View Single Post
  #5  
Old July 3rd, 2005, 09:25 AM
PlasmaKrab's Avatar

PlasmaKrab PlasmaKrab is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: 40km from the old frontline
Posts: 859
Thanks: 0
Thanked 15 Times in 7 Posts
PlasmaKrab is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Unit design: survivability and weapon slots

Quote:
if a weapon is destroyed, it is selected at random. The code has no concept of "placenment beside the main gun". You can lose the one and not the other, it just deletes weapon slots.
OK, I had just wrongly deduced from the help file I read that the weapon disabling followed a priority rule too.
Quote:
weapons lower down are also less of a priority, and the cmg is therefore less priority than the ATGM on most targets
This is precisely what I was talking about. On many units with ATGMs as 'secondary weapon', I think particularly about BMPs, the ATGM launcher is difficult to fire, manoeuver and reload. There is not much ammo coming with it, and AFAIK it is therefore reserved for exception targets, even when gun-fired, since it is an expensive and field-precious weapon.

Of course in a tank-heavy battle the ATGM launcher is more useful than the CMG, but considering IFVs or armored recons (with A/C anyway), isn't the CMG supposed to fill the gap in close-range anti-personnel, since the main gun lacks sufficient ammo? It is then an important weapon and, to my mind, more readily fireable than the ATGM in any circumstances.

Anyway this is already so on the Bradley and Marder at least, on which I think the ATGM launcher is much better integrated...

That doesn't change anything to what I said on the BMP-3 though. The slot order should be 100mm - 30mm - CMG.
Reply With Quote