Question for the players (mostly)

Suhiir · #1 May 21st, 2007, 03:31 PM

I've been working (on and off) on a revised OOB for the USMC (OOB #13) and have recently been pestering Don and Andy with questions about picklists.
While I certainly don't claim to have their knowledge of how WinSPMBT works I now (thanks again for the info) know enough to create a totally revised and functional OOB and picklists.
This is not gonna be a short or easy project. Since they plan to take a break till fall 2007 on game improvement, and it will take till fall (at least) to do the revisions.
I'd like to know if there's enough interest for me to do the whole job in such a way as it'll be compatible with existing scenario's, allow the AI to create "realistic" USMC forces (i.e. no more equipment they've never had as placeholders to allow the AI to buy the sort of stuff it expects with the current picklists), and allow players the joys of the USMC "building block" method of creating forces tailored to the situation (for example in Gulf I we needed an "Mech/Armored Division" - we built one by leaving some units of 2nd MarDiv back home and pulling extra tanks, mech, artillery from 4th MarDiv).
If I were to do this just for my own use, or just for player only use, it's pretty easy to just tweak the units and add some formations. But to make something the AI can deal with is a LOT of work.
Question -
Is there enough interest for me to make this my summer project?

Maybe if I get real lucky the "Powers That Be" will take a look at it and decide it's done well enough for inclusion into some future release of the game (OK, wishful thinking).

Marcello · #2 May 21st, 2007, 03:53 PM

Only a quick suggestion: add a poll. You may get a better gauge of the order of magnitude of interest in the project.

Mobhack · #3 May 21st, 2007, 05:48 PM

The "powers that be" attitude to end-user OOBs are as defined in the "Error reporting procedure" message which is a sticky thread at the top of the forum. We presume end users have read this before posting any error reports/change requests in this forum. That is the point of having sticky threads outlining the procedure at the top of the forum after all..

An end-user changed and cut-about complete OOB is entirely worthless to us, as stated in that message. We have been bitten in the bum too often to take any form of binary format data from end users and put that anywhere near the official OOB data.

The error/change request process is as defined in the sticky thread.

However - by all means, feel free to post your own massively modified OOB in its own thread here. Maintenance (if any) is then up to you, of course

!.

Cheers
Andy

Suhiir · #4 May 21st, 2007, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Mobhack said:
The "powers that be" attitude to end-user OOBs are as defined in the "Error reporting procedure" message which is a sticky thread at the top of the forum. We presume end users have read this before posting any error reports/change requests in this forum. That is the point of having sticky threads outlining the procedure at the top of the forum after all..

An end-user changed and cut-about complete OOB is entirely worthless to us, as stated in that message. We have been bitten in the bum too often to take any form of binary format data from end users and put that anywhere near the official OOB data.

The error/change request process is as defined in the sticky thread.

However - by all means, feel free to post your own massively modified OOB in its own thread here. Maintenance (if any) is then up to you, of course

!.

Cheers
Andy

Kinda assumed that

Just being polite and making the offer.

thatguy96 · #5 May 21st, 2007, 08:12 PM

Suhiir, I have noticed that feedback from the community for such projects is generally few and far between, but that gratitude for completed projects is very forthcoming. This is why all sorts of things are currently my summer projects including a modern Philippine OOB, picklists for my standalone ARVN OOB, and ever continuing work on my Vietnam pack (which without picklists is probably best suited to PBEM and scenario creation).

I would say do it. Also, feel free to take anything from the work I did on my USMC OOB if it is of any use to you. Some small note of credit would of course be nice, but with all the help others have given me on my projects I see no reason to continue the tradition.

Gooseman2448 · #6 May 22nd, 2007, 09:28 AM

Suhiir,

I'd say do it for yourself first. I have been working on the #12 OOB (USA) since version 1.

http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...899&Forum=f100,f171,f144,f145,f157,f147&Words=&Searchpage=0&Limi t=25&Main=412822&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=73 80&daterange=1&newerval=5&newertype=y&olderval=&ol dertype=&bodyprev=#Post428899

I have always done mine without changing the original units but, with every upgraded version the slots have gotten less and less.

I am currently going to work on a new version which focuses on more modern time lines (say about 1970 and later). This will open up more slots but, will make it totally unuseable as an official OOB.

I worked on a USMC version before but, every time I got going on it a new version was released and I would have to work on my USA mod.

I have done it for myself and my enjoyment first. If I have had anybody like or dislike it I wouldn't really know but, some things (changes and ideas) have made it into the offical OOB (Great work Don and Andy, USA is very good, just wish there were more unit and weapon slots).

So have fun and I look forward to seeing your work.

PS -- I always thought the USMC OOB was very lacking also.

Suhiir · #7 May 22nd, 2007, 12:15 PM

Yeah, been my problem too - every time I'm about "done" with my changes (been working since about v2 myself) a new version is released. I figure since they're taking time off till fall 2007 now is a great time to try an complete the project and hopefully in the future I can just incorporate whatever changes are needed from new versions.

"Lacking" is a good word.
The current OOB just doesn't give you the "flavor" of the USMC. It's just the US Army without the latest high tech toys and a lack of mech/armored assets. I've been seriously considering a 5 to 10 point morale boost for USMC units (they have a base 80 now to the Army's base 75).
And I know a good many (non Jarheads) will be unhappy with the tweaks to weapon ranges and accuracy I plan. Official US Army policy is that the M16A1 has a max effective range of 460m, yet every Marine is required to qualify yearly at 500m. So my USMC OOB will have a Weapon Range of 9 to the standard 8 for the M16A1, and 10 for the A2 & A4.
Little changes like that will give a more unique, "Marine" feel to the OOB (I hope).

PlasmaKrab · #8 May 22nd, 2007, 02:21 PM

Looks greater every time you describe it...

I'm really looking forward to your OOB, I'm in dire lack of USMC-related data for the Cold War mod (hence the OOB sin't included yet).
It would be great to have another point of view on it, particularly from an insider.

DRG · #9 May 23rd, 2007, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Suhiir said:I've been seriously considering a 5 to 10 point morale boost for USMC units (they have a base 80 now to the Army's base 75).
And I know a good many (non Jarheads) will be unhappy with the tweaks to weapon ranges and accuracy I plan. Official US Army policy is that the M16A1 has a max effective range of 460m, yet every Marine is required to qualify yearly at 500m. So my USMC OOB will have a Weapon Range of 9 to the standard 8 for the M16A1, and 10 for the A2 & A4.
Little changes like that will give a more unique, "Marine" feel to the OOB (I hope).

And this is why Andy said we are very reluctant to take end-user changed OOB's and why he said doing so has caused us to be "bitten in the bum too often" and why there is zero chance of this mod ever being considered as an "official" OOB. We've been trying for the past few releases to purge the game of all the little things like this that crept in to the OOB's over time. However, have fun. That's what MOBHack for

Don

Suhiir · #10 May 23rd, 2007, 01:16 PM

Quote:

DRG said:

Quote:

Suhiir said:I've been seriously considering a 5 to 10 point morale boost for USMC units (they have a base 80 now to the Army's base 75).
And I know a good many (non Jarheads) will be unhappy with the tweaks to weapon ranges and accuracy I plan. Official US Army policy is that the M16A1 has a max effective range of 460m, yet every Marine is required to qualify yearly at 500m. So my USMC OOB will have a Weapon Range of 9 to the standard 8 for the M16A1, and 10 for the A2 & A4.
Little changes like that will give a more unique, "Marine" feel to the OOB (I hope).

And this is why Andy said we are very reluctant to take end-user changed OOB's and why he said doing so has caused us to be "bitten in the bum too often" and why there is zero chance of this mod ever being considered as an "official" OOB. We've been trying for the past few releases to purge the game of all the little things like this that crept in to the OOB's over time. However, have fun. That's what MOBHack for

Don

Actually since ya'll said you have no interest in a modified OOB I'm going a lot further then I'd originally intended with some of my changes. I wasn't planning to change weapon data or ammo loads at first.

I'm sure someone will ask "Why change ammo loads?".
Simple, US Army doctrine calls for Suppressive Fire (lots of shooting in the general direction of the bad guys to keep their heads down and disrupt their aim); whereas USMC doctrine is Aimed Fire (shoot at someone or something specific). Army doctrine leads to cases like what happened in Grenada in 1983 - they ran out of ammo and had to borrow more from the Marines. So to represent this I'll be increasing the ammo load for M16's from 90 to 105. Why 105 you ask, simply because the standard ammo load for a grunt is 7 x 30 round magazines = 210 rounds and 105 is half that.

I'm sure not everyone will agree with all my changes, but since its never going to become "official" I figured I may as well make some that make sense (to me anyway) and give the OOB have a "Marine flavor".