Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

HeHeHe..... EVERY picklist in the USMC uses those formations...all 100 of them and I have little enthusiasm for that but we can accomplish this change a slightly different way that won't involved changing 100 picklists

>
>
>

EDIT

490 is copied to 484 and 486 which are the primary mec platoons used by the picklist...then 490 is deleted

484 runs 1/46-12/74
486 runs 1/75-12/125


the remaining coys are set up with the appropriate platoons and all is right with the universe again and no picklists were harmed........484 and 486 are duplicates but so what ? It's not like we are going to run out of formation slots in that OOB....and it's NOT how the OOB is structured in MOBHack that is important....it's what's displayed in the game for players to use and from that POV it does not matter at all that 484 and 486 are the same

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1492955296


There are 10 picklist issues remaining that involved Form 487 ....I will deal with those later..

FURTER EDIT

I dealt with is now while it's fresh.

Form 487 is now a duplicate of 485 with different dates

485 runs 1/75 - 12/85
487 runs 1/86 - 12/92

picklist remain untouched and the change to the game is seamless

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1492957110

Everything fits, nobody is on foot, the picklists remain as they are and the CC for the vehicles is closer to spec than they have ever been and all that is "a good thing" getting the formations to work with the AAV7 and the SU is " a very good thing" :up::up:

AND..... you CAN fit everyone into a SU coy @ 17 per vehicle

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

*blinks*
You managed to fit the 3 x sniper teams and 2 x javelin teams on the AAVs at 17 carry?
How?
Where?

I was trying to avoid duplicates in the formations/picklists but yeah ... that'd work just fine.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

The USMC would be proud you've managed to get one below their "notional" goal of 18 in an AAV. I know I left the definition of the above word but, in this case it was the desired goal of the CORPS if you took the time to read from that ref. A job well done!! Even I can live with it, not that I'd have much choice in the matter, however, it's still worth mentioning for the effort alone to get there.

I was wondering however, what caused all the flurry of activity surrounding the AAV-SU. I gave it a quick thought and "low and behold" there it was in the OOB and the good news is that you can use it now instead of six years from now!!!! Now I've always been held to the six month standard (Our agreement for SWAG.) of a projected fielding date with Don, maybe I misunderstood the agreement all these years and it really was six years all this time!?! Oh Happy Day!!!! Stand by to receive incoming traffic!!!! First a little Icon party: :rolleyes:, :cool:, :shock:, ;), :p and :D !!

As a note, I have found other USMC data that's holding to late 2022/or 2023 for fielding the AAV-SU. Can post if desired.

Seriously to you both, well executed and a good job!!!! :clap:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Academic exercise ... Can you fit 10# of stuff in a 5# sack within the limits imposed by the game mechanics (10 slots).

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

It's in operational testing AFAIK so I put it in the OOB

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

I have a couple other ideas in mind for those formations..the re-nationalized Co Supt (Mec) has loads of room left for some of those formation/units that screw up auto deploy. It just requires a bit of "creativity"

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

With SU load limit set to 17
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1492989477

everything fits and you end up with about half the carriers at 17 capacity and the other half 16

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

I was keeping that to stuff that usually deploys behind the front lines (mortars, MPADS) and hadn't considered it's excess carry capacity ... duh.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

some of those added coy extra units could be used as "security" for the mortars and manpads..... but in an advance, some could be dropped off and the remainder continue forward so it's a legitimate use of that formation

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

With IDEX 2017 going on I just happened to catch this on the show/exhibition news area. Looks like the Czech Army is seriously looking at the German PUMA IFV C3/P6. Understand I've got a couple of issues going right now, nothing bad, however I don't have the time to back check the German PUMA IFV. That being said three issues or non starters don't know...
1) Fielded btwn Jan.-Apr. 2016.

2) Indicates all using SPIKE I believe it to be the LR version as I think the IDF is still testing the latest version due this year to go into service with the IDF.

3) Is the German PUMA IFV configured with the "soft kill" MUSS system as indicated in this article?
http://www.armyrecognition.com/idet_..._10506173.html

As a testing update for EITAN which will be equipped with the new SPIKE when fielded...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april..._81004174.html

Probably will be ready for fielding by years end or very early next year by the pace of development. Nice to see someone run a defense industry with "Their Sxxx one sock" for a change.

Gotta go!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt: