 1960s just like the paratroopers)
-MI-8 service date expanded to 2015 as due to NH deal delays, MI-8 expire date was moved forth by repairing at St.Petersburgh
-SpecJaegers now para-trained
-biggest change, which I am most likely including, is the "realistic radio numbers", that reduces the chance to have radios for infantry units DRAMATICALLY!! Only exeptions are the newest formations (readiness bdes, mech BG, modern coast jaegers, spec ops) that all have radio 90. Most infantry units now have radio 0 (zero, nada), as FDF traditionally has had radios for infantry so, that maybe company CO has one, and that's it, next ones you find in battalion. This of course does not affect FO's they have radios naturally. BUT this means a jaeger company in 1995 has maybe a few radios in the Pasis (as they have bigger % of having a radio) and 1 in each FO section and that's it! This will affect the playing style in a very realistic way, as now you need to keep your units "in contact" by having them closer to each other, just like is done in reality. If you disperse your infantry units too much, you'll notice a dramatic decrease in fighting ability especially when receiving suppression. You should notice the difference very well, when you next take a Jaeger company 05 in modern times, as each section has a radio. Some units, such as early pzjaegers and all sissi/recce units have a better chance for having a radio, but they are "not given out like candy" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

EDIT:
-also added SBJ units (special border jaegers) as semi-specops (Something like paratroops without para-training). These are the Border Guard's specially trained troops that would most likely be important prior to chrisis in the border areas, and also in war time they would have specialized missions, such as raiding and recce in those areas of the country. This category is also used for border guard's readiness unit (the cutthroat -guys with G36C). There'll be few different weapon choises for these guys, as it seems to be mission specific; RKs with optics, G36, PKM, KP2000 (MP5), KRPIST 2002, KES, Mines/Explosives...
-Will also take a closer look at all "spec ops" units bonuswise etc. (paras, divers, specjaegers, SBJaegers)

Now when will we have bridge layer equipment in SPMBT as I just saw our newest Leguan -toys http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Zip

PS. True about the infantry units, but gotta remember that 35 seems to be now the age above which you may no longer get a war time duty in the frontline (???) - The "reserve inf" units are to present that old and untrained lot. Also got to remember that even with only maybe 1 professional soldier in a battalion (CO), the skill level of the reserve officers is very variable, from excellent to pure ****, with mediocre reserve officer being actually quite good at his game, especially if (when) he gets to train for a while after being called to arms and before thrown into fire...

Zipuli

May 27th, 2008, 01:07 PM

More changes:

-removed off-map AMOS, available only on-map now
-new AMOS picture from field tests (old one was either a very early production or mock-up pic - though not a bad one)
-changed AMOS ammo load to correct (65), and crew to correct (4), and size to 5 (was 4), which dropped prices to 141, 154 (AMOS, AMOS STRIX)
-AMV APC (with AAMG) new picture ("turret" looks different in the production version vs. old pic that was prototype)
-added Fort "23 ItK 61 Fort", that are mostly used to cover the fixed Coast Artillery
-new 100 56 TK -image (was 130mm image)
-Bn AT Platoon added with BVs
-ATGM Company formation added with wheeled APCs, BVs or no transport. This is either independent ATGM company or Bde ATGM Coy (TOW equiped)
-Bde ATGM Company added for org 05
-AA Battery 61 and 61/95 added (9 x 23mm AA)
-NLAW platoons added (XA, BV, CV, foot)
-removed exp and mor bonuses from artillery formations
-tweaked exp and mor bonuses for special forces, sissi

All in all it's almost ready... testing, testing. If someone would like to help testing, PM me your e-mail. All help warmly welcome!!

Zip

Koh

May 29th, 2008, 04:21 PM

I hope I'm not too late with this to make it to the new version, but since the new radio system seems to affect the gameplay somewhat significantly, I think it's worth mentioning that at least the newer Musti platoons have radio equipment of similar quantity as the Brigade 05s. They have squad level radios for coordinating the platoon's fire. I guess this could be perhaps most easily represented by giving the LRF equipped 95 S 58-61M squads a high chance of radios as well?

Zipuli

May 29th, 2008, 05:02 PM

Musti radio ratings are 10,20,30,60,80 with last 2 from 2000 onwards. The one with 80 has the LRF for the section. You seem to be very keen on this particular weapon http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif. I added the AAMGs to Musti company, and after 1961 Musti section has speed 2. I found no info on musti platoon having 2 AT-sections, but one?

Zip

Koh

May 29th, 2008, 05:40 PM

The amount of AT sections in a Musti platoon is a tricky one, simply because three of the four AT Patrols are not independent units. Eeach Musti squad has an organic AT Patrol of 3 men (the standard AT Patrol) that is lead by the squad second in command (almost always an NCO). In addition to that there's a somewhat rare squad type called Anti Tank Squad. I'm not sure if they are present anywhere else than the Musti Companies. It consists of two AT Patrols, each lead by an NCO and most of the time used independently from each other.

So all in all, that gives us 2 AT Patrols from the two Musti squads and 2 more AT Patrols from the AT Squad. So in total the platoon has two Musti's and four AT Patrols. That's some serious tank stopping power. Well, at least if the tanks are in range, which of course shouldn't be a problem in Finland.

And yes, I'm pretty keen on this particular weapon. It shouldn't be too hard to guess how I spent my time in the army. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Zipuli

May 30th, 2008, 05:27 AM

As the AT-patrols are part of the Musti section (Musti has crew of 6), maybe reduce Musti crew to 3 and add an AT-patrol to the section? The problem this way would be that Musti's combat survivability would drop dramatically, especially vs. bigger calibers and artillery. Other way of portraying it would be to add APILAS as a 2nd weapon to Musti section, but then the patrol would not be mobile.

