Question for the players (mostly)
 

I've been working (on and off) on a revised OOB for the USMC (OOB #13) and have recently been pestering Don and Andy with questions about picklists.
While I certainly don't claim to have their knowledge of how WinSPMBT works I now (thanks again for the info) know enough to create a totally revised and functional OOB and picklists.
This is not gonna be a short or easy project. Since they plan to take a break till fall 2007 on game improvement, and it will take till fall (at least) to do the revisions.
I'd like to know if there's enough interest for me to do the whole job in such a way as it'll be compatible with existing scenario's, allow the AI to create "realistic" USMC forces (i.e. no more equipment they've never had as placeholders to allow the AI to buy the sort of stuff it expects with the current picklists), and allow players the joys of the USMC "building block" method of creating forces tailored to the situation (for example in Gulf I we needed an "Mech/Armored Division" - we built one by leaving some units of 2nd MarDiv back home and pulling extra tanks, mech, artillery from 4th MarDiv).
If I were to do this just for my own use, or just for player only use, it's pretty easy to just tweak the units and add some formations. But to make something the AI can deal with is a LOT of work.
Question -
Is there enough interest for me to make this my summer project?

Maybe if I get real lucky the "Powers That Be" will take a look at it and decide it's done well enough for inclusion into some future release of the game (OK, wishful thinking).

Re: Question for the players (mostly)
 

Only a quick suggestion: add a poll. You may get a better gauge of the order of magnitude of interest in the project.

Re: Question for the players (mostly)
 

The "powers that be" attitude to end-user OOBs are as defined in the "Error reporting procedure" message which is a sticky thread at the top of the forum. We presume end users have read this before posting any error reports/change requests in this forum. That is the point of having sticky threads outlining the procedure at the top of the forum after all..

An end-user changed and cut-about complete OOB is entirely worthless to us, as stated in that message. We have been bitten in the bum too often to take any form of binary format data from end users and put that anywhere near the official OOB data.

The error/change request process is as defined in the sticky thread.

However - by all means, feel free to post your own massively modified OOB in its own thread here. Maintenance (if any) is then up to you, of course http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif!.

Cheers
Andy

Re: Question for the players (mostly)
 

Kinda assumed that http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
Just being polite and making the offer.

Re: Question for the players (mostly)
 

Suhiir, I have noticed that feedback from the community for such projects is generally few and far between, but that gratitude for completed projects is very forthcoming. This is why all sorts of things are currently my summer projects including a modern Philippine OOB, picklists for my standalone ARVN OOB, and ever continuing work on my Vietnam pack (which without picklists is probably best suited to PBEM and scenario creation).

I would say do it. Also, feel free to take anything from the work I did on my USMC OOB if it is of any use to you. Some small note of credit would of course be nice, but with all the help others have given me on my projects I see no reason to continue the tradition.

Re: Question for the players (mostly)
 

Suhiir,

I'd say do it for yourself first. I have been working on the #12 OOB (USA) since version 1.

http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...amp;Forum=f100,f171,f144,f145,f157,f147&Words=&Searchpag e=0&Limit=25&Main=412822&Search=true&a mp;where=bodysub&Name=7380&daterange=1&amp ;newerval=5&newertype=y&olderval=&olde rtype=&bodyprev=#Post428899

I have always done mine without changing the original units but, with every upgraded version the slots have gotten less and less.

I am currently going to work on a new version which focuses on more modern time lines (say about 1970 and later). This will open up more slots but, will make it totally unuseable as an official OOB.

I worked on a USMC version before but, every time I got going on it a new version was released and I would have to work on my USA mod.

I have done it for myself and my enjoyment first. If I have had anybody like or dislike it I wouldn't really know but, some things (changes and ideas) have made it into the offical OOB (Great work Don and Andy, USA is very good, just wish there were more unit and weapon slots).

So have fun and I look forward to seeing your work.

PS -- I always thought the USMC OOB was very lacking also.

Re: Question for the players (mostly)
 

Yeah, been my problem too - every time I'm about "done" with my changes (been working since about v2 myself) a new version is released. I figure since they're taking time off till fall 2007 now is a great time to try an complete the project and hopefully in the future I can just incorporate whatever changes are needed from new versions.

"Lacking" is a good word.
The current OOB just doesn't give you the "flavor" of the USMC. It's just the US Army without the latest high tech toys and a lack of mech/armored assets. I've been seriously considering a 5 to 10 point morale boost for USMC units (they have a base 80 now to the Army's base 75).
And I know a good many (non Jarheads) will be unhappy with the tweaks to weapon ranges and accuracy I plan. Official US Army policy is that the M16A1 has a max effective range of 460m, yet every Marine is required to qualify yearly at 500m. So my USMC OOB will have a Weapon Range of 9 to the standard 8 for the M16A1, and 10 for the A2 & A4.
Little changes like that will give a more unique, "Marine" feel to the OOB (I hope).

Re: Question for the players (mostly)
 

Looks greater every time you describe it... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
I'm really looking forward to your OOB, I'm in dire lack of USMC-related data for the Cold War mod (hence the OOB sin't included yet).
It would be great to have another point of view on it, particularly from an insider.

Re: Question for the players (mostly)
 

And this is why Andy said we are very reluctant to take end-user changed OOB's and why he said doing so has caused us to be "bitten in the bum too often" and why there is zero chance of this mod ever being considered as an "official" OOB. We've been trying for the past few releases to purge the game of all the little things like this that crept in to the OOB's over time. However, have fun. That's what MOBHack for

Don

Re: Question for the players (mostly)
 

Actually since ya'll said you have no interest in a modified OOB I'm going a lot further then I'd originally intended with some of my changes. I wasn't planning to change weapon data or ammo loads at first.

I'm sure someone will ask "Why change ammo loads?".
Simple, US Army doctrine calls for Suppressive Fire (lots of shooting in the general direction of the bad guys to keep their heads down and disrupt their aim); whereas USMC doctrine is Aimed Fire (shoot at someone or something specific). Army doctrine leads to cases like what happened in Grenada in 1983 - they ran out of ammo and had to borrow more from the Marines. So to represent this I'll be increasing the ammo load for M16's from 90 to 105. Why 105 you ask, simply because the standard ammo load for a grunt is 7 x 30 round magazines = 210 rounds and 105 is half that.

I'm sure not everyone will agree with all my changes, but since its never going to become "official" I figured I may as well make some that make sense (to me anyway) and give the OOB have a "Marine flavor".

Re: Question for the players (mostly)
 

Suhiir,

Don't get too worked up.

Quote: "Actually since ya'll said you have no interest in a modified OOB I'm going a lot further then I'd originally intended with some of my changes."

There is a reason it's called modding. There has to be a base standard. Look at any game that allows you to modify it. None of those modification are "OFFICIAL" but, some are significantly different enough to get noticed as a addition or a true standalone.

Don and Andy don't have to accept any outside input (SSI didn't), they are working hard enough to improve the game play, which they have.

I think thatguy96 is the closest right now to having a standalone mod. Vietnam has been the center point for many games and can have endless campaigns and scenarios.

(Others: NATO vs WP & Arab vs Isreali)

I think dedicated USMC Mod could offer many options. (Look how far BCT has gone, to make a new addition dedicated to Air Assault the next should be for a USMC, but thats off topic)

Do it for yourself first.

Re: Question for the players (mostly)
 

Sorry if I gave the impression I was getting "worked up".

Having gotten a look at the picklists (thanks yet again), and how they work I can now see why it's absolutely necessary for some of the equipment the USMC never had to be in the OOB. Andy and Don are quite reasonably applying Occam's Razor ("All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one.") to the matter. The current OOB has existed for a long time, many scenario's have been built with it. The sort of ground-up rebuild that's necessary in the OOB, and FAR more importantly the picklists, to create an accurate representation of the USMC would create many, many, many problems for them. If I was them I'd say, "Thanks, but no thanks" too.

Being a single individual who doesn't have to justify my existence, or paycheck, to a boss I can afford to look at things in ways they can't.

Also don't have to worry about "play balance".
Up above I mentioned changing the base range of the M16 and the base ammo load of a squad, and gave my rationale for the changes. Problem is this will totally destroy the "play balance". Given two equal sized squads with the same weapons if one can shoot a bit further and won't run out of ammo as soon they are not equivalent units. The Cost Calculator won't see the difference well enough to give the two units a different point cost.

Sea Story Time (again)
Gulf War I, 2nd MarDiv

For some reason I've never understood a platoon size, non-Republican Guard, Iraqi unit decided not to surrender on sight and had the audacity to shoot at us.
We were also about a platoon size unit with the addition of a HMMWV carrying a .50cal (a detachment of MP's who were along to collect prisoners).
The Iraqi's had AK 47's, a couple machineguns, zip for mortars, no support from adjacent units, and no fire support. Brave, but not to bright.
Our .50 shot thru their sand bags taking out both machineguns right off the bat. We then advanced to about 400m from their position.
In typical style occasionally an Iraqi would pop up, fire a magazine at full auto in our general direction then duck.
Since they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn at 400m we very calmly assumed good prone firing positions, some guys going so far as to wrap their slings around their arms like they were at the rifle range. We then proceeded to pick off them off one at a time with single shots to the head/shoulders as they popped up to fire at us.
After four of the bravest/dumbest died the rest got the point and surrendered.

I'll be the first to admit Gulf I was not a typical war, heck, it wasn't a war at all - I call it the World's Largest Live Fire Wargane myself. But I think it makes my point, in general the USMC can, and does, shoot further and more accurately and conserves ammo while doing so.

I have no doubt in my mind US Army Rangers probably can and do do the same. However I'm looking at modifying one, and only one OOB, and since it's not going to be used in the official game I don't need to be constrained by "play balance".

If there had been any interest in using it in the official game I'd have tweaked units, and most importantly the picklists and NOT touched the weapon data.