[shahadi]

Originally Posted by shahadi

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.

Originally Posted by shahadi

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.

I would rather the APC under AI control advance to a pre-determined point on the map, dismount troops, and stay put providing suppression fires as the infantry advance. The APC ideally should dismount troops approximately 750 to 1km from target/objective.

So, what I've been playing with is how to get the AI to conduct a mech infantry assault. I took an LAI Plt (-) as designated in the version 9 OOB USMC: 3 fire teams, 1 sniper team, 1 smaw, and three LAV-25A2 the close support variety. I placed a single Russian RPG-29 team approximately at the point I want the Marines to dismount. Here is the twist, I set damage to 3, disabled all weapons, set cost to 1.

The Marines dismounted at the spot I wanted, although the LAI's did not engage the RPG team with suppression fires. Behind the RPG team I placed the force hq, with 2 rifle sections. I wanted the LAIs to lay down suppression fires on the rifle sections. They did not. I lost 3 Marines.

Although, in the second or third iteration, I removed the RPG's from the rifle sections loadouts, the LAIs did not engage the rifle sections, a serious let down. However, the mech inf dismounted at the desired spot.

So, this means, the Russian side does not loose anything really, the RPG team was merely placed to induce the AI to dismount. Although there remains work to do, the Marines dismounted where expected.

-----