Mine Resistent Vehicles

[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?

[thatguy96]

I would think that if you mod the picklist correctly they would still be used as tanks (bought by the AI in the tank purchase routines and therefore used as tanks). I'll admit, I don't know if that's how the code works though. By making them APCs any infantry riding (if you allow for that at all) is treated as protected too.

How much of a mine or IED are they really supposed to be able to resist anyhow? Adding belly armor historically has been to prevent casualties within vehicles, but the resulting damage to the vehicle always remained pretty serious.

[Marek_Tucan]

I'd say that TUSK tanks aren't "mine resistant" (in a sense that mine is less likely to KO them) but that they increase chances of crew surviving mine encounter, no?

[whdonnelly]

Here is a slideshow that you might enjoy. In this case mine resistant is good for the crew, not so good for the vehicle. No broken glass!
Will

[whdonnelly]

OK, no .pps attachments. Sorry about that
Will

[Suhiir]

I'm not allowing them to carry any troops so that won't be an issue (I suppose one might allow them to do so...maybe increase the reactive armor VS shaped charges a bit to represent the troops riding on top *chuckles*)

I was hoping someone might have experimented with the AI's use of APC's VS tanks - or one of the "powers that be" might know off-hand (no need to waste their time searching thru the code for "the answer").

Oh they'll still be on the Armor screen for purchase purposes, but to the best of my knowlege that has zero effect on how the AI uses a unit, that's determined by its' Unit Class - thus my question.

[thatguy96]

Suhiir said:
Oh they'll still be on the Armor screen for purchase purposes, but to the best of my knowlege that has zero effect on how the AI uses a unit, that's determined by its' Unit Class - thus my question.

Just to clarify, I wasn't talking about the purchase screen, I was talking about the picklist code. I haven't experimented with it, but I would wonder if the formations are set up in the picklist to be purchased when the AI is supposed to purchase tanks, whether or not it will use those formations in a more aggressive role in game during an engagement. If AI usage in game is ruled by a unit's class then this wouldn't work either.

I would still debate just how mine resistant the belly armor kit makes the M1A2 TUSK.

[Suhiir]

Naw, basically all the picklist does it tell he AI "Purchase X Formation" - it has no clue if it's 2nd rate foot infantry platoon or a top-of-the-line tank company.
Once it starts using the individual units it looks at the units "Unit Class" and decides what to do with it.

Now I may be incorrect about this, and PLEASE someone tell me if I am, but I don't think so.

As to the mine resistance - maybe an increase in the crew survival value might better represent it ?

[thatguy96]

I would agree that changing the survivability modifier is a better way to represent the benefits of hull armor on armored vehicles.