"In addition to that there's a somewhat rare squad type called Anti Tank Squad. I'm not sure if they are present anywhere else than the Musti Companies. It consists of two AT Patrols, each lead by an NCO and most of the time used independently from each other."

-Well this one is not rare, as "Sinkoryhm�" is also found in each infantry/jaeger Company. Also the Jaeger Bn AT Platoon is made up of 3 of these squads. I've used AT-patrols to form these squads as they almost always work as patrols of 3. So in companies you find 2 patrols under CO, and in Bn AT platoon you find 6 patrols.

Zip

PS. Look what the cat brought in... Looks like a Leopard 2R assault breacher and AMOS on AMV with 3-colour camo http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif (see the attachments, contains JPG images)

Koh

May 30th, 2008, 09:19 AM

Huh, I was under the assumption that Jaeger and Inf companies have two independent AT Patrols at company level. You're never too old to learn something new http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

The Musti crew question shouldn't be an issue. The crew of the weapon (with the 3 man AT Patrol detached) is actually four men and pretty much always a driver also joins the crew as an ammo bearer, giving it a crew of five. That should give it enough combat survivability. The standard crew of 6 the Musti's had in the original OOB seemed to detach the AT Patrols and then add all the extra men in the platoon (drivers, platoon leader, medics etc.) to the crews.

Also the Leopard 2R looks pretty awesome. Nice work!

Zipuli

May 30th, 2008, 09:39 AM

OK, will look at the Musti platoons, and most propably go from crew 6 -> 5 and add AT patrols. You know the only time I saw Mustis was during my conscription time, and I didn't count the men, and haven't found any new info on platoon level org since platoon Musti number went down from 3 to 2, and back then the AT patrols used 55S55 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif. However old the weapon is, it still makes a tremendous BANG when firing!

Zip

PS. Raisu 92 clearing a gravel road for the following supply column http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif. Maybe a few more icons, if I find anything worthy to add, as the game has them allmost all quite well covered, and in multiple camos too!

Koh

May 30th, 2008, 09:55 AM

The bang that thing makes is something undescribable. The first time I head it I felt like the fillings on my teeth were falling out. The sound alone should rout the enemy in a half mile radius http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Nice work with the Raisu too! No more silly normal truck icon for that one.

Zipuli

May 30th, 2008, 11:05 AM

Also edited Icons for BMP-1TJ, BMP-1TJJ (also edited a picture for this one, no more BMP-1 pic) and BMP-2 with no ATGM launcher (post 2005). It's starting to look like this weekend I'll post the mod. Only minor stuff left to do.

Zip

Zipuli

May 30th, 2008, 04:58 PM

-- VERSION 5.1 OF THE FINOOB NOW AVAILABLE, SEE THE 1ST POST AND THE ATTACHMENT --

More small changes was done since last updates on this forum. For example keeping NLAW as it was, with no LRF/FC as others have it that way too...

Koh

May 30th, 2008, 05:10 PM

Awesome! I'll dl it right away. And a new scenario too! This should keep me busy for a while.

Edit: A readme would've been handy, I accidentally unzipped a few hunder files in wrong folders before remembering the correct ones http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Zipuli

May 30th, 2008, 06:29 PM

Haha! Wrote a readme but forgot to include in the zip, fixed! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif And your turn to make some scenarios to keep me busy!

Zip

Koh

June 3rd, 2008, 01:50 AM

After some intense gaming I've come up with a few notes.
- Combat Divers formation seems to have the wrong info text, Combat Divers+ has the correct one
- I can't seem to find a ATGM Platoon/Mech formation using the Spike missile.
- The SPA Battalion formation seems to be missing. I recall having it in the earlier version. Was it removed on purpose?
- The Arctic Leopards scenario has the Mech BG Co driving a Leopard 2. Is this where the mysterious 29th Leopard in a BG goes, because I've really been wondering on this one

I've also been experimenting with some scenario design ideas, but so far they haven't been exactly what I was looking for. The few defencive scenarios I made were fun to design but not exactly a thrill to play since all you get to do is sit there and wait for the enemy to come and eat some HEAT. The best success so far I've had with a scenario involving military police retaking a supply facility from special forces. I think I'll try and make a Mech BG assault, and currently I'm toying with a nice twist. In stead of the same old Fin-Rus battles I might make it against our ancient enemies, the dreaded Swedes!

Edit: Never mind the Mech ATGM, found it.

Zipuli

June 6th, 2008, 07:36 AM

-Affermative on Combat Divers' text
-SPA battalion is there, Formation 152 from 91 to 2020
-That's the 29th http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
Also fixed since upload:
-few better/remade pictures
-changed T-54/55 icons to the "black/green" camo ones
-Made 2 Leo company formations; one for PzJBn, other for Mech. In latter you get a BMP-1TJ, the other has normal CV, not a FO capable one as before... Otherwise they are identical.

Hmm... A Mech BG assault scenario with all the units on a huge map (ala Ulf Lundstrom)... Worth a try! If you read "Panssari" -Magazine, you find all the info there. An attack along 2 main attack routes would be doable, as if you only have 1 route, all the units won't fit in the game area's size limit in column formation. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif I may make a full Panzer Jaeger Battalion's attack scenario, if I find the time...

Zip

Koh

June 6th, 2008, 09:35 AM

Yeah, there it is, the SPA Battalion. Man, I could've sworn it wasn't there when I checked, just like the Mech ATGM. I wonder if I was playing with the standard OOB by accident http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Zipuli

June 25th, 2008, 05:13 PM

Edited (re-rearranged, backwards-engineering http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif) the whole OOB so, that now all data from default OOB is on same place in my mod, which means that you can play any scenario involving Finland created using default OOB with the mod's OOB installed without any problems. All the units that do not exist in my OOB but do in default (ISU-152, XA-203+ etc.), are given nation=0, which means they will be used by scenarios using the unit, but the units will not show in encyclopedia nor in buy screen. Otherwise the OOB works and plays just like the current version (except I gave up with the airstrikes, now they're the same as in default with just little edits...), but of course old saves/scenarios with the mod won't work. But it'll hurt only once - the benefit will hopefully overcome the possible negative effects.

Also edited Inf Platoon / Torjuntakomppania so that the previous "support section" (which housed all the Apilas and sniper rifles) is broken into 2 AT-Patrols and 2 snipers, making it more useable and also giving the sniper rifles the accuracy bonuses from the sniper unit.

Also added ITO 05 and 05M formations 2007->.

I will release it shortly and hopefully it'll help reduce unnecessary OOB swapping http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Zip

Zipuli

June 30th, 2008, 07:25 PM

OK, newest version (6.0) ready to download! See the 1st post and there you'll also find the attachment!

Koh

July 1st, 2008, 09:10 AM

Awesome! Another new scenario! I'll give it a try right away. Also I like what you've done with the readme file.

-Koh

Koh

July 1st, 2008, 01:25 PM

Ok, a few notes.

- The SPA Battalion seems to have the first battery operating landing crafts in stead of SPA pieces. I'm almost sure this is not an intended feature

- The spec jaegers no longer have the AGL they had in an earlier version, while the AGL section unit info still describes them being used by special jaegers. Was this intentional?

- The readme instructs you to unzip unit_pics.zip while the file is actually called pictures.zip.

Other than that, great work! The OOB is better than ever and the new scenario was extremely enjoyable to play.

Zipuli

July 1st, 2008, 02:24 PM

Will take a look, thanks!

Did you notice the increased difficulty in Arctic Leopards? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Zipuli

July 5th, 2008, 04:23 PM

OK, bug with SPA Bn fixed. Also some little tweaks done, such as wrong small arms (RK) on support units early on changed to more correct ones. The AGL+Spec Jgr (or lack of) is intentional. Will fix readme. With the fix there'll also be AI picklists for the mod, so you may now play against modded finns with AI bying more rationally. The finnish AI is very infantry heavy, especially pre-1980s. I've written then up till 91 now, so will take some time to finish.

Zip

Warhero

July 6th, 2008, 06:35 AM

Great stuff man;). Btw, how I can get those great sound files work with other nations too? It could be cool to hear with others too;)...

Zipuli

July 7th, 2008, 01:24 AM

OK, newest version (6.1) uploaded and available as in the 1st post of the thread. If no more bugs are found I think this one is "it" for this version of SPMBT http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Warhero,
If you wish to use my sound files with other nations, you need to use mobhack edit the nation you wish to use them. In the unit -window the sound number is the one used for movement, and each weapon can be given its own sound. I did not overwrite any old soundfiles with mine.

Zip

PS. Just got decisive victory in latest sce with 150 casualties vs enemy's 505. Lost few tanks mostly due to stupidity. 1st Co pushed a bit past the village before I stopped their attack due to high casualties (mostly received in the village and enemy counter attack that cought me by surprise), and each platoon was on point at least once. 2nd Co took the point and pushed all the way to the southern bridge, suffering only minot casualties. 3rd Co managed well with very low casualties taking all the northern part and also the final objective in south with a jaeger detachement supported by tanks. Biggest casualties were among tanks. After the sce I didn't have a single tank HE shell, and MG ammo was getting low as well http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Any experiences with the scenarios by others?

Koh

July 7th, 2008, 12:36 PM

Awesome, yet another new scenario! I'm gonna give this a try later today.

Koh

July 9th, 2008, 06:14 AM

Ok, I just finished the new scenario. I got a decisive victory with 178 casualties and 3 tanks lost. The enemy lost 497. I was done by turn 37 due to a rather relentless tactic of advancing despite casualties until the point platoon was depleted to the point of losing it's combat efficiency completely. The casualties would've been lower but I suffered some unfortunate tank immobilisation to enemy ambushes and air strikes.

Whenever I made contact with the enemy, I always plotted a strong artillery barrages around half a mile ahead of my point to suspected enemy positions. At one point it proved to be extremely helpful as I completely annihilated around a company strong enemy formation moving against me. When my tanks reached the all they found was reduced routed squads with no return fire. All in all, a very nice scenario.

-Koh

wulfir

July 23rd, 2008, 03:03 PM

Right then, pojhan poika..., this is a call to arms...

See attachement for Finland at War 1985 scenarios using Zip's OOB...

See youtube link for background story:

Finland at War 1985 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU2dVYL9Jxc)

Koh

July 23rd, 2008, 04:31 PM

Awesome intro! I am downloading this right away!

hoplitis

July 23rd, 2008, 05:04 PM

Oh my God! Wulfir is into the film business too! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif
SOMEBODY STOP THIS GUY! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rant.gif
Excelent! /threads/images/Graemlins/icon09.gif

Zipuli

July 23rd, 2008, 05:17 PM

Whoah Ulf! Great stuff there mate, cool video too!

And now back to Muurola, got work to do! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Zip

PS. Do you mind if I add these scenarios to possible new versions of the mod - would really appreciate it?

wulfir

July 23rd, 2008, 06:03 PM

Zipuli said:
PS. Do you mind if I add these scenarios to possible new versions of the mod - would really appreciate it?

No worries mate, go right ahead... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

PlasmaKrab

July 26th, 2008, 06:41 AM

Zipuli said:
Whoah Ulf! Great stuff there mate, cool video too!

PS. Do you mind if I add these scenarios to possible new versions of the mod - would really appreciate it?

OK, same here, nothing more I can add, it just looks too awesome... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
I was going to use your Finnish OOB as a base for my Cold War mod version in any case, because that's great work you have there, and now I think there will be some scenarios to back up the OOB work as well, if you don't mind.

Warhero

July 27th, 2008, 04:23 AM

Great idea Plasma! It would be really nice to play as Finn in CW mod too! And how about adding Sweden too;)...

PlasmaKrab

July 27th, 2008, 10:32 AM

Well, Scandinavia as a whole is planned for the future releases, but I'm not making any promises because Sweden and Finland are going to be tough pieces of work.
That's why I thought it would be interesting to have a campaign or a couple of scenarios to make good use of these OOBs.
[/off topic, sorry for the hijack]

Zipuli

July 27th, 2008, 07:09 PM

Cold War mod... nice http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Maybe the Finns bought some T-80s etc. instead if the policy of roughly 1/3 western 1/3 finnish 1/3 russian remained? And due to not being able to buy ex-DDR equipment in early 1990's maybe materiel situation in especially armour is not that good?

Zip

Warhero

July 28th, 2008, 05:29 AM

Or Finns joined NATO and reneved all tanks to Abrams etc.;)...

PlasmaKrab

July 28th, 2008, 01:53 PM

Glad to see you're interested!
We can discuss the details at length, but preferably not on this thread, I guess.
And don't you worry, I have plans for Finland... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif

Don't hesitate to PM if you have workable http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif ideas for this or other OOBs

Zipuli

August 23rd, 2008, 12:10 PM

Small update on the OOB since 6.1:

-MLRS now with the Finnish naming, 298 RSRAKH 06
-81mm Mortar 71 with new HE ammo (previously named 81mm Mort 71/90, now 81mm Mortar 71) dates fixed for single mortar and 3 mortar platoon -units (used to be from 1971 onwards, now 1990 onwards)
-Urban Jaegers with following changes: available from 2000 (previously 1995), Urban Scouts and Urban Pioneers as their own unit classes (Guards Scouts, Guards Engineers), weapon configurations and with pictures, Urban Jaeger weapon options now have also satchel charges
-New unit: Polaris 500 6x6 All-Terrain Buggy, used by Urban Jaegers from 2008 onwards (to transport 40mm AGLs) and also available in misc. screen, as other troops also use them, but more irregularily (signal units for laying optical fibre, recce units...)
-Musti Position (fort) now available also from 1962-1994 (bug)
-some revised texts and few new unit pictures

Anything coming to mind from you guys, bugs, stuff missing etc.?

Zip

Koh

August 23rd, 2008, 12:53 PM

I installed the new version and couldn't notice any changes. Are you sure you uploaded the correct file?

Also 298 RSRAKH 06? Wouldn't 227 RSRAKH 06 make more sense? I've also heard 227 RAKH 07 being used, but that doesn't sound correct to me.

- Koh

Koh

August 23rd, 2008, 01:47 PM

Nevermind, I just noticed that the new version is not quite out yet. But why on earth can't I edit my post. I know I edited it before, it even says so, but the edit post button has disappeared. So yeah, sorry for double posting. But the RSRAKH question still stands.

Huh, so apparently you can only edit your messages for 30 minutes after they have been posted. That's... impractical?

Zipuli

August 23rd, 2008, 04:01 PM

The info is from newest issue of Panssari -magazine. It appears the naming "298" comes from the diameter of the launcher tube, not the rocket. 06 due to it being purchased 2006, though the system arrived to Finland in 2007 (with 7 vehicles delivered to date).

Zip

Koh

August 23rd, 2008, 04:29 PM

I guess that makes sense. It's gonna take a while to get used to that, given how for the last two years or so people have been referring to it as some variation of 227 RSRAKH. Boy are they gonna run into trouble when they buy the ATACMS system for those. How on earth can they name a system that has two different launcher tubes for different kind of munitions :D

Koh

September 4th, 2008, 11:59 AM

One possible suggestion for the next version. I've heard from a few second-hand sources that nowadays BV/Nasu equipped platoons have three Bandvagens or Nasus. Since you seem to have a lot of sources avalaible to you, maybe you could look into it.

At least one thing that would hint towards is that someone I know who served as a driver just recently had a refresher training exercise, and he was informed that there are new limits to transporting troops with the Nasu-vehicle. The limit of troops allowed in one vehicle during peace time was so low (ten, I believe) that at least in peace time it would be impossible to transport a jaeger platoon with just two of the vehicles.

Zipuli

September 5th, 2008, 04:49 AM

Yeah, those new limitations really make some things difficult. But during war time I believe these limitations are again forgotten. The reason to believe this is that we haven't bought new vehicles to compensate the "lack" of transportation capability after these limitations were introduced. It's the same thing as with other things not allowed to do during piece time, but allowed during war - like firing an APILAS without flak jacket and active+plugs ear protection is a no no nowadays :S

Koh

September 6th, 2008, 05:53 PM

Probably true, although I theorized that perhaps the recent disbanding of a few wartime jaeger brigades would have freed enough NASU's for the use. Although if such extra vehicles would exist, a much better use would be, in my opinion, to increase the operational mobility of the infantry units.

Another thing, some of the hostile forces in the scenario "Wolverines in the Desert 2012" seem to be broken, probably caused by the 4.0 patch.

Zipuli

September 7th, 2008, 08:47 AM

Guess the disbanded brigades were mostly Pasi or Truck -transported. We got only 2 Jaeger Brigades (91) in war-time inventory. In Jääkäriprikaati, Pohjois-Karjalan Prikaati and Kainuun Prikaati they train with BV's/Nasus. One of these is training Brig 05, so those 2 others are training the 91's? If this is the case we know where all those new Pasi -equipped organizations got their XA's from ;)

I will look into the scenario... Propably will also make 1-2 to accompany the new version, when it's ready.

Koh

September 20th, 2008, 10:13 PM

Insomnia is a funny thing.

Attached is a new scenario using the Finnish OOB mod. The dispute over the Aland Islands heats up, and the Swedes seize the islands by force. Lead your Finnish coastal jaegers to victory and reclaim the islands!

Created the map, scenario and playtested it after I failed to get any sleep tonight. The text file probably has a ton of small typos and probably a few bigger ones as well, but I really needed to get this out so I could go get some sleep. The scenario is playtested and works fine, shouldn't be any problems with the scenario itself.

Feedback would be very much appreciated. I'll probably release a new version with all the typos fixed in a few days.

- Koh

Zipuli

September 25th, 2008, 04:42 AM

The swedes have invaded the Taffel-chips factory? Noooo!

I will take a look at this one, Koh!

Zip

cbreedon

September 25th, 2008, 09:09 PM

Koh

September 26th, 2008, 08:16 AM

Just Finns, due to the AI being really really bad in amphibious landings. It should make an interesting fight with two human players, however.

- Koh

cbreedon

September 27th, 2008, 06:51 PM

Thanks Koh, some good work here. Well I ended up with a draw. It was pretty fun with all the water and boats. There are spoilers in the rest of this post so if you want surprised don't scroll down.

My F18's got shot down on their first runs. I had some serious problems with their mortars. They seemed very accurate. I got down to all the flags except one and then some of their smaller units took some flags in my rear area so I had to back up and try and get them. At that point the scenario ended. There also was a Hvy sniper that caused all sorts of issues in the town

Koh

September 27th, 2008, 08:53 PM

Thanks for the feedback. I'm glad you could enjoy it! Whenever I actually get around to creating scenarios, I try to do something that hasn't been done a million times already. Amphibious landings are one of the rarer things seen in the scenarios shipped with the game.

Also, attached is a newer and probably final version of the scenario. The only changes are cosmetic map related changes, mostly involving a few road patches, some spell checking in the text file and as the only gameplay altering change, one unit has been fixed with the correct type of ammunition for one of it's weapons, potentially making the scenario slightly harder. Nothing worth dling the new version for if you've already beat the scenario, but in the off chance that someone who hasn't already downloaded the scenario and is interested pops by this is what you should download rather than the old version.

- Koh

cbreedon

September 27th, 2008, 11:52 PM

I may have to rework the scenario, if you don't mind, to make it against the Russians. My best friend is a Swede and WAS in the Coastal Jaegers :-)

Koh

September 28th, 2008, 10:05 AM

Feel free to. And if you do, please share it with the rest of us. I kinda enjoyed the mix of a landing operation and urban combat and I think I might enjoy it even more if I didn't know exactly what I was up against and where to expect them.

- Koh

cbreedon

September 28th, 2008, 05:42 PM

try this... I tried to keep the forces similar to what you had and the deployment somewhat similar.

Koh

September 28th, 2008, 08:32 PM

I gave it a go. It was a nice variation. I managed to get a strong marginal victory, although I did suffer some pretty bad losses as the Russians had some weapons pretty well suited for urban combat.

- Koh

Koh

October 14th, 2008, 10:58 PM

I've been working on a little something lately and I though I'd give you a taste of it.

Attached is a scenario, part of an upcoming ten scenario pack based on the book Operaatio Finlandia by Arto Paasilinna. The book tells the tale of a war fought in 1977 between Finland and Sweden, launched by ownership disputes over the Aland Islands and the poor treatment of the Finnish and other immigrants by the Swedish ultra nationalist government. The pack will feature scenarios with the player taking the Finnish side as well as scenarios with the player taking the Swedish side.

And yes, the scenarios use the modified Finnish OOB.

- Koh

Koh

October 16th, 2008, 09:56 PM

Ok, I've got a question for Zipuli. Or anyone else if someone happens to know. The modified Finnish OOB has the Finns using Bv 202 from 1963 onwards. Despite my best efforts I couldn't find any information regarding the use of Bv 202s in Finland. So my question is, did Finland really have Bv 202s and who were they used by? I'd imagine that the Pohja Jaeger Brigade and Lapland Jaeger Brigade would be strong candidates, but again I've found no info about their use anywhere.

Are they in the OOB by mistake (which would nicely force me to redo a scenario or two) or were they really used?

- Koh

Zipuli

February 9th, 2009, 12:18 PM

Latest version is soon ready. Changes after last reports:

-Patriot is out, NASAMS seems to be winning the race. NASAMS added instead. I guess we will know during this year...
-New Scania and Sisu trucks (delivered 2009->)

Koh I believe the BV202 has never been used by the FDF, I will also look into this in the OOB.

Zip

Zipuli

February 16th, 2009, 05:30 AM

File for Koh (oob 6.2 unfinished)

Zipuli

February 20th, 2009, 10:24 AM

Finally received the books on FDF trucks etc. BV202 was in fact in use, 15 of them in total. Of course not numerous enough to equip any infantry units organically with them, but they will be available in the OOB in the MISC page, no longer in the infantry menu as APC for formations.

Zipuli

February 23rd, 2009, 02:33 PM

Newest version is in testing and should be ready soon. There has been changes since 6.1, here's a list of some of them:

-Corps Artillery formation added (12 tube battalion used by high command, uses 130, 150, 152 K 89 and 155 K 83 guns)
-JSOW (C-version) used in Hornets 2010-->
-Cavalry is removed from use -47 (as mounted on horses that is, cavalry units remain, but they train dismounted like any other infantry)
-Added big bunch of vehicles (utility vehicles, trucks, prime movers) used by FDF. Most important models are added (thanks to Mäkipirtti's excellent books on subject I just received)
-Changed some naming routines in formations for simplicity's sake
-DM53-A1 (120mm L44 WG01, penetration 87) used 2007 -> (Rheinmetall (maker of the ammo) gives info that Finland and Denmark use DM53-A1 (in news archive 2006, about danish procure of DM33A2 PELE and DM53 and again about danish tests of DM53). In Finland the only source talking about buying of new ammunition is the Panssari -magazine 1/2004, which states that new "DM33A2 will be bought in 2007, and this is basically a DM63 with minor differences in propulsion, allowing it to be fired without changing the K600 recoil mechanism to the K900". With very little info available about this procurement (in Finnish sources only 1 mention with it seems wrong name given???), it seems quite certain DM53-A1 is used, as Rheinmetall knows to mention it...)
-13 new scenarios by me and Koh (+the previous ones and the Ulf's pack of 10 scenarios)
-plus a lot of minor fixes and tweaks

Zip

Repe

March 25th, 2009, 02:58 PM

Zipuli

March 28th, 2009, 03:09 AM

Good work with Finnish forces weapons and vehicles!
I am truly sorry to rain on your parade BUT:
What TOE's (harjoitusmaaravahvuus A1) did you use since your formations do not always match official TOE documents from 1955 to 1990's.? :confused:
Good example is Pr80 organization that is a mix of Pr70 with different weapons.
Anyway, please don't take me wrong, you have done a huge job so far!:up:

I bet you mean infantry based TOEs now?

For the 1950s - 1970s I've used the TOEs from various sources - from Upseerin Käsikirja I, II, III to HarjVahv A1 and to tank unit manuals from those times. But one has to remember that much was written on the pages of these manuals that could never have materialized (and the manuals state this too!): The weapon amounts do not take into account the lack of these weapons and big number of units. A lot would have been ad-hoc in its nature if troops would have been mobilized. This is why I've included a number of sections with different weapons mix for the early times...

The REAL TOEs for war time troops (mobilization information with names and weapons in store for them) are not available of course.

If you wonder about the section sizes and lack of certain units in formations, this is because I've tried to keep the platoon sizes correct while keeping the number of sections playable. An example:

Joukkue 91 (Pasi) without attached FO section:
-Platoon Ldr
-Platoon Sgt
-Medic
-Messenger
-3*section of 7 men (in 3rd sec there is 3 man APILAS patrol that works independently most of the time + 4 men)
(-3 Pasi drivers)
=25(+3)

In game its now 3 sections of 8 men and 3 man AT-patrol = 27. This way (in game) you have a platoon that is battle worthy and has allmost correct number of men with the tools the game provides. I did have the "correct" platoon TOE in the early versions of this mod:
-4 man "Platoon Command Unit"
-2* 7 man Jaeger Section
-4 man Jaeger Section
-3 man AT-Patrol
-> This way the platoon was not battle worthy in the game, as only the 2 full sections had enough firepower and staying power in the game world, where enemy units consist only of "fighting sections".

Did this answer anything? If you have something specific in mind, please be more precise with the question. In short, yes, I've used numerous "official sources" (that have some contradiction with each other, and are not 100% "realistic", hence the name "HARJOITUSVAHVUUS" - TOE in which the troops practice during peace-time) and I have also edited them for best balance between real world and SPMBT world. And yes, there may be a lot of typos and errors in there, so if you have something specific in mind, please go ahead and post me and I'll see if there's something wrong/missing etc.

PS. Next version of the MOD should be available this weekend and it is for 4.5 of SPMBT :)

Zipuli

March 29th, 2009, 03:55 PM

Newest Version (6.2) For Winspmbt 4.5 Is Ready And Available At The 1st Post In This Thread!

Zipuli

March 29th, 2009, 11:23 PM

Due to changes in Russian OOB in 4.5, the scenarios have some issues... Will fix soon!

DRG

March 30th, 2009, 08:18 AM

You'll need to check them both with scenhack AND manually becasue any unit that was deleted and replaced with something different may not be picked up by scenhack

Don

Zipuli

April 1st, 2009, 03:33 AM

Roger, thanks!

Zipuli

April 1st, 2009, 08:44 AM

THIS IS THE PATCH FOR FINMOD V.6.2:

FIXED:
-scenarios with Russian/USSR OOB work now correctly

CHANGES:
-all BMP-2s now use the new and better looking icons from SPMBT v.4.5
-CV9030FIN armour rating revised: slightly lighter armour, price dropped a few points
-improved PKT sound

ADDED:
-new CV9030FIN icon
-new PKM sound
-new 40mm AGL sound

Koh

April 1st, 2009, 10:08 AM

Great job! Finally a proper sound effect for the AGLs.

Warhero

April 1st, 2009, 02:32 PM

Wow thanks Zipuli:)! Good work.

Zipuli

May 23rd, 2009, 12:08 PM

A small update of what's going on:

OOB has seen some slight updates:
-added 2 new sound files for 35mm Oerlikon AAG and 23mm ZSU-23-2 AAG
-some minor fixes here and there in the OOB -data

But the main beef is:
-A new campaign in cooperation with Ulf Lundström, taking place in autumn 1996, when Vladimir Zhirinovski wins the presidential elections and decides to invade Finland as first step in his pursuit of the Russian borders of year 1900. Campaign will play some 10+ scenarios long with player commanding an Armoured Battalion (org 95) in attempt to first push the enemy back across Kymijoki, and then counter-attacking from north to create a Motti east of Kymijoki..
-Finnish map pack of approximately 15 new, big and accurate maps from the campaign area (Elimäki area and surrounding area of Road 6 from Kouvola to Luumäki, plus few other locations such as Artjärvi). The maps naturally don't need the mod to work
-some new scenarios

Zip

Zipuli

May 23rd, 2009, 12:14 PM

The campaign introduction:

"After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the new Russian state is in disarray. Corruption is ever present, politics have not much power over events, the currency is worthless and worst of all the Army is in shambles. Boris Jeltsin, a national hero of a sort was elected president, but achieved little more than a reputation as a drunken old man raving about in the duma, appointing relatives to most important offices. This lead to a rise of radical, hard-liner politicians and communist admirers and a strong sympathy towards them during the second presidential elections in 1996. But no one expected Vladimir Zhirinovski of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, an ultra-nationalistic party, to win. Yet he did so after making an alliance with general Lebedev, behind whom the army stood. To distract the russian people of the catasthropical state of the country, Zhirinovski starts to pursue a policy to reunite Russia with the borders from year 1900.

In the north, Russia's neighbour and WW2 adversary Finland watches the development behind its borders with little enthusiasm. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Finnish policy was no longer that of balancing between west and east in opinions, and the radical leftists from 1970s are no longer the loudest voice. But still talking of the war between Soviet Union and Finland, and the alliance with Germany is a taboo. When Zhirinovski approached Finland about his agenda of giving Karelia back to the Finns and offering autonomy in the new Russian state, he was not taken seriously. This was a grave mistake, as Zhirinovski was gambling with high stakes. He needed a succesful war to make the Russian people proud of themselves and to assure the world that Russia still is a super power. The Finns watched astonished as the Russian head of state started threatening president Ahtisaari and the Finnish goverment to subdue to his will. At this point Ahtisaari did his best to reason with Zhirinovski but failed.

In summer 1996 The Finnish Defence Forces ordered to start mobilizing some of the most important units under the name of "additional refresher training for reservists". In Russia this cautionary act is taken as an act of extreme aggression, maybe even a sign of preparing to take holy Russian soil in Karelia by force. The Russian army soon masses forces on the Finnish border, something that surprises the whole world as no one believed the Russian army was in condition to do anything. Yet they manage to mobilize a whole Army to "defend" Karelia. Even with over 50 percent of the USSR era equipment out of order the gathered force is formiddable.

Russian attack on Finland commences suddenly and without notice in July 1996. Advancing along Highways (Roads) 6 and 7 west the Russians learn the Finns are not going to give up without a fight. Casualties on both sides are massing, yet the red steamroller pushes on, finally reaching Kymijoki -riverline, a natural barrier half way on the path to Helsinki. Finns on the east side of Kymijoki have "melted" into the dense forests creating an illusion of being defeated, but it's just part of the defence doctrine. Recovering from the shock, the Finnish Army moves its reserves for a counter-attack. Along the forces is the 1st Armoured Brigade, that was mobilized in Hameenlinna and has been training vigorously for the coming mission. When the order is received, the Brigade heads east to face what will most likely be a bitter battle with expectation of high casualties. Already the Finnish soldiers on east side of Kymijoki have started sissi (guerilla-) operations to harass the Russian flow of supplies and to tie reserves in futile pursuit to stop the ever increasing number of attacks along the highways.

You are in command of 3rd Battalion, 1st Armoured Brigade (3.PsP/1.PsPr). And you know that the brigade you belong to is in key role when deciding the fate of Finland."

cbreedon

May 23rd, 2009, 12:27 PM

Sounds very cool. I am looking forward this :-)

Repe

June 9th, 2009, 08:17 AM

Greetings!
Sorry it took me this long to answer about the TOE. My work seems to hinder my leisure.
Second apology to all of those who are liguistically challenged (politically correct term:p) since I wrote my reply in Finnish. Originally it was word file but this wouldn't let me attach it due to 19,6kb limit:doh:. So, here it is in text.

Periaatteessa kaikki Suomen joukot ovat jalkaväkiorganisaatioita, jopa PsPr ei ollut todella panssariorganisaatio johtuen jv:n ja psv:n keskinäisestä suhteesta. Uusi MekTstOs on nyt luultavasti ensimmäinen lähinnä tähän kategoriaan kuuluva.
No, se siitä.
Ennen vuotta 1991-92 oli prikaatit nimetty Pr(vuosiluku) tarkoittaen organisaation perustamista. Esimerkiksi Pr90 oli tällöin JPr:n nimitys. Vuoden 1992 jälkeen alettiin käyttämään nimikkeitä JvPr, JPr, ValmPr (Pr05) jne.
Tietty määrä näitä perusprikaateja oli ja on varustettu määrävahvuudella esim. JvPr määräksi on ilmoitettu, lähteestä riippuen, n. 11 kpl. LKP:ssä ei puolustusvoimat tunne ad-hoc tyyppisiä mobilisaatiojoukkoja vaan kaikki on suunniteltu ja varustettu ennalta. Johtuen materiaalin määristä, eivät kaikki taistelujoukot tietenkään voi saada uusimpia varusteita mutta nämäkin joukot tehtävineen ovat ennalta suunniteltuja. Nimikkeet ovat mm. : paikallis-, vartio-, torjunta-, linnake- ja rannikkojoukot.
Itse kokoonpanoasiaan palatakseni., Pr80 (1/80-12/90?) kokoonpanosi ei vastaa winmbt suh-teutettunakaan oikeaa kokoonpanoa. KivJ (mobhack numero 959) kuuluisi olla: 3xJvr ja 3x 55 S 55 partio (0+2), nämä partiot on joukkueeseen kuuluva Kvskor (1+6) mukautettuna peliin. Lisäksi Jvr:än ei kuulu orgaanista 55 S 55 vaan KES75, joka muuten on peliominaisuuksiltaan eri kuin KES88.
KivK (960) organisaatioon ei kuulu FO platoon kuten ei myöskään komppaniatasoinen AT section (pst-ryhmä), lisäksi KrhJ (109) on kaksiputkinen johon myös kuuluu KivK:n orgaaninen Tjpartio.

Valitettavasti en ole ehtinyt kammata muita organisaatioita läpi, toisaalta huomasin että JvP, joka on pienin itsenäiseen taisteluun kykenevä yksikkö, kaipaa kaikilla tasoilla tarkennuksia alaisiinsa yksikköihin. Esim. en löytänyt yhtään pataljoonan EK organisaatiota.
Tähän liittyen havaitsin että scenaariot jotka tulevat asennuksen ja päivityksen mukana ovat suomalaisten joukkojen kohdalla, sekä organisaation että ryhmityksen puolesta aika pielessä.
Jos on joskus aikaa niin päivitän nämä paremmin toimiviksi.

Koh

June 9th, 2009, 09:18 AM

First of all my humblest apologies to those unable to read Finnish. If anyone takes much offence (or interest), I'll be more than happy to translate these replies into English.

Kommentoinpa sen verran että pari vuotta sitten opetettu jalkaväkikomppania (80) sisälsi kolmiputkisen kevytheitinjoukkueen, tulenjohtueen jossa kolme tulenjohtoryhmää sekä komppanian PST-ryhmän. Jalkaväkijoukkueessa oli kolme jalkaväkiryhmää joista jokaisessa kessit ja yksi PST-partio (1+2) joilla APILAS. PST-partion aseistuksesta ennen apilasten ostoa voin esittää vain arvauksia.

Repe

June 10th, 2009, 01:23 AM

Greetings Koh,
Let's bring this back to english language. My posting in finnish was shortened version of the paper I wrote but could not post due to size limit for word files.
Anyway, you are right that JvK TOE is like you posted after around 1989-90 when the original Pr80 was updated to new weapons. It was also named JvPr after the changes. Original Pr80 from 1980's was organized as I posted earlier. (source: Harjoitusvahvuudet A1, 1985).
In addition, the other companies in JvP went through some changes as well.
One of these days I have to modify my winspmbt files for earlier Finland and post it here. Still, Zipuli has done good work with the file so far!!

Zipuli

June 16th, 2009, 02:16 PM

-PsPr95 org on perusta Mekille. Sitä ennen suhde oli PsPr orgissa 1 PsvP + 3-5 JääkP + aselajijoukot. Nämä on näin myös modissa. MekTstOs on pelkistetysti vain PsP (95) organisaation mukainen pataljoona eri komppaniavahvuuksilla (10 vaunua vs 14 tankeissa jne.) ja prikaatin aselajijoukoilla... Vaunujen ja JV:n suhde on yhä 1:1
-JvPr ja JPr HARJOITUSVAHVUUDET on eri asia kuin todellinen vahvuus. Harjoitusvahvuus opusten ensimmäisillä sivuillakin jo sanotaan että ko. organisaatiot on PERUSTA oikeille organisaatioille, eivätkä välttämättä vastaa todellista varsinkaan vahvuuksien ja aseiden osalta. Olen pelkistänyt paljon tässä suhteessa. Esim. Kaskeala sanoi melkein kaikki JvPr:t vahvuuksista leikatessaan, että tämä tehtiin sen takia, kun niille ei alunperinkään ollut kuin rynnäkkökiväärit (jotka muuten hommattiin vasta 90-luvulla)
-ad-hoc joukot modissa ovat mm. IT:n ja tykistön muodostamia "torjuntaosastoja" varten, eli eri organisaatiosta repäistyjä jalkaväen tapaan taistelevia osastoja.
-Olen itsekin lukenut ko. opuksen (harjvahv 85), mutta ei liene julkiseen levitykseen, eihän? Kaikki perustuu modissa julkisiin lähteisiin...
-Miten KES75 ja 88 eroaisivat pelissä riittävästi, että se oikeuttaisi kahteen eri aseeseen (ja tuplaisi sitä käyttävien yksiköiden määrän). Läpäisy ja ametit on samat, kaikissa muissa OOBeissa on vain yksi LAW72 sisältäen PALJON ENEMMÄN aseen versioita... Miksi suomalaisilla pitäisi olla M72A2 ja M72A5 -aseista omansa jos ei muilla?
-Kuten KOH sanoikin jo, organisaatio 80:stä on olemassa muitakin "versioita", ja modissa käytän sitä joka on julkisen lähteen mukainen, mutta lienee kuitenkin muokkautunut sellaiseksi vasta 1990 aikoihin (APILAS ja ITKK tulivat käyttöön jne.). Toi 80-90 organisaatio voisi ollakin hyvä lisä, jos jostain julkisesta lähteestä sen lukaisisin.

Ei muuta kuin modia modiin, omaksi iloksi minäkin omani tein :)