Re: Soliciting Opinions on Vision Enhancement
 

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.

Re: Soliciting Opinions on Vision Enhancement
 

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*.

Re: Soliciting Opinions on Vision Enhancement
 

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 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif so that should not be a difference like in some armies.

Re: Soliciting Opinions on Vision Enhancement
 

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.

Re: Soliciting Opinions on Vision Enhancement
 

Hi,

The US currently fields the Raytheon AN/PAS-13 family of thermal weapon sights:

The AN/PAS-13 LTWS for the M16/M4 family
The AN/PAS-13B MTWS for the M240/M249
The AN/PAS-13B HTWS for the M2, MK19, M24 & M82

Total sales for US Army, USMC and SOCOM is 27,000 units or so.

While I'm not 100% sure, I suspect you're normally only going to find these sights mounted on heavier weapons like the M249 and up and only when absolutely mission essential as they are fairly bulky. For rifles and carbines, I believe the AN/PVS-14 + AN/PAQ-4 or AN/PEQ-2 combination (light intensification + IR laser) is far more common.

I don't think we can expect to see thermal sights in common use on every weapon in the US military until they can be reduced in size to something similar to the AN/PVS-14.

Adrian

Re: Soliciting Opinions on Vision Enhancement
 

My opinion about the TI infantry costs are that in an assault thery are worth the points as you can use them to spot and suppress enemy infantry in key areas, but generally 1 vs 5 isn´t worth the cost. 1 in 4 could make a difference though. However a sniper with TI could do the suppression trick too, considering it is size 0 and has a marksman rifle, FC and RF. So maybe pure TI-inf without any atgm is too costly at 100 points.

Re: Soliciting Opinions on Vision Enhancement
 

I'd tend to agree myself.
I'll be using TI on support weapons (ATGM's, HMG's, FO's) and some top-end recon units but for plain infantry I don't plan to even make it an option.

With a fixed cost of about 80 points, and a fixed range of 40+ for TI it would totally ruin game balance to give it at reduced cost to infantry units (who can't make use of a 40 range anyway).