Feature requests for 2019

[Mobhack]

The recent fighting in the Ukraine shows what happens to light APC caught in an artillery concentration. And these modern APC are not open-topped as WW2 ones tended to be. Even T-72 are disassembled. The survivability of armoured vehicles to some extent is their ability to move out of a falling concentration, rather than stick about and get attrited.

If you think arty is too good, then you can reduce the arty effectiveness in the preferences screen.

[Imp]

As Mobhack says artillery is lethal to light vehicles in real life, look it up if anything the game could be slightly more lethal against them. Near miss will do it no need to hit it. Big artillery and tanks can get wrecked by a near miss never mind light vehicles. Check photos on the web light armour protects only from a distant strike, close strike will shred it and could even throw a light vehicle like a rag doll.

[DRG]

https://imgur.com/gallery/gIjCo

http://sill-www.army.mil/firesbullet...LL_EDITION.pdf

[PantherCub]

Thanks for the links. Interesting.

[DRG]

...we are discussing ( discussing....not committing to ) adding further damage affects to targeting and RF subsystems along with bringing back running gear ( tracks, wheels ) damage . "Track" hits were allowed in the original game but the code for it created odd situations and if ( IF ! ) we do summon the enthusiasm required to make this work it will in the next update...and if not...not. The first focus would be arty effects..if that works out maybe it might be expanded. If your billion dollar hi tech tank catches a full burst of 30mm autocannon there should be a chance that million dollar RF might be shredded... but as I said this is only at the " to discuss" phase for Andy and I when we work up the interest to start code work again.

[jp10]

Originally Posted by DRG

...we are discussing ( discussing....not committing to ) adding further damage affects to targeting and RF subsystems...

Is this supposing direct hits only or to simulate near hit because the tests quoted in the article seems to envision a caliber and rounds per fire mission count that only a few game units would qualify for...


"The first test was conducted in 1988... An M109 155-mm howitzer battery...The test was fired three times using 56 HE rounds..."

"...The third test was against a simulated US mechanized infantry team in defensive positions. The target area consisted of a forward defense area with a tank ditch 250 meters long...For this test, a 24-gun 155-mm battalion ...achieve the Soviet criteria of 50 percent destruction...three iterations of the test required 2,600 HE rounds ..."

Such levels of fire concentration require a target not leaving the beaten zone. Armor's traditional reaction to arty is to move, a reaction the AI does not seem to emulate well when in a defense game. Defensive tank positions are usually open in the rear so a unit can simply pull back a few 100 meters before returning to their firing positions when the barrage ends.

Several of the pics in the article seem to be from the tests, not actual on the battlefield occurrence.
Also, in my humble opinion articles published in Branch orientated journals are written my mid-grade officers to get academic credit for their career development and usually envision their chosen specialty as the primary force upon the battlefield.

[PantherCub]

Originally Posted by DRG

...we are discussing ( discussing....not committing to ) adding further damage affects to targeting and RF subsystems along with bringing back running gear ( tracks, wheels ) damage . "Track" hits were allowed in the original game but the code for it created odd situations and if ( IF ! ) we do summon the enthusiasm required to make this work it will in the next update...and if not...not. The first focus would be arty effects..if that works out maybe it might be expanded. If your billion dollar hi tech tank catches a full burst of 30mm autocannon there should be a chance that million dollar RF might be shredded... but as I said this is only at the " to discuss" phase for Andy and I when we work up the interest to start code work again.

This sounds like a great addition. Thanks for the info!

Maybe a stupid question. Tanks can already be immobilized by artillery. What will the difference be?

[jivemi]

Originally Posted by DRG

...we are discussing ( discussing....not committing to ) adding further damage affects to targeting and RF subsystems along with bringing back running gear ( tracks, wheels ) damage . "Track" hits were allowed in the original game but the code for it created odd situations and if ( IF ! ) we do summon the enthusiasm required to make this work it will in the next update...and if not...not. The first focus would be arty effects..if that works out maybe it might be expanded. If your billion dollar hi tech tank catches a full burst of 30mm autocannon there should be a chance that million dollar RF might be shredded... but as I said this is only at the " to discuss" phase for Andy and I when we work up the interest to start code work again.

Dunno about targeting and RF subsystems but IMHO the frequency of mobility kills is fine as it is, especially when considering the possibility of "odd situations" when coding for running gear damage. Just my two centavos. Thanks.

[PantherCub]

Originally Posted by DRG

...we are discussing ( discussing....not committing to ) adding further damage affects to targeting and RF subsystems along with bringing back running gear ( tracks, wheels ) damage . "Track" hits were allowed in the original game but the code for it created odd situations and if ( IF ! ) we do summon the enthusiasm required to make this work it will in the next update...and if not...not. The first focus would be arty effects..if that works out maybe it might be expanded. If your billion dollar hi tech tank catches a full burst of 30mm autocannon there should be a chance that million dollar RF might be shredded... but as I said this is only at the " to discuss" phase for Andy and I when we work up the interest to start code work again.

Just came to think of this. We had spare prisms for the main sight and for the observation ports when I was in tanks (Centurions). So even if the optics are damaged by splinters, they are easily repairable. Replacing the prism can be done from inside the tank. Just slide the old one down and insert the replacement. Of course there is not an endless supply of prisms, but still, there is redundancy against splinter effects.

[zovs66]

Another feature request (understand it just may not be possible, but throwing it out).

From within the game and it seems from with in ScenHack we have the following data points:

29 chars in Scenario Location Name in ScenHack in the Scenario Data dialog box
32 chars in the Scenario Name in both ScenHack and the Editor in game
32 chars in the Scenario title name in both ScenHack and the Editor in game

Here are some screen shots:

ScenHack (29 chars):



When saving a scenario (32 chars):


In the map editor (29 chars):


From within the editor (29 chars and 30 chars from two different spots):



So my first request or question is could we get more than 29/32 chars? 40, I don't know (what I am doing for my scenario creations is using the name of the scenario followed by the month/year, so Some Scenario Test Title 4/44 for example). Second question is why is it different from one to the other, more I am just curious, and guessing it has something to do with screen size or space.

I think the biggest issue I have is when I use a location that is very, very long (yes I know don't use it) then it won't show up quite correctly.

One scenario as a case in point uses: Along the Chemery-Bulson Road, France and I understand that I can just omit the 'Along the' part but I have some scenarios where it may (or may not) look cool within the game to see: Along the road, 7 kilometers SE of El Agheila, Libya and yes I also put this information in the text file as well, hence why I am using this post as enhancement request type of thing.

Anyway thanks for listening.