First I'll submit any piece of equipment in
either my normal patch submission
or using the same general format, as I did above in
Post #103 concerning the
ARCHER. It's easier and no one should assume anything else I post is anything more then just FYI outside of those afore mentioned formats. This should end any further confusion as to my intentions.
Secondly I don't know what happened with the refs from my last
Post #24 again above. All I did was a simple "
Cut & Paste" as I've done many, many times in the past without issue concerning the opening up of the refs.
Thirdly I did go back and verified those same refs did/do open up properly in the " "
PROBLEMS WITH THE CURRENT RUSSIAN OOB (#11)" Thread Post # . So sorry for any inconvenience there as I try to figure out what happened in my last post.
I'm still evaluating this equipment issue as well, I can tell you in my opinion, that I feel the Arctic based SPAA doesn't need to be in the game just based on the fact they're meant specifically for their Arctic Defense Forces (ADF) as compared to the more main and baseline units already discussed also in that thread. The other unit is the
TOR-2U do we need it? Is it that much better than the
TOR-2,
especially when Russia has the
TOR-3 NOW BEING FIELDED?
I've got beyond these units at least 15 more new pieces of Russian equipment that is already,
very soon will be and for the rest
fielded by 2020. And we'll still have
six more years for whatever comes down the pike and I'm
already tracking some of that. A handful might already be in the game and will require date changes but, the majority aren't and that's just from my files.
The tipping point might just come within the next two years or sooner at the rate the real world for some of these OOB's are improving current equipment, developing variants of the same (Which is different then improving it.) and just fielded new equipment.
Any option to include the couple I've suggested in the past in regards to air units, or any other solution will require a lot of code and and software changes. Maybe a year or two to do that and nothing else might not be a bad idea in the long run in the near future.
By then for example we'll have a better handle on the T-14, PAK-FA, F-35 and believe me I can go on and on for the top four or five OOB's in this game. Just because I haven't submitted anything in the last two or three years doesn't mean I haven't been compiling the data for said submissions at a later date. I think I've demonstrated that recently here and elsewhere already.
I can count the slots as well, and seeing the rapid pace of advancement and looking and trying to figure out at my end what to do is almost like trying to "fit the square peg in the round hole". But I'm an analytical type person always have been and I guess always will be (I hate those Briggs Meyers and the like tests, (
I just really wanted to be an astronaut! 
) not ranting just concerned for the future of the game here is all and where we're heading. Clarity of purpose is all I seek, even if it means "
mind your own business" I can most certainly remember worse then that being said to me.
Besides for you "code breakers" my usual response is FTITCTAJ! Though I would NEVER feel or respond that way to anyone out here!!
And I'm actually in a good mood, lost over 30 pounds, now below my retirement weight from 2002. Just making it harder for my younger co-workers to keep up with me at work and on the OTC.
Regards,
Pat
Re: SP and SPAA Developments
Re: SP and SPAA Developments
shows what in the lower right hand picture from the exercise? You got it.
Hybrid Mode
