Strange Soviet OOB omission

[iln82]

Since there is a snow vehicle class, how come there are no aerosanis in the Soviet OOB? I mean the Germans have the Goliath, why shouldn't the Russian have some cool toys as well???
I'm not demanding anything, just being curious...:)

[Imp]

Would need a movement class all of its own, hovercraft is probably closest.

[Mobhack]

It is not a snowmobile since its not any sort of an all-terrain vehicle.

Aerosans can only travel on their skis on wide-open smooth packed ice or snow. They simply cannot move on any other terrain type, or go into any sort of foliage, buildings, cross ditches or broken terrain of any sort whatsoever. So only good on snow maps.

I have no idea what the turning radius would be either - probably similar to a dragsters ... And I don't think they dealt with hills very well, either.

They existed on the fringe of a lunatic fringe for a few years in a country that actually could make some limited use of the things in the relatively long winter season. They don't exist now - and for good reason.

So it would be of extremely limited use for the 1 and 1/2 human human players that might ever use them, and would give the AI fits if it even could be sanely coded to use them - so for human use only. And it would be a nasty little project needing plenty of intricate coding for next to no benefit. Not going to happen, basically.

Andy

[iln82]

Aerosans can only travel on their skis on wide-open smooth packed ice or snow. They simply cannot move on any other terrain type, or go into any sort of foliage, buildings, cross ditches or broken terrain of any sort whatsoever. So only good on snow maps.

Well I know all that. What I didn't realise was that it would need a new class all of its own.

so for human use only.Andy

I was talking about player use only but I didn't make that clear. I never expected that the AI would be programmed to use them. Anyway thanks for the insight. Seems that it's a case of lots of trouble for very little gain...

[Griefbringer]

I would presume that their combat performance in the game might not be particularly impressive, if they were actually added. They just had a single MG for armament and a little bit of armour for protection.

[gila]

Somewhat off topic although the OP does mention them, the goliaths,does anyone ever use them?
Grunts using wired remotes in WW2 seems to have, doomed to fail written all over it.

[Griefbringer]

I have tried to use Goliaths in game a few times, out of curiosity. In practice, they are of very limited use: slow speed, vulnerable to anything beyond small arms, and limited effect of their demo charge. Against infantry you will need to get them close enough to risk close assault (maybe a brave infantryman rushes out and cuts the cables), while against bunkers their limited penetration might be a problem.

In game, thry are probably best reserved for specifically designed city-fighting scenarios ala Stalingrad.

In real world terms, I think the basic concept is actually quite good and pretty innovative for the time. Their practical performance (with restrictions of WWII era technology) might be another issue.

[iln82]

Somewhat off topic although the OP does mention them, the goliaths,does anyone ever use them?

I do use them occasionally. As for their effectiveness lets just say that it's a cool way to blow up a bunker!!! :laugh:
An engineer squad or a tank gun are far more effective in bunker busting.
That's why I inquired about the aerosanis. I do realize that they are of little operational value but then again so are the goliaths...:rolleyes:

[Mobryan]

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=42636&page=3

Has preliminary specs for the three major Aerosan types, did have some very nice icons, too, but they have since gone AWOL. I fussed around with them for a while, they were fun, but impractical/impossible to integrate into the full game (special movement rules, rarely in combat, ect).

Matt

[iln82]

Correct link:

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=42290