Future Combat System M12xx Missing in US OOB?

Akmatov · #1 May 13th, 2009, 02:12 PM

Trolling through the US OOB I'm finding the M11xx Stryker vehicles, but none of the proposed Future Combat System M12xx vehicles. Given that they are the vehicles proposed for the future, I'm surprised they are missing. Am I just not finding them?

thanks

DRG · #2 May 13th, 2009, 03:50 PM

We pulled out all kinds of things that had been put in that OOB that had been "proposed" then died in development so right now when the final anouncement is made that "M12xx Stryker vehicles" are going to be issued to the troops THEN I'll put them in the OOB becasue it's now getting old putting things in then pulling them out again 3 years later when the project is cancelled

Don

Akmatov · #3 May 15th, 2009, 11:43 PM

I can sure understand that. The way things are going these day your OOB issues might get real easy - rifles, machine guns and hummers only.

But given that they were pulled out, I guess they were in at one time? I'm guessing I could find them in one of the pre-4.5 patches? Guessing I could load a copy of SPMBT and patch it up to the relevant patch and extract the OOB? If so, do you happen to know which patch I should check?

Thanks

DRG · #4 May 16th, 2009, 07:27 AM

There were no "M12xx Stryker vehicles" in previous patches

Don

Marcello · #5 May 16th, 2009, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akmatov

Trolling through the US OOB I'm finding the M11xx Stryker vehicles, but none of the proposed Future Combat System M12xx vehicles. Given that they are the vehicles proposed for the future, I'm surprised they are missing. Am I just not finding them?

thanks

The FCS chance of getting axed is too high to make developing the icons etc a worthwhile investment of time for the staff.
Besides its purported capabilities are not handled well by the game engine anyway. Even if it is not canned timeline wise it will probably just barely fit within the game, if that.

Quote:

I can sure understand that. The way things are going these day your OOB issues might get real easy - rifles, machine guns and hummers only.

I would not be so dramatic.The various Abrams/Bradley/Paladin etc. are going to stay, possibly with incremental upgrades.
The remaining M113s may be replaced by a combination of Stryker/Bradley/others variants (for logistical reasons).
The US Army will never become a light mechanized infantry only, because the need for tanks has been demonstrated repeatedly in the recent years.

EJ · #6 May 16th, 2009, 09:56 AM

DON OR ANDY,
What influences whether or not you allow prototype vehicles for some oobs? I've played as China in MBT and used prototypes. I've also played GB in SPWW2 and done the same. I'm surprised there aren't more.....It adds just a little more interest to an already GREAT GAME.

Marcello · #7 May 16th, 2009, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EJ

DON OR ANDY,
What influences whether or not you allow prototype vehicles for some oobs? I've played as China in MBT and used prototypes. I've also played GB in SPWW2 and done the same. I'm surprised there aren't more.....It adds just a little more interest to an already GREAT GAME.

Open the US and the iraqi OOB with Mobhack and you will quickly see the answer. The US OOB is already nearly filled to max capacity. Adding prototypes will eliminate what little growth space is left. The iraqi one still has some space left so the odd, never mass produced, T-55QM2 is not a problem. Further Iraq has developed only an handful of prototypes. The US in the
1946-2009 timeframe has created God only knows how many Cheyenne/MBT-70/SgtYork/whatever.

Suhiir · #8 May 16th, 2009, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EJ

DON OR ANDY,
What influences whether or not you allow prototype vehicles for some oobs? I've played as China in MBT and used prototypes. I've also played GB in SPWW2 and done the same. I'm surprised there aren't more.....It adds just a little more interest to an already GREAT GAME.

Not just OOB space tho.
Most prototypes tend to have near magical capabilities in terms of offensive and defensive effectiveness...if Andy and Don allowed developer/manufacturer capability claims to sneak into the OOB all ATGMs would hit 99.9% of the time under any circumstances, all aircraft would have pin-point accuracy, all tanks would be invulnerable, etc.
So until they can get some accurate, realistic data there's really no sense adding drawing board stuff to OOBs.

Also since the vast majority of that stuff (particularly in the US OOBs) never gets deployed they'd be constantly adding and removing stuff in the OOBs and any scenarios using the stuff would become unplayable.

EJ · #9 May 17th, 2009, 08:43 AM

Marcello and Suhiir,
Thanks for sharing your knowledge in answer to my question....

Lampshade111 · #10 May 17th, 2009, 06:41 PM

While I did have a bad feeling that much of FCS would be canceled, I was kinda hoping to see the equipment including the Manned Ground Vehicles in WinSPMBT and other games.

Yet considering the MGV portion of the program has just been canceled under the new budget, it is definitely not worth the work. A MGV replacement plan is supposed to be in development and will certainly including heavier armor.

I thought the plan that the XM1202 MCS would eventually replace the M1 Abrams was crazy, and it seems Gates agrees. I would have liked to have seen a few divisions equipped with the MGV, similar to our Stryker brigade combat teams but with superior equipment. Yet we still need our heavy armored units and eventually those vehicles (M1A2 Abrams, M2A3 Bradley, M109A6 Paladin) need to be replaced eventually.

The core of this MGV-only U.S. Army concept seemed to rely on two beliefs. The first was that most future wars would be "peacekeeping" operations such as what we saw in former Yugoslavia. Second was this belief that heavy armor is no longer efficient and worthwhile in this age of precision guided weapons. So far, this does not seem to be the case in real life.