M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

Currently the OOBs have the 155mm M777A1 FH with Accuracy = 10 and Weapon Range = 220 (230 for Rocket Assisted).

I'm curious what the collective peanut gallery thinks the Accuracy and Weapon Range should be for the M777A2 Excalibur?

Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

Am I wrong in thinking that the game statistic "accuracy" is ONLY used for direct fire, and is therefore irrelevant to the discussion?

Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

That sounds right to me.

Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

Humm ...
Learn something new every day if that's indeed the case.

Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

I believe Indirect fire "accuracy" is based on experience of gun crew and observer. Perhaps a Unit equipped with high accuracy shells (excalibur, etc) need an exp boost?

Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

Possible, but I'd be VERY hesitant to add formations for something like this since about the only way to guarantee an experience class boost would be to give it about a +20 experience modifier, and that has all sorts of unpleasant side effects with regard to unit/formation cost and quite probably with the picklists.

Fortunately the 155mm artillery is not mixed in with the 105mm/Naval Guns in the US Army OOB.

Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

I'm not certain a designer needs to be concerned about Experience Class with respect to accuracy of indirect fires. I have found that we can boost experience by units and not affect the Experience Class. Therefore, we can modify FA gun crews and spotter units to increase accuracy of indirect fires in our scenarios by selecting the "D" key of the Deploy screen in the Editor. Additionally, the Unit Leader Data maybe modified to increase Artillery Command Rating within the Edit Unit Data screen as this also appears to have impact upon indirect fires accuracy.

Abraham

Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

Boosting experience by any degree would effect many things, issues with arty I can think of quickly.
Increased rate of fire so an extra shot.
Becomes far more effective at counter battery fire, this is based on experience a low experience unit will rarely do so.
I cannot remember but I think it is the experience of the spotter if it has eyes on target that determines how accurate the fire is along with mods for GPS etc.
The experience of the arty crew has a minor effect on the kill pen if I remember not the "scatter"

The only real fix would probably be a whole new class with tighter scatter routines, only really have any effect if you did not have eyes on target however as grouping is normally pretty good already if target hex is in LOS.

Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

A new unit class is unlikely and improving spotter Artillery Rating and/or Experience would effect mortars and MLRS as well so that's not desirable.

So it would appear there's no practical way to implement M777A2 Excalibur.
Unless someone has a brilliant idea.

Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

Possible easy fix though not sure its a big enough deal to bother would be to have it "flagged" as if spotter always has eyes on target, so always uses tighter grouping.

Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

All artillery pieces in SP come with their own plotting board, and integral 'GPS' survey so you can just drop a mortar off the back of a truck and start banging away at some random target once halted. batteries have no need to have their sights paralleled (which means pieces close by each other and in LOS, or hours of theodolite survey work if not, pre GPS days).

Even in the 1930s, SP game arty is of the modern 'excalibur' type. The player does the job of an integrated computerised artillery system on his 100% accurate map and 100% knowledge of own forces positions etc. The player does all the allocations of fires.

There is absolutely no point in tighter groupings for unobserved map fires, since that aids the player-as-God with his 100% accurate map (everything is exactly where it really is if known about). So the God player could then simply vapourise everything on the map using casual unobserved map fires.

Therefore map fire in the game is deliberately penalised over 'theoretical' precisely to guard against the God-player syndrome. Only pre-game plots (ie turn 0 bombardments or programmed bombardments) or fire onto 'gold spots' have scatter that is in line with the theoretical. Any other plotted fires with no eyes-on the target is subject to scattering.

- the accuracy rating is for direct fire mode only - ie plinking tanks and bunkers over open sights. If the thing is an off-map unit only then it has no need for the statistic (but if you remove it then someone will make an SP arty piece with it..).

- Hip-shoot artillery in SP is based mainly on the observer, and accuracy from his being 'eyes-on' target. Thus if he has a laser arty designator, or a radar to see through the clag etc, or even GPS arty - he still needs to be eyes-on.

- Number of observers, and GPS (IIRC) gets you 'extra' gold spots in meeting engagements etc. But these need to be placed thoughtfully, registration cannot be done in-game - or the Player-God would abuse his eagle-eyed battlefield integration of all targets and plot onto stuff that only Private Snuffy (with no radio) actually has knowledge of, not the arty commander.

- Speed of call depends on the observer skill, and also the gunner's skill. Also the time frame (1930s arty takes longer than 1950s, 1990s is faster, etc).

- Skill of battery and skill of observer does reduce scatter, even for unobserved map fires. So plot unobserved map fires from a skilled AOP and they should generally not deviate as much as say it was called by Lt Divot, of the Catering Corps with arty skill of 0;).

- Counter-battery is for off-map idle batteries, and battery skills are highly relevant. A 65 exp battery might not fire often, a 90s one probably much more, in a battle. (Increased number of enemy off-map batteries that fire on you also helps as you will test for each one in turn).

So if you want super-accurate arty, either be very prescient in the pre-plotting of registered gold spots, (or manoeuvre so he is guided onto these) - or get an observer into a position where he has eyeball on the target. Extra tech helps him, but a bog-standard AOP with LOS does fine.

Andy

Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

So it seems it boils down to creating new formations with an Experience bonus to attempt to replicate Excalibur.

Which of course means Player-God and counter-battery would become issues.
I'm not as concerned with counter-battery since that's out of a players direct control, and the increased probability of of counter-battery isn't that big.
Player-God however probably makes implementing Excalibur unwise.

Thank you Andy.

Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

It maybe possible to implement some aspects of the Excalibur rounds. What I recall is that the Excalibur is both RA and a GPS guided munition. We have a Weapon 234, a 155mm M777 RA munition with a range of 230, that's good. Accuracy is set at 10. What if we put an air to surface missile, say the AGM65L Maverick, weapon slot 194 as the primary weapon in a 155mm M777 RA section, and set ROF to 1.

I'm setting the ROF to 1 because as I understand the Excalibur, it is a shot on target guided by GPS with increased range established by RA.

BTW, while browsing the forum I found that Andy advised a member to use Google to search for threads on the Copperhead. So, following his advise, I googled the following search: forum.shrapnelgames.com:Excalibur site:forum.shrapnelgames.com, and found this interesting post by Andy:

Now, I'm back to square 1, with my head in my hands.

Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

Remember I'm the equipment guy not the game engine one...
But please feel free to hammer me if needed anyway, but I've been following this for awhile now and I've not seen this brought up in the discussion yet. Is our "simulator" to be found in the game preference page specifically in the Arty accuracy settings? And how does this tie in with what Andy last addressed above already? If I set it to 100% (I normally use 90% for present day arty.) will that give me the "Excalibur factor"?

And if this cannot be done for whatever reason to support both the GPS ammo types in the field and onboard data targeting packages mounted to the M777A2, CAESAR, G9 etc. etc. then should we not reassess the artillery penalty system. I personally think as is now it should be reduced by 1/3. This is a combined arms game to my mind no different then TACTICS II, RED STAR/WHITE STAR, COMBAT LEADER, PANZER LEADER, PANZERBLITZ, AFRIKA KORPS, AXIS & ALLIES or many others I've played in the past. The ROE for arty is just too strict. I can see it if weapons like EXCALIBUR could be modeled as the below will show; you'd have a one shot kill opportunity against even heavy armor in essence. Even the engine that drives the AI recognizes the value of artillery in it's armor heavy mindset. Very VERY RARELY have I played game against the AI where I didn't face an opening barrage at the start of a battle and I'd have nothing to answer back with or support my troops with on the advance (Or tactical retreat to regroup of course ;).) just my thoughts on the matter for what it's worth.

Taken from Post #46 from the SP/SPAA Thread...
From Raytheon:
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities...cts/excalibur/
http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2517

From the ARMY of interest focus on all but, especially Slides 7 and 9:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012annual_psr/Milner.pdf


In the field already (EXCALIBUR 1b) and with U2 providing the music how can you go wrong-feelin better already!! Please note the target distances in the upper right corner of the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNCUeItvovs

Regards,
Pat

Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

Wouldn't this affect the accuracy of BOTH forces? and ALL arty not just the "Excalibur" armed unit?

P.S. Cool Video :)

Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

shahadi
Andy's comment would work but ONLY for an on-map, direct-fire, line-of-sight weapon. ATGMs can't be fired from off-map.

FASTBOAT
As scorpio_rocks said that would effect ALL mortars and artillery on the force you set to 100% (or even 240%) not just one specific type.

One thing that might work...sorta...would be to create a new type of aircraft with laser-guided bombs.
But:
A) There are lots aircraft like that in the OOBs already.
B) If no aircraft are allocated in the game preferences then you couldn't buy any.
C) You have no control over the specific target aircraft fire at.

So short of a game engine rewrite, not bloody likely, I can't think of any way to implement them.

Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

You can continue to experiment with adjusted setting....who knows you might find a combination that does, more or less, what you are looking for, BUT....

Indirect arty scatter is hard coded. You are never going to get an entire barrage landing in the same hex which I *assume* you are trying to simulate with these munitions

This was a game design decision made years ago. Remember each hex is 50 meters. Even in WW2 a 25 pounder battery could EASILY put every round in a 50 meter area with direct observation but we scatter the fire to spread it around far less accurately than would be the case in real life to spread the affect of arty over a wider area so instead of all arty landing in one hex it's spread out over 3 or 4 which we judge works best in the game

Don

Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

This is related to the M777 discussion in that while trialing Excalibur settings in Mobhack I noted the M777 VT, slot 233. So, is the M777 VT munition a proximity fuze or as alternately described a variable timed, hence VT fuze or even an airburst fuze. If so, then the damage model in our game should resemble that of an FAE munition with blast graphics of an airburst rather than ground impacts.

Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

Depends shahadi.
I actually was an FO when I was on active duty, and while air bursts (VT) are GREAT vs troops or unarmored vehicles in the open they're much less effective vs dug-in anything or armored vehicles.
You need both available.

The in-game artillery generally represents a mix of impact-detonating and timed-detonating simply because the majority of players don't know (or care) about the difference.

Yes, the US, USMC, and British OOBs (and maybe a few others) have full VT artillery available, but if you look at it's stats it has less penetration then "normal" artillery. And frankly from experience I don't find it worth the extra cost (yes the VT units are quite a bit more expensive) to buy VT, but that's my opinion.

I'd much rather see some delayed-impact artillery because it would (at least in reality) be a lot more effective vs fortifications then the current game artillery is. But again, the standard game artillery is a compromise for the sake of playability/simplicity.

Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

Yes, and that brought it to my attention that the VT, slot 233 has the same AP and HE penetration as the FH and RA, however, the HE kill of the VT is twice that of the other two in game munitions. What am I missing here?

Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

I stand corrected, seems the values were changed since last time I looked (yeah, yeah I know...LOOK don't REMEMBER).
Seems VT "just" has 2x the HE Kill of regular now, at a 33% cost increase (30 vs 40).
Damage in WinSPMBT is a factor of Warhead Size, HE Pen, HE Kill (or AP Pen and AP Kill when appropriate) and only Don/Andy have the formulas (and from some things I've heard about the code even they may not know the EXACT formula).
Nevertheless, so you're suggesting that we make ALL artillery/mortars in the game 33% more expensive?
How about we just get rid of VT instead, a lot easier.

Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

No I am only suggesting that the VT munitions graphic in our game should be that of an airbust not a ground impact as it is now.

Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

The only "airburst" graphic that I'm aware of is the one used for MLRS (one of you graphic guru's can correct me if I'm wrong) and it covers a large area rather then the current "one shellburst" graphic used for artillery.

Not even sure how the game could possibly know to use an alternate graphic for VT ammo as I believe the one for MLRS is tied to it's "Weapon Class", 14, and all 155mm artillery is Weapon Class 7.

Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

The original VT battery I did by nature of an experiment way back in the DOS days (it was in the UK OOB) - had the cluster graphic, nil or 1 AP pen, and an upgraded HE kill. I think it had to be the same weapon class as HE cluster MRLS. That all seems to have drifted away as the OOBs got updated.

Quite frankly, nobody used the VT batteries, not even me - and I started the idea off!. They are for punching grunts and most SPMBT warfare is high intensity armoured warfare where you want the HE pen. and IIRC, they were rather expensive as they were cluster ammo?.

So probably the best thing to do is to delete the pesky things - less maintenance and all...

Andy

Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

VT is a part of the game and the AI is not as predictable as some seem to think. I don't know if I see more of that because my campaigns tend to run from 19, 21, 23, 25...to 31 games/battles in length; but I'll probably see 2 infantry heavy battles in what's my normal range for a campaign of 19-23 battles. VT for modern armies still exists just by different names and mode of operations to include the modern EXCALIBUR as shown in the You Tube video already provided. Below is a portion of the ref that follows from Dec. 1988 which was a very important transitional year and time period for U.S. artillery. So what did in the traditional VT fuze? The XM773 MOFA fuze. You might not like it and think it to expensive bu in the case of the second a recalculation might be required for the era of the mid-nineties to present based on the below and already submitted refs provided for EXCALIBUR (This includes Russia, UK, FRANCE, GERMANY etc. etc. yeah it's getting ugly fast. From Page 65 of the ref. below.
"XM773 MOFA fuze
The XM773 MOFA will perform four fuze actions now provided by several fuses used with burster-type projectiles. It will provide up to a 199.9-second electronic time fuze, a variable-height proximity fuze, a delay function and a penetrator for up to 12 inches of mortared brick. It will be compatible with all fielded and developmental bursting projectiles for the 105-mm, 155-mm and 203-mm howitzers.

The Field Artillery currently uses 17 different fuze types and models. The XM773 multi-option fuze artillery (MOFA) will reduce this number to two, easing our logistical and operational problems. (MINE: Logistics is also MILSPEAK for MONEY also. For EXCALIBUR they just flat out say it's cheaper.)

The MOFA will replace the following fuzes: mechanical time super quick (MTSQ) M564, M582, M557, M739 and M739A1; proximity (VT)
M513, M514, M728 and M732;and electronic time M767. Fielding for the MOFA should begin in the middle of FY 97."

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


Now let's get current...
http://www.pica.army.mil/picatinnypu...products19.asp
You might find the "About Us" section useful as well.

Regards,
Pat

Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

I agree 100%, just get rid of them.

CM munitions cover what VT does pretty darn well and the cost is similar, and with CM you always have the option to fire normal shells.

You could add CM to everyone to represent VT, but that would be a LOT of work.
Or maybe increase the HE Kill ratings of artillery after a certain date to represent the availability of advanced VT fuses, again a LOT of work.
The easy, smart, option would be to not mess with it and just assume artillery automatically uses various ammo types and that's built into the current artillery stats.

Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

VERY ugly.
Researching and updating 92 OOBs would be akin to cleaning the Augean stables in the Labors of Hercules.

Fortunately for Andy and Don's sanity WinSPMBT doesn't, and can't deal with such things as fuses except in VERY abstract terms.
Trying to include Copperhead, laser/GPS guided, VT, illumination, chemical, etc. etc. while a GREAT boost to game "realism" would be impossible.
As I mentioned above someone could perhaps research when VT becomes readily available for each nation represented in the OOBs and increase HE Kill ratings to represent it. But I'm sure not gonna volunteer.

Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

VT Fuzes have been used extensively since WWII with the British leading the way with first their AA weapons. For the U.S. it would be the USN leading the way with wide spread use by 1942 with shore bombardment and AA use. The first real use in the USA to any extent was at the Battle of the Bulge were Pattons quote in the first ref. below is related to. Over 22 Million VT fuzes would be used by the U.S. alone in WWII. This does not include the ones used by the UK, Germany and Russia. The "dumb" artillery shell pretty died with the end of WWII. You want a ground impact shell then you set one of the variety (This means many types thus more expensive to use. VT fuzed shells to that purpose. Very simple to do just not cheap! The 50's but more importantly the 60's with advances in technology would improve performance and consolidation (Meaning multi-purpose adjustable VT fuzed shells.) with again the affect being...you're correct lower cost because your reducing manufacturing requirements, labor and logistics (Money.). The 80's and more importantly the 90's would see the greatest impact and in regards to R&D the field an increase in the functionality of the VT fuze mostly in performance. Again doing what? Reducing cost of operations as described above. In my last post how many fuzes were replaced by the M787 fuze? About 9 I believe from memory. Perspective: My uncle after a career in the USA worked at the Picatinny Arsenal until about the mid 80's at that time I believe he said they had around a thousand employees that number is less than 450 now-see the website in my last the one I recommended if you looked at it said check out the "About Us" section. By the way that's where the EXCALIBUR is made. Does anyone see the trend here? The biggest advances came in the 2000+ era. To where we and others have EXCALIBUR now: and I've already posted in here on the cost reductions concerning it in this thread from the USA to include by extension the USMC.

What are we left with...

1) VT is nothing more then a "term" to describe a type of and family of fuzes used today and in the past (i.e. India started developing their own in the mid-60's.) and has been in widespread use since post WWII and certainly by the 60's in widespread practice. The height adjustment allows for very effective targeting of troops, soft targets (Transport, AA/SPAA, FH/SPA and CB ops.

2) The artillery cost calculus is flawed; the fuze family has gotten much smaller therefore the cost of artillery should progressively be reduced over the decades at least from the point of the mid to late 90's (Or simply 2000.) to present at minimum. Even in CM we're seeing a major reduction in the number of munitions required to be carried onboard a shell because todays munitions are much more effective now than say COPPERHEAD was in it's day. For game play CM works fine on the board but as pointed when last this was a hot topic it is much more effective in terms of coverage then modeled in the game. But again CM is good in my opinion overall for what it's worth. We need to find a lesser cost amount something in the 3/4 area of current cost. CM arty is good as is. VT as I've said is not a specialized round it's an adjustable fuze type on all shells therefore VT should not be in the same price range as CM arty all your getting is a shell set for an airburst.

3) A more realistic cost approach is to attach organic supply units to all artillery as is done in real life. I'm not saying for all types as most off-map arty has sufficient rounds assigned to it to get through even very difficult games but certainly on-map ones should be modeled this way. A mortar platoon would be supported by at least 1 or 2 ammo carriers. SPA/FH for decades has had it's own dedicated organic supply unit like the FAASV or the Prime mover for FH arty which also should be assigned to each FH unit. Real life in this segment is the true cost equalizer. And the beauty of it is all the equipment is already in the game.

4) This arty penalty issue I wish would go away, however, I feel it's here to stay. I think it should still be reduced by 1/4 min. from current levels and maybe by 1/2 if we go real world.

5. I really don't like some of what I see about the AI. When I have time play and much more so in the past the AI can be a tough opponent. It'll take armor or infantry through areas that have already been "pacified" (Or so I thought.) and the next thing I know I've got flags belonging to the enemy well behind my lines, or use airmobile troops later in the game assaulting my rear area flags. Except to get used to the game mechanics for a handful games I always played against it at the hardest level with other adjustments made for a higher level of challenge.

6. This is the core issue also that ties in here with the AI. Where this notion that the AI won't buy this or that because "it costs too much..." is false. My first battle in my campaign SWEDEN vs. RUSSIA I saw the new T-72B3 on the board we just got in the game this year (Again Don looks good and performed very well in combat.) but I think the revelation here is that; yes the AI likes armor however I generally see a good mix and it likes mech troops and here's the kicker a fair amount of arty as well. And this is really my main problem with the arty penalty; the AI is getting hit with it as well (And mind you I had no artillery of any kind.) and quite frankly I see a degradation in the types of units I'm playing against in later in a campaign. It feels like it's getting away from some of its core force make up just a personal observation. This is why I hope some consideration will again be given to 3 and 4 above. I want the AI to play hard the penalty is hurting it's ability to do so.
http://pages.jh.edu/~jhumag/0400web/10.html
http://www.inert-ord.net/usa03a/usa6/fuzes/index.html

Well I'm going to enjoy my delayed Fathers Day at a nice restaurant with the family soon so have a great evening!

Regards,
Pat

Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

Getting rid of the VT munition opens up another slot, and that in my mind is a good thing.

Generally, I approach the Mobhack and OOBS with the idea of what can I do to simulate munitions that I need for a scenario. What the AI has to work with is frankly, not really of concern to me, as I take the people supporting and researching OOBS and the game's TO&E do a really good job.

Now, I thought the Excalibur has increased range over the FH shells but more importantly, that munition is GPS guided. We really do not need "eyes on target," either a FOO, a UAV, or some other FO vehicle with GPS classed munitions as the Excalibur in real life. I am researching the impact of increased Artillery Command of unit and formation leaders, and crew experience to 255. Thus far, it appears to have improved accuracy without a spotting unit.

However, after reviewing the comments here, I am not confident GPS munitions would enhance the gameplay. So, I strapped a Maverick AGM65L, air to surface, accuracy 115, in the M777. The result was much improved accuracy over the FH munitions without a FO.

The M777 FH munition with ROF at 5 scatters rounds all about a target, rarely hitting the intended HEX without "eyes on." However, accuracy improves dramatically with a FO, and incrementally more with increased experience of the spotting unit.

What I am getting at, it is possible for a designer, and that is my focus, to modify weapons to affect certain desired results. In the case of the Maverick it is far too lethal for a GPS munition Excalibur, but a guy could modify the OOB (not what I like to do) reducing the HE kill, range, and WH, and changing the name to something other than AGM65L Maverick as he releases a scenario.

Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

My understanding as well, but as you pointed out India didn't really get "smart" artillery till it started making their own in the 60s. While a good many nations buy artillery itself from whoever is selling, a fair number manufacture their own ammunition because it's cheaper then buying. And this the stickler.

WinSPMBT unit costs have basically nothing to do with real money costs. It's a measure of relative value vs other units in the game.
Since players have a birds eye view of the playing field they can see smoke/dust from firing/moving units and use indirect fire/aircraft to much better effect then reality normally allows. For this reason certain "game balance" features have been incorporated into the design and most importantly game engine updates.
While they ARE annoying to those of us that "play fair" they're needed to "reign in" that ever present minority that don't let little things like reality influence them, then complain LOUDLY the game is broken.

100% correct, but unfortunately the AI has absolutely no clue what to do with ammo resupply units. This is why they're never included in default formations. Players however can buy and use them correctly and to great effect.
And even here some updates to the game code have been needed; once upon a time it was possible for a helo to hover over an ammo resupply unit and have unlimited ammo, these days they need to land to rearm. Again, not something those that "play fair" are really bothered by, but it was another point the minority used to claim the game was broken and unplayable.

The AI won't generally buy expensive unit types WHEN THE SCENARIO POINT TOTAL IS SET LOW, say 2500 points.
Since I like to field an entire MEU I set the scenario limit to 50,000 points, thus I see the AI field mostly of "first line" unit types. Or when playing vs infantry centric opponents (PLO, Mujaheddin) hordes of infantry that would make Chinese proud.

Unless you're playing a player-made campaign the AI doesn't have a "Core Force", it buys entirely new units at the start of each and every battle.

Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
 

While Excalibur can hit the living room of a house 20 miles away someone still has to have had some sort of "eyes on target" or you have no idea if the living room you want to hit is in house #1, #2, or #3.

This is true for any/all indirect fire.

That's the advantage/power of the editor.
While you can't modify individual weapon stats with the editor you can use any existing weapon to represent whatever you desire. You can also use existing weapons from ANY OOB (that specific unit must however use ONLY weapons from that specific OOB).