.com.unity Forums
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)
-   TO&Es (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=108)
-   -   Usmc oob (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=50382)

sammy1339 July 27th, 2014 01:48 PM
Usmc oob
 
After not playing the game for a couple years I decided to come back and play the campaign "5th Marines 1967" again, which kind of stumped me the first time. I was a little disappointed to find that version 8.0 had introduced some unimprovements into the USMC units.

- The most egregious was that the M202 66 mm flame rocket was available starting in 1967. While this did make the game vastly easier for me, I looked it up and found that this weapon was not introduced until 1978! Flamethrowers also disappear at the same time, which is incorrect. Marine units with the M202 in the 1960's include 379, 382, and 418. I didn't check the USA file.

- Although it's only cosmetic, the ordinary M16 rifle (used from 1962-1967) has disappeared, being replaced by the M16A1/A2. There's also an instantaneous change from the M14 to the M16, which is definitely not accurate. The M16 was gradually phased in.

- I find it really weird that all M16-equipped rifle squads until 1968 (unit #369) use the Stoner 63 as a SAW. This weapon was fielded only in very limited numbers, mostly with SEALs if I'm not mistaken. I'm pretty sure the marines used the M60 machinegun in this role, as was the case in earlier OOB's. I've noticed there are no more infantry squads with M60's.

- This is more of a gripe than anything, but I was a bit disappointed to find that the M40 sniper rifle had an accuracy of 40. Snipers in this game are already a good replacement for entire infantry squads as well as scouts, and are definitely not in need of improvement. I also looked at other OOB's and found that their snipers have not improved. Do we really believe that the M40 sniper rifle is significantly superior to similar Russian weapons? Even if you think that the US rifles have better optics (debatable, especially for the Vietnam era) this should be reflected in "Fire Control," right?

There were also good changes, such as that the M728's 165 mm gun actually fires HESH rounds now, but it seems like a lot of things were changed to make them less historically accurate than in previous versions.

sammy1339 July 27th, 2014 02:41 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
AH-1G Cobra is also available from 1/1967. It should probably be 1/1968.

Suhiir July 27th, 2014 03:02 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammy1339 (Post 825433)
- The most egregious was that the M202 66 mm flame rocket was available starting in 1967. While this did make the game vastly easier for me, I looked it up and found that this weapon was not introduced until 1978! Flamethrowers also disappear at the same time, which is incorrect. Marine units with the M202 in the 1960's include 379, 382, and 418. I didn't check the USA file.
I'll deal with these one at a time for the sake of simplicity.

"The M202 series of launchers was developed in the late 1960s as a replacement for the individual portable flamethrower in the US Army. The weapon was designed to provide the infantryman with a better means of neutralizing or destroying enemy gun emplacements and fortified positions. Initially, the complete system consisting of the XM202 launcher and a clip of 4 XM74 rockets, plus other associated equipment and additional ammunition, was designated as the XM191 Multi-Shot Portable Flame Weapon (MPFW). The US Army and the US Marine Corps both evaluated the XM191 system, including field testing in Southeast Asia by the USMC between July and October 1969. The decision to develop additional types of rockets, including the M96 rocket, led to the dropping of the complete system designation XM191 and the usage of the launcher designation and specific rocket designations separately."

I can tell you with 100% certainty the M202 was not introduced in the USMC as late as 1978 because I was in the USMC in 1974 and we had them. Now it's possible (and probable) the US Army didn't get them till 1978.


While July 1969 (see above) is NOT 1967 in many cases weapon introduction dates in WInSPMBT are "tweaked" a bit to coincide with changes to unit "standard" OOB and/or weapons and more importantly picklist "start"/"end" dates.

The older "flame thrower" was removed for the same reason any weapon is, simplicity and overall unit count. While the game can support multiple weapons that perform the same function it's FAR simpler and easier to phase one out when another phases in. Look at tank upgrades. In most cases one day BAM all tanks in an OOB suddenly upgrade to a new model.

Suhiir July 27th, 2014 03:17 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammy1339 (Post 825433)
- Although it's only cosmetic, the ordinary M16 rifle (used from 1962-1967) has disappeared, being replaced by the M16A1/A2. There's also an instantaneous change from the M14 to the M16, which is definitely not accurate. The M16 was gradually phased in.

- I find it really weird that all M16-equipped rifle squads until 1968 (unit #369) use the Stoner 63 as a SAW. This weapon was fielded only in very limited numbers, mostly with SEALs if I'm not mistaken. I'm pretty sure the marines used the M60 machinegun in this role, as was the case in earlier OOB's. I've noticed there are no more infantry squads with M60's.
Since (except for one experimental battalion) the USMC as a whole didn't adopt the M16 until 1967 there was no real reason to include the M16/AR15 as opposed to the M16A1.

If you look at the OOB you see the M16 appearing as early as 1963 (unit# 369) and the M14 around until 1970 (unit# 358).

The Stoner 63 was used as part of that experimental battalion I mentioned earlier and NOT used anywhere else in the USMC (they simply gave "automatic riflemen" a bipod (99% of whom threw them away) and a few extra 20-round magazines (since the 30-round ones didn't exist at the time).
If you're playing a pre-built scenario it's up to the scenario designer to select the units used in it. Don't assume ANY scenario represents "typical" units of the period.

Suhiir July 27th, 2014 03:21 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
P.S.
The USMC most definitely did NOT use the M60 in the SAW role like the US Army did, that was explicitly removed from the OOB with the revision.

Suhiir July 27th, 2014 03:32 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammy1339 (Post 825433)
- This is more of a gripe than anything, but I was a bit disappointed to find that the M40 sniper rifle had an accuracy of 40. Snipers in this game are already a good replacement for entire infantry squads as well as scouts, and are definitely not in need of improvement. I also looked at other OOB's and found that their snipers have not improved. Do we really believe that the M40 sniper rifle is significantly superior to similar Russian weapons? Even if you think that the US rifles have better optics (debatable, especially for the Vietnam era) this should be reflected in "Fire Control," right?
If you check other OOBs you'll see the standard "sniper rifle" is accuracy 30, range 15 vice the M40's accuracy 40, range 18. So it most definitely is a significant improvement.
The M40 wasn't introduced until 1966 (at the same time the USMC re-eatablished official "sniper" units having dropped them after WW II) and yes, they did and do replace the "scout" teams typically used until that time. Because scouting IS their primary function not "sniping".
As to optics that's built in (46-53 vision 0, 53-65 vision 5, 66-69 vision 10, etc.), you'll note the "fire control" of the average USMC sniper in the game is "professional quality" (10) vice 0 or 5 as for other OOBs.

Suhiir July 27th, 2014 03:36 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammy1339 (Post 825433)
There were also good changes, such as that the M728's 165 mm gun actually fires HESH rounds now, but it seems like a lot of things were changed to make them less historically accurate than in previous versions.
Good point!
This is one I overlooked.
I don't have access to the exact weapon formulas used in the game, Don, Andy, what should the stats for a 165mm HESH round be?

Suhiir July 27th, 2014 03:47 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammy1339 (Post 825436)
AH-1G Cobra is also available from 1/1967. It should probably be 1/1968.
Look up "Marines and Helicopters 1962-1973" by the History and Museums Division, US Marine Corps. The first AH-1 arrived in Vietnam 29 Aug 1967.
Again the date was "tweaked" a bit to coincide with the picklists used. Originally I had one three times as large as the one currently used in the game, and for a change Don and I agreed on something, that was insane.

Suhiir July 27th, 2014 03:53 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
If you have other concerns/questions feel free to post them. I love well considered/documented criticism and since I had the privilege of being allowed to rebuild the USMC OOB I get to save Don the headaches and frustration of answering most questions concerning it.

DRG July 27th, 2014 07:32 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir (Post 825441)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammy1339 (Post 825433)
There were also good changes, such as that the M728's 165 mm gun actually fires HESH rounds now, but it seems like a lot of things were changed to make them less historically accurate than in previous versions.
Good point!
This is one I overlooked.
I don't have access to the exact weapon formulas used in the game, Don, Andy, what should the stats for a 165mm HESH round be?

As you say in post #9, you're the author of this OOB so you get to answer the questions. The quote in the first part acknowledges that the 165mm gun fired HESH rounds and that we have it set up as a HESH gun. This was done for winSPMBT v7 so that is a year and a half old news now and when it was changed to a HESH weapon in 2013 the specs were changed from what was there previously when it was set up as WC#7.

That said, the HESH issue is secondary to the main point of that paragraph and this is
Quote:
"a lot of things were changed to make them less historically accurate than in previous versions"
and that comment is ALL YOURS to deal with as it has nothing to do with adding HESH to the game in 2013

However I will confirm that some things *may* be off by a year or two as all the factors that make up picklists were taken into account. Right now the USMC picklist is the most complicated picklist in the game but it could have been at least twice the size it is now to accommodate all the little nit picking details like EXACTLY when weapons went in and out of service and the decision was made to pare it down to a more manageable size.

The first question I'd ask Sammy1339 is how long he served in the USMC and just where he " looked up " the info for the M202


Don

Suhiir July 27th, 2014 08:18 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRG (Post 825446)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir (Post 825441)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammy1339 (Post 825433)
There were also good changes, such as that the M728's 165 mm gun actually fires HESH rounds now, but it seems like a lot of things were changed to make them less historically accurate than in previous versions.
Good point!
This is one I overlooked.
I don't have access to the exact weapon formulas used in the game, Don, Andy, what should the stats for a 165mm HESH round be?

As you say in post #9, you're the author of this OOB so you get to answer the questions. The quote in the first part acknowledges that the 165mm gun fired HESH rounds and that we have it set up as a HESH gun. This was done for winSPMBT v7 so that is a year and a half old news now and when it was changed to a HESH weapon in 2013 the specs were changed from what was there previously when it was set up as WC#7.

That said, the HESH issue is secondary to the main point of that paragraph and this is

Don
Once again I stand corrected the 165mm round is HESH.
I really need to learn to look before i type someday ... don't hold your breath.

Suhiir July 27th, 2014 08:31 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRG (Post 825446)
However I will confirm that some things *may* be off by a year or two as all the factors that make up picklists were taken into account. Right now the USMC picklist is the most complicated picklist in the game but it could have been at least twice the size it is now to accommodate all the little nit picking details like EXACTLY when weapons went in and out of service and the decision was made to pare it down to a more manageable size.

The first question I'd ask Sammy1339 is how long he served in the USMC and just where he " looked up " the info for the M202


Don
I'll state flat-out some things will be off by up to two years because when I did the picklists I decided that unless there was an overriding reason NONE of them would cover less then 5 years and in 90% of the cases I chose to have weapons and equipment become available early rather then late.
Most major things (tanks, aircraft, etc.) aren't available till their "proper" time-frame but a good many minor things (such as the M202) got fit in to the picklist nearest their real deployment date.

DRG July 28th, 2014 10:42 AM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir (Post 825438)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammy1339 (Post 825433)
- Although it's only cosmetic, the ordinary M16 rifle (used from 1962-1967) has disappeared, being replaced by the M16A1/A2. There's also an instantaneous change from the M14 to the M16, which is definitely not accurate. The M16 was gradually phased in.

- I find it really weird that all M16-equipped rifle squads until 1968 (unit #369) use the Stoner 63 as a SAW. This weapon was fielded only in very limited numbers, mostly with SEALs if I'm not mistaken. I'm pretty sure the marines used the M60 machinegun in this role, as was the case in earlier OOB's. I've noticed there are no more infantry squads with M60's.
Since (except for one experimental battalion) the USMC as a whole didn't adopt the M16 until 1967 there was no real reason to include the M16/AR15 as opposed to the M16A1.

If you look at the OOB you see the M16 appearing as early as 1963 (unit# 369) and the M14 around until 1970 (unit# 358).

I'm going to jump in here one last time then let Suhiir handle this.

It all very well to ***** about changes to the OOBs ( it's almost a "sport" played better by some than others........ ) but it does nothing for your credibility to complain about something when 2 MINUTES ( max ) with the tools we provide disprove a "theory". Case in point

Quote:

.......There's also an instantaneous change from the M14 to the M16
:doh:

Suhiir has addressed this but I will follow up on it..........maybe some of you reading this will learn something and not make the same mistake

-Open up MOBHack

- Click on "File" at the top left

- When the menu opens up click on " Database check utilities"

- Click on the "Weapons check" tab

- Find "M14 Rifle" ( weapon 14 )......... and this is what you will see

users of weapon ID 7 M14 Rifle:
243 - MEU HQ - uClass 055 : slot 1 - Available 07/058 to 12/066
328 - Recon Scouts - uClass 101 : slot 1 - Available 07/057 to 08/065
352 - Recon Team - uClass 098 : slot 1 - Available 07/057 to 08/065
358 - USMC Rifle Sqd - uClass 110 : slot 1 - Available 01/062 to 12/070
359 - USMC Rifle Sqd - uClass 110 : slot 1 - Available 01/062 to 12/070
361 - USMC Rifle Sqd - uClass 110 : slot 1 - Available 07/058 to 12/061
371 - USMC Rifle Sqd - uClass 110 : slot 1 - Available 07/058 to 12/061
378 - USMC Engr Team - uClass 020 : slot 1 - Available 07/058 to 12/070
381 - USMC Engr Sqd - uClass 171 : slot 1 - Available 07/058 to 12/070
391 - USMC Scout Team - uClass 241 : slot 1 - Available 07/058 to 12/070
451 - Bunker Squad - uClass 000 : slot 1 - Available 07/058 to 12/066
455 - Shelter Bunker - uClass 000 : slot 1 - Available 07/058 to 12/066
541 - Foxholes MMG - uClass 000 : slot 1 - Available 07/058 to 12/066
678 - Bunker HMG - uClass 000 : slot 1 - Available 07/058 to 12/066
745 - SEAL Pathfinder - uClass 088 : slot 1 - Available 07/062 to 05/068
760 - USMC Rifle Sqd - uClass 110 : slot 1 - Available 07/058 to 12/061
767 - USMC Rifle Sqd - uClass 110 : slot 1 - Available 01/062 to 12/070
785 - USMC Fire Team - uClass 112 : slot 1 - Available 07/058 to 12/070
811 - USMC Fire Team - uClass 240 : slot 1 - Available 07/058 to 12/061
812 - USMC Fire Team - uClass 240 : slot 1 - Available 01/062 to 12/070
826 - USMC Fire Team - uClass 240 : slot 1 - Available 07/058 to 12/061
836 - USMC Fire Team - uClass 240 : slot 1 - Available 01/062 to 12/070
892 - USMC Fwd Obsr - uClass 243 : slot 1 - Available 07/058 to 12/066
976 - Foxholes Squad - uClass 000 : slot 1 - Available 07/058 to 12/066


and from that it can be clearly seen that the M14 is finally phased out at the end of 1970 in this OOB and that there are NOT ONE but NINE units that carry that weapon until the end of 1970

Then we look at the M16A1/A2 Rifle ( weapon #8 ) and find this:

users of weapon ID 8 M16A1/A2 Rifle:
223 - USMC Fwd Obsr - uClass 243 : slot 1 - Available 01/086 to 12/090
224 - USMC Fwd Obsr - uClass 243 : slot 1 - Available 01/067 to 12/074
231 - USMC Fwd Obsr - uClass 243 : slot 1 - Available 01/091 to 12/094
241 - MEU HQ - uClass 055 : slot 1 - Available 01/086 to 12/105
244 - MEU HQ - uClass 055 : slot 1 - Available 01/067 to 12/075
245 - MEU HQ - uClass 055 : slot 1 - Available 01/076 to 12/085
308 - USMC Fwd Obsr - uClass 243 : slot 1 - Available 01/095 to 12/120
327 - Recon Sct/Engr - uClass 141 : slot 1 - Available 09/065 to 12/074
331 - Recon FO/FAC - uClass 229 : slot 1 - Available 01/090 to 03/103
333 - Recon Engr Sec - uClass 141 : slot 1 - Available 01/098 to 03/103
338 - Recon FO/FAC - uClass 229 : slot 1 - Available 01/086 to 12/089
341 - Recon Team - uClass 098 : slot 1 - Available 01/086 to 12/097
346 - Recon Team - uClass 101 : slot 1 - Available 01/098 to 03/103
347 - Recon Team - uClass 098 : slot 1 - Available 01/098 to 03/103
350 - Recon Team - uClass 101 : slot 1 - Available 09/065 to 12/074
351 - Recon Team - uClass 098 : slot 1 - Available 09/065 to 12/074
362 - USMC Rifle Sqd - uClass 110 : slot 1 - Available 01/067 to 12/071
363 - USMC Rifle Sqd - uClass 110 : slot 1 - Available 01/072 to 12/085
364 - USMC Rifle Sqd - uClass 110 : slot 1 - Available 01/086 to 12/102
369 - USMC Rifle Sqd - uClass 110 : slot 1 - Available 01/063 to 12/067
372 - USMC Rifle Sqd - uClass 110 : slot 1 - Available 01/067 to 12/071
379 - USMC Engr Team - uClass 020 : slot 1 - Available 01/067 to 12/085
382 - USMC Engr Sqd - uClass 171 : slot 1 - Available 01/067 to 12/071
383 - USMC Engr Sqd - uClass 171 : slot 1 - Available 01/072 to 12/085
384 - USMC Engr Sqd - uClass 171 : slot 1 - Available 01/086 to 03/103
386 - USMC Engr Team - uClass 020 : slot 1 - Available 01/086 to 03/103
387 - USMC Engr Team - uClass 020 : slot 1 - Available 04/103 to 12/105
389 - USMC Engr Sqd - uClass 171 : slot 1 - Available 04/103 to 12/105
392 - USMC Scout Team - uClass 241 : slot 1 - Available 01/067 to 12/071
393 - USMC Scout Team - uClass 241 : slot 1 - Available 01/072 to 12/085
394 - USMC Scout Team - uClass 241 : slot 1 - Available 01/086 to 12/102
397 - USMC Scout Team - uClass 241 : slot 1 - Available 01/103 to 12/105
452 - Bunker Squad - uClass 000 : slot 1 - Available 01/067 to 12/085
453 - Bunker Squad - uClass 000 : slot 1 - Available 01/086 to 12/105
456 - Shelter Bunker - uClass 000 : slot 1 - Available 01/067 to 12/105
542 - Foxholes MMG - uClass 000 : slot 1 - Available 01/067 to 12/085
543 - Foxholes MMG - uClass 000 : slot 1 - Available 01/086 to 12/105
679 - Bunker HMG - uClass 000 : slot 1 - Available 01/067 to 12/085
680 - Bunker HMG - uClass 000 : slot 1 - Available 01/086 to 12/105
732 - SEAL Fire Team - uClass 145 : slot 1 - Available 01/091 to 03/103
735 - SEAL Squad - uClass 145 : slot 1 - Available 07/064 to 12/071
736 - SEAL Squad - uClass 145 : slot 1 - Available 01/072 to 12/080
737 - SEAL Squad - uClass 145 : slot 1 - Available 01/081 to 12/085
738 - SEAL Fire Team - uClass 145 : slot 1 - Available 01/086 to 12/090
740 - SEAL Squad - uClass 145 : slot 1 - Available 07/064 to 12/071
741 - SEAL Squad - uClass 145 : slot 1 - Available 01/072 to 12/080
742 - SEAL Squad - uClass 145 : slot 1 - Available 01/081 to 12/085
743 - SEAL Fire Team - uClass 145 : slot 1 - Available 01/086 to 03/103
746 - SEAL Pathfinder - uClass 088 : slot 1 - Available 06/068 to 12/085
747 - SEAL Pathfinder - uClass 088 : slot 1 - Available 01/086 to 12/102
761 - USMC Rifle Sqd - uClass 110 : slot 1 - Available 01/063 to 12/067
762 - USMC Rifle Sqd - uClass 110 : slot 1 - Available 01/067 to 12/071
763 - USMC Rifle Sqd - uClass 110 : slot 1 - Available 01/072 to 12/085
764 - USMC Rifle Sqd - uClass 110 : slot 1 - Available 01/086 to 12/105
768 - USMC Rifle Sqd - uClass 110 : slot 1 - Available 01/103 to 12/105
789 - USMC Fire Team - uClass 112 : slot 1 - Available 01/072 to 12/085
790 - USMC Fire Team - uClass 112 : slot 1 - Available 01/086 to 12/102
791 - USMC Fire Team - uClass 112 : slot 1 - Available 01/103 to 12/105
806 - USMC Fire Team - uClass 112 : slot 1 - Available 01/063 to 12/067
807 - USMC Fire Team - uClass 112 : slot 1 - Available 01/067 to 12/071
813 - USMC Fire Team - uClass 112 : slot 1 - Available 01/067 to 12/071
814 - USMC Fire Team - uClass 112 : slot 1 - Available 01/072 to 12/085
816 - USMC Fire Team - uClass 112 : slot 1 - Available 01/103 to 12/105
821 - USMC Fire Team - uClass 112 : slot 1 - Available 01/103 to 12/105
824 - USMC Fire Team - uClass 240 : slot 1 - Available 01/086 to 12/102
827 - USMC Fire Team - uClass 240 : slot 1 - Available 01/072 to 12/085
829 - USMC Fire Team - uClass 240 : slot 1 - Available 01/103 to 12/105
830 - USMC Fire Team - uClass 240 : slot 1 - Available 01/103 to 12/105
833 - USMC Fire Team - uClass 240 : slot 1 - Available 01/063 to 12/067
834 - USMC Fire Team - uClass 240 : slot 1 - Available 01/067 to 12/071
835 - USMC Fire Team - uClass 112 : slot 1 - Available 01/086 to 12/102
893 - USMC Fwd Obsr - uClass 243 : slot 1 - Available 01/075 to 12/085
977 - Foxholes Squad - uClass 000 : slot 1 - Available 01/067 to 12/085
978 - Foxholes Squad - uClass 000 : slot 1 - Available 01/086 to 12/105


We have established that the M14 was phased out in this OOB at the end of 1970 and if we carefully count the number of units that carry the M16 before that time you will find two dozen units with the rifle squads accounting for 2 ( 369 - Available 01/063 to 12/067 and 362 - Available 01/067 to 12/071

The tools to check these things are included with the game package and if they are used a lot of questions and misunderstandings can be answered / avoided, such as a "instantaneous change from the M14 to the M16"



Then there are the flamethrowers

users of weapon ID 119 Flamethrower:
111 - Flamethrower - uClass 195 : slot 1 - Available 01/046 to 12/066
121 - Flamethrower - uClass 195 : slot 1 - Available 01/067 to 12/072
377 - USMC Engr Team - uClass 020 : slot 3 - Available 01/046 to 06/058
378 - USMC Engr Team - uClass 020 : slot 3 - Available 07/058 to 12/070
380 - USMC Engr Sqd - uClass 171 : slot 3 - Available 01/046 to 06/058
381 - USMC Engr Sqd - uClass 171 : slot 3 - Available 07/058 to 12/070
407 - Assault Sec - uClass 040 : slot 2 - Available 01/046 to 12/049
408 - Assault Sec - uClass 040 : slot 2 - Available 01/050 to 06/058
409 - Flame/Demo Tm - uClass 244 : slot 1 - Available 01/065 to 12/066

and the M202

users of weapon ID 239 66mm Flame Rckt:
277 - M202 FlashTeam - uClass 195 : slot 1 - Available 01/067 to 12/085
379 - USMC Engr Team - uClass 020 : slot 3 - Available 01/067 to 12/085
382 - USMC Engr Sqd - uClass 171 : slot 3 - Available 01/067 to 12/071
383 - USMC Engr Sqd - uClass 171 : slot 3 - Available 01/072 to 12/085
384 - USMC Engr Sqd - uClass 171 : slot 3 - Available 01/086 to 03/103
386 - USMC Engr Team - uClass 020 : slot 3 - Available 01/086 to 03/103
418 - Flame/Demo Tm - uClass 244 : slot 1 - Available 01/067 to 12/074
889 - M202 FlashTeam - uClass 195 : slot 1 - Available 01/086 to 03/103





66mm Flame Rckt use starts the beginning of 1967 and the infantry flamethrower ends service at the end of 1972 so the assertion that

Quote:

Flamethrowers also disappear at the same time, which is incorrect.
is indeed INCORRECT as the flamethrowers and M202 co-exist for five years in this OOB and there is NO change in the flamethrower end date from the previous version of the USMC OOB ( unit 121 )

As to the date the USMC started using the 66mm Flame Rckt......... I'll let Suhiir deal with that. The previous version of the USMC started those in 1973

Don

sammy1339 July 28th, 2014 12:33 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Clearly I overstated my position, and I didn't realize that there was a conscious decision to fudge dates for the sake of simplicity. Thanks for all the attention you guys have given this. I have to withdraw most of my complaints (although when I referred to instantaneous changes of weapons, I meant for specific units, not all units. But this is a minor point anyway.)

I'd still like to tweak the availability of the M202, pushing its introduction up to 1969 and allowing some of the flamethrower-equipped units to expire later. Even though it's a light weapon I don't think it's that minor a thing: my experience from playing these couple scenarios was that you could take a platoon of unit 382, which has twelve shots of the rockets, and just spray them blindly into the jungle with z-fire, causing extremely high suppression that often makes enemy infantry rout without you ever having seen them, and then still have enough left to bust spider holes and whatnot. It's a pretty enormous improvement over committing half your company to suppressive fire so that you can march a 4-shot flamethrower unit up to 50 meter range under smoke cover, and about a third of the time watch it die instantly (or vainly try to "assault" the hole instead of firing its weapon - but that's a different issue.)

Although it's not really important or a matter of accuracy I'd also like to suggest a small change to the M50 Ontos. The platoon should be divided into two sections, one with three and one with two (and there is already a two-member Ontos section in the OOB.) I'd also really like to see a CS version with more HE rounds, which would better reflect its (de facto) role in Vietnam.

Suhiir July 28th, 2014 02:46 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammy1339 (Post 825454)
...(although when I referred to instantaneous changes of weapons, I meant for specific units, not all units. But this is a minor point anyway.)
There is no way weapon changes for specific units can't be "instantaneous".
Each unit is assigned a "Unit Class", given weapons, and start/end dates (X1 and X2) when it's created. When date X1 comes up that unit, with those weapons becomes available, and on date X2 it ceases to exist.
If there happen to be multiple units, with different weapons, and the exact same "unit Class" and who's start/end date overlap X1 or X2 then you have a choice as to which weapons to use.

You seem to be under the impression weapons are given employment dates and units select the weapons they use. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.

Suhiir July 28th, 2014 02:59 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammy1339 (Post 825454)
I'd still like to tweak the availability of the M202, pushing its introduction up to 1969 and allowing some of the flamethrower-equipped units to expire later. Even though it's a light weapon I don't think it's that minor a thing: my experience from playing these couple scenarios was that you could take a platoon of unit 382, which has twelve shots of the rockets, and just spray them blindly into the jungle with z-fire, causing extremely high suppression that often makes enemy infantry rout without you ever having seen them, and then still have enough left to bust spider holes and whatnot. It's a pretty enormous improvement over committing half your company to suppressive fire so that you can march a 4-shot flamethrower unit up to 50 meter range under smoke cover, and about a third of the time watch it die instantly (or vainly try to "assault" the hole instead of firing its weapon - but that's a different issue.)
While the M202 could (and probably should, I'll look into how difficult that will be) be changed to an introduction date of 01/69 that's ONLY because there just happens to be a new picklist that starts at that date - doing the Vietnam units/picklist was the hardest part of the OOB rebuild.

I have to wonder about something.
If players choose to ignore real-world OOBs and take only the "best" possible units for a scenario (i.e. the famous "Tanks and Snipers" gameplay) What can be done on our end about it?
You are apparently using a LOT more M202s then would ever exist in an infantry company/battalion size formation and say the game is broken because you can do so?

Suhiir July 28th, 2014 03:14 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammy1339 (Post 825454)
Although it's not really important or a matter of accuracy I'd also like to suggest a small change to the M50 Ontos. The platoon should be divided into two sections, one with three and one with two (and there is already a two-member Ontos section in the OOB.) I'd also really like to see a CS version with more HE rounds, which would better reflect its (de facto) role in Vietnam.
While a CS version of the Ontos could be done (and was SERIOUSLY considered) for the reasons you state again it cames back to simplicity.
We have a single specific vehicle with a limited deployment history and an intended role. As it just so happens the battles in one specific part of the world have no real use for a vehicle with that role BUT by changing the ammo loadout of the vehicle it goes from nearly useless to fairly useful (I say "fairly" because the on-board ammo supply of the Ontos is very limited). The total number of units, covering all dates from 01/46 to 12/20 is limited to 999.
Is this vehicle, with that ammo loadout critical the the battles in that part of the world?
My answer was, no.

DRG July 28th, 2014 03:35 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir (Post 825461)
While the M202 could (and probably should, I'll look into how difficult that will be) be changed to an introduction date of 01/69 that's ONLY because there just happens to be a new picklist that starts at that date - doing the Vietnam units/picklist was the hardest part of the OOB rebuild.

FWIW--------- http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...round/m202.htm


Quote:

The M202 series of launchers was developed in the late 1960s as a replacement for the individual portable flamethrower in the US Army. The weapon was designed to provide the infantryman with a better means of neutralizing or destroying enemy gun emplacements and fortified positions. Initially, the complete system consisting of the XM202 launcher and a clip of 4 XM74 rockets, plus other associated equipment and additional ammunition, was designated as the XM191 Multi-Shot Portable Flame Weapon (MPFW). The US Army and the US Marine Corps both evaluated the XM191 system, including field testing in Southeast Asia by the USMC between July and October 1969. The decision to develop additional types of rockets, including the M96 rocket, led to the dropping of the complete system designation XM191 and the usage of the launcher designation and specific rocket designations separately.

Suhiir July 28th, 2014 03:38 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Turns out the M202 issue was far easier to solve then I'd hoped.

Unit#277 M202 FlashTeam - Dates 08/69-12/85
Unit#379 USMC Engr Team - Dates 08/69-12/85
Unit#382 USMC Engr Sqd - Dates 08/69-12/71
Unit#409 Flame/Demo Tm - Dates 01/65-07/69
Unit#418 Flame/Demo Tm - Dates 08/69-12/74

Feel free to make these changes to your OOB.
I'll add them to the next official OOB revision/correction suggestions list I submit.

Suhiir July 28th, 2014 03:40 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRG (Post 825463)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir (Post 825461)
While the M202 could (and probably should, I'll look into how difficult that will be) be changed to an introduction date of 01/69 that's ONLY because there just happens to be a new picklist that starts at that date - doing the Vietnam units/picklist was the hardest part of the OOB rebuild.

FWIW--------- http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...round/m202.htm


Quote:

The M202 series of launchers was developed in the late 1960s as a replacement for the individual portable flamethrower in the US Army. The weapon was designed to provide the infantryman with a better means of neutralizing or destroying enemy gun emplacements and fortified positions. Initially, the complete system consisting of the XM202 launcher and a clip of 4 XM74 rockets, plus other associated equipment and additional ammunition, was designated as the XM191 Multi-Shot Portable Flame Weapon (MPFW). The US Army and the US Marine Corps both evaluated the XM191 system, including field testing in Southeast Asia by the USMC between July and October 1969. The decision to develop additional types of rockets, including the M96 rocket, led to the dropping of the complete system designation XM191 and the usage of the launcher designation and specific rocket designations separately.
Yep, quoted that myself.
Too bad I didn't find it when I was doing the OOB revision.
Thanks Don!

FASTBOAT TOUGH July 28th, 2014 06:07 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
I am thus far finding that the M202 was field tested in SE Asia between July-September of 1969. I am closing in on actual "widespread" operational distribution of the system. I leave with the following along with the info that can be found/or derived from these documents. Once had them all until my computer dumped this was most helpful (Later version.) in my rework of the LAV-AD service dates (See earlier Patch Post ~3 yrs. ago by example.)and retirement of the CH-53D as examples of my use of these documents.
Ref with excerpts time period covered Jan 1947 - Dec 1964 below...
http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Pu...9000318200.pdf

"23 Dec (Added 1960.) USMC—-—The first Marine Corps F8U—2N "Crusader" supersonic aircraft, an all-weather fighter, was delivered to El Toro and turned over to VMF-34. (Flight Jacket, 6 Jan 1961 p. 1)."

"18 Jan (Added 1961) USMC——Sergeant Major Bertha L. Peters was the first Woman Marine appointed to the top non—commissioned officer post of Sergeant Major established in April 1960. (Scout, 10 Feb 1961, p. 5; Windsock, 27 Jan 1961, p. 3; Globe, 26 Jan 1961, p. 2)."

"30 Aug (Added 1961) CONUS——The first night jump from a Marine Corps GV—l intercontinental jet-prop transport was made near Camp Horno, California, by 31 Marines from the 1st Force Reconnaissance Company in a free—fall parachute jump. (Scout, 8 Sep 1961, p. 3)."

"1964
27 Jul CARIBBEAN—-The Cuban Government accused Marine sentries at the U. S. Naval Base, Guantanamo Bay of 'killing" one of their guards, indicating that a sentry had fired six
shots and critically wounded the Cuban guard twice. (Varner and Koze, P. 69; 1964 FOF, 241D3)"


With a little PATIENCE you can find all you need from these documents.

Will post the rest as I find them- No Fuss, No Mess; straight from the Corps.

Regards,
Pat

shahadi July 28th, 2014 09:27 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammy1339 (Post 825433)
After not playing the game for a couple years I decided to come back and play the campaign "5th Marines 1967" again, which kind of stumped me the first time. I was a little disappointed to find that version 8.0 had introduced some unimprovements into the USMC units.

- The most egregious was that the M202 66 mm flame rocket was available starting in 1967. While this did make the game vastly easier for me, I looked it up and found that this weapon was not introduced until 1978! Flamethrowers also disappear at the same time, which is incorrect. Marine units with the M202 in the 1960's include 379, 382, and 418. I didn't check the USA file.

- Although it's only cosmetic, the ordinary M16 rifle (used from 1962-1967) has disappeared, being replaced by the M16A1/A2. There's also an instantaneous change from the M14 to the M16, which is definitely not accurate. The M16 was gradually phased in.

- I find it really weird that all M16-equipped rifle squads until 1968 (unit #369) use the Stoner 63 as a SAW. This weapon was fielded only in very limited numbers, mostly with SEALs if I'm not mistaken. I'm pretty sure the marines used the M60 machinegun in this role, as was the case in earlier OOB's. I've noticed there are no more infantry squads with M60's.

- This is more of a gripe than anything, but I was a bit disappointed to find that the M40 sniper rifle had an accuracy of 40. Snipers in this game are already a good replacement for entire infantry squads as well as scouts, and are definitely not in need of improvement. I also looked at other OOB's and found that their snipers have not improved. Do we really believe that the M40 sniper rifle is significantly superior to similar Russian weapons? Even if you think that the US rifles have better optics (debatable, especially for the Vietnam era) this should be reflected in "Fire Control," right?

There were also good changes, such as that the M728's 165 mm gun actually fires HESH rounds now, but it seems like a lot of things were changed to make them less historically accurate than in previous versions.
Anyone suggesting modifications and/or enhancements to the game, particularly with Tables of Organization and Equipment (TO&E) should first read the appropriate sticky, in this case: http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showp...53&postcount=1, Error Reporting Procedure.

Moreover, this game is so elastic that scenario designers can tweak or modify the composition of a formation, unit, or characteristic of a weapon and report those modifications in the scenario notes for others to comment.

Finally, changes and errors ought to be accompanied with a source as per the Error Reporting Procedure sticky, saving everyone the angst of looking over his or her shoulder again and again with each TO&E change request to further explain the respective OOB in question.

FASTBOAT TOUGH July 28th, 2014 09:31 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Now from Jan 1965 - Dec 1969 (It's amazing how a war will shorten the timeline. However current ones are done on a yearly basis until consolidated as this was in 1971.)
http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Pu...9000318100.pdf

1. No luck unless I missed it concerning the M202.
2. Look to 30 April - 27 May 1967 concerning the XM16E1 (M16A1) (The USAF actually ordered the M-16. The difference between the two was the "forward assist" which allowed for a manual "push" on the bolt group to clear jams.) during the Battle for Hill 881. I think this was the first major engagement the USMC used the XM16E1. I remember the controversy this caused and a little later for the USA.
3. Excerpts these from 1969...
A. Mar 3 USMC gets first CH-53D.
B. Apr 1 First four AH-16 Huey COBRA gunships start operating in Vietnam.
C. 14 Oct USMC---The UH-34D "Sea Horse" helicopter went out of active service after 12 years in Marine Corps aviation . The helicopters were transferred to units of the 4th Marine Aircraft Wing, Marine Corps Reserve, located throughout the country. (Flight Jacket, v . 26, no . 42, 17 Oct 1969, p . 1 .) This last copied over-who knows why?!? :rolleyes:

I'm getting the feeling that small arms aren't covered, at least in the older histories. Time to relax going in to rescue the "Sandman" in the morning at the end of the "O course".

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir July 28th, 2014 09:40 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
What I found interesting was the number of Japanese holdouts they were still getting.

Yeah I know Jul-Sep (or Oct) was the field test but unless you can find a fairly solid date on wide-spread use it'll do since it's probable they didn't pack them and any ammo they had back up and ship it to CONUS. And since they didn't use flame weapons all that much in Vