Soliciting Opinions on Vision Enhancement

[Suhiir]

whdonnelly said:
To look at this from another angle, NVG has been standard issue for many US units since the 80s. Therefore it shouldn't cost as much in armies when every line unit has it. It should cost more, but it shouldn't be so much as to throw friendly OOB into something as unrealistic as 2 scout squads and 2 tank vs 2 enemy companies, as I've played a few times.

That's my concern as well.
While I agree it's improbable we'll see TI gear as common issue for infantry units by 2020 I have noticed in the OOB's there are infantry units (and I don't mean specialized recon, commando, or weapon [Dragon, Stinger] units) as early as 1990 (tho most are around 2010) that have TI. And in the US OOB it's hard to find a vehicle, other then common trucks, after 2010 that doesn't have it.

[PlasmaKrab]

To take things from the beginning (sorry, folks, time zones and all that):

-Small arms thermal sights exist in US services since some years (think AN/PAS-13 series), now IDK how current they are in field units.
-There may be an issue with thermal vision range, i.e. there is no way in the game to have thermal vision reaching at less than 2km (several times the range of an infantry squad's small arms). If there was a possibility of having TI with a range of 500m or similar, the cost difference wouldn't be as huge. Now I guess there is no way to change the way vision types are assigned, so that's that.
-Unit cost is only related to unit capabilities. AFAIK there is no way to link unit cost to a specific OOB. Identical units with identical morale/exp ratings have the same cost over all the OOBs. I'd say we need to stick with that rule in order to prevent too large game imbalance.

Thinking about it, it could be interesting to restrict full-range TI to the leading unit of an infantry platoon. That would mitigate the cost issue and provide the long-range recon capability discussed above (up to the arty call ability). Now I don't remember that US platoons use a dedicated command section of any sort, so that may not work in OOBs 12 and 13.

[Suhiir]

I'll be adding a dedicated command section for both platoons and companies and you're suggestion about them only having the capability as an option sounds great, thanks !

[Marcello]

In the meantime have done a little surfing. It would appear that indeed in the last years a variety of very compact, uncooled thermal sights have become available. Typically they seem to have practical ranges around 500 meters or so. This cannot be simulated, as discussed previously.

In regards to command squads the issue is that if they are recognizable they will be targeted first.

[thatguy96]

Suhiir said:
I'll be adding a dedicated command section for both platoons and companies and you're suggestion about them only having the capability as an option sounds great, thanks !

Just remember that in game terms dedicated platoon and company HQs (especially when named such) have a habit of being targeted quickly. They draw fire from human players, and because of their size (usually) are not as resistant to incoming fire. Basically its like adding a scout element to each platoon and company.

Of course in my own work I've done things both ways hehe, but this is what the SPCamo will tell you immediately as to why these don't exist currently.

[Suhiir]

thatguy96 said:

Just remember that in game terms dedicated platoon and company HQs (especially when named such) have a habit of being targeted quickly. They draw fire from human players, and because of their size (usually) are not as resistant to incoming fire. Basically its like adding a scout element to each platoon and company.

Of course in my own work I've done things both ways hehe, but this is what the SPCamo will tell you immediately as to why these don't exist currently.

I was curious about why they weren't in the TO's.
I suppose I could "cheat" a bit and make them size 0 units that'd help some.
Biggest problem is the AI, since they're the 1st unit in a formation they lead the banzai. Good thing 2nd Lt's are easy to come by *chuckles*.

[PlasmaKrab]

I've dabbled a bit with that command section thing, since some OOBs I have modded really called for it.

IMHO the best solution to circumvent the problem of command sections being too light and fragile is to reinforce them with as many men and support weapons as possible.
In some cases (French OOB pre-90s) the official OOB puts most heavy weapons in the command group. ON the other hand, f.e. the Austrian OOB called for a 4-men command section with only rifles and grenades. The Jäger platoon is so full with support weapons that it doesn't fit the 10-unit limit anyway, so I have gone for a dedicated command+AT+sniper 9-men section, which ends up with more manpower and weapons than a regular section. In lighter platoons (less manpower and support weapons) I have used a scout class for the command section as some modders have suggested, since that's what the command section actually stands for.

Rather than light separate command elements, what I had in mind for the US units was more in the line of a dedicated infantry section (full manpower) including the platoon commander, so basically similar to the baseline section.
Think of the Soviet motor rifle platoon: three 7-men squads plus one separate commander. The 2nd lt takes command of the first squad which gets a bonus in radio rating and support weapons (say RPG-29 instead of RPG-26, PK instead of RPK). So you can effectively identify the command section (provided you know the enemy OOB well enough to be sure it isn't a weapons section) but you'll have a harder time taking it out in priority on equal terms.

That would imply standing by the old way of separating the commanding cadre into all of the sections. That one section which goes into unit slot 1 would get higher vision, maybe heavier weapons in some cases? I'd bet that event he USMC has enough bucks to get tactical radios to all of its squads by now so that should not be a difference like in some armies.

[Suhiir]

Not a bad idea.
Since WWII the basic USMC Platoon has been 43 men, 3x13-man squads + a command section of 4 (Co, Plt Sgt, Plt Guide, Corpsman) plus some basically standard attachments from the company weapons platoon (2xMMG, 1xAT) for another 8 men.
The problem (of course) is vehicle carry capacity and the support weapons wouldn't get the "correct" unit class if they and the command section were combined into a 12-man "squad".
The other issue is what I refer to as "ants".
Lot's of small units in the TO. I know that while the AI could care less if a company has 9x13-man squads and 16x3 to 4-man teams players find them annoying.
Also you run into the problem of the 500 unit limit if you try to field say a mechanized regiment.
Ahh the joys of OOB work !
My solution has been to create two parallel OOB's. One with "ants" and one without. And putting one set in formations the AI doesn't see on it's picklists. A bit unwieldy at times but probably the best compromise.
What generally happens now with scenarios involving the USMC is the "ants" get ignored by the scenario designer/AI and the rifle company looses most, or all, of it's support weapons, half (or more) of it's firepower. Not a problem for the "Tank Heads", but they should probably play the with the US Army rather then the USMC anyway. The USMC IS basically an infantry force after all.

P.S.
Yeah we've had squad radios (AN/PRC 68's) since Gulf I.