Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir
I believe their unit class dictates this behavior and the carry capacity ONLY determines how much they can carry.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir
Looking at the game manual I see :
UnitClass 217 : MRV APC - APC Clone but Mine Resistant
UnitClass 237 : MRV IFV - MRV APC Clone
My problem/question is that I'm trying to model TUSK tanks.
And one of the things they do is add more bottom armor to improve their resistance to mines and IED's. However in WinSPMBT there is no "belly" armor rating.
If I use one of these unit classes for them the game code will indeed make them somewhat more resistant to mines, all well and good.
BUT
I presume should the AI be running them they will act like APC's . . . move forward to a point near the battle-line, attempt to unload troops (that they won't have), then hang back a bit shooting at targets of opportunity --- rather then as tanks.
Any suggestions?
|
Unit Class is an important key. It drives unit behavior. In this case as the Unit Classes are APC clones, they do act like "bttle taxis." Shuiir was correct back in 2008.
The IFV is not an APC. It is designed to transport to the fight and engage with direct fires. The Marine LAV-25, the Light Armored Vehicle, and the Army's Bradley are two examples of an Infantry fighting Vehicle.
I tested APC class 25 and the Gun APC class 127 vehicles and they each acted precisely as an APC, when the shooting started they would stop and not engage in the fight.
So I had a T-62MV in support and it did follow the Mech Inf sections and provide direct fires.
I did not bother in this test phase to structure an IFV vehicle in Scenhack. So I modified the Unit Class in the OOB for the BMP-2 to Unit Class 59. And it supported the Mech Inf troops with direct fires.
So far, it appears that if we want IFVs then we need a way to identify the IFVs apart from the APCs.
The dismounting is the next piece of the puzzle.
The test scenario is attached.
Suggestions please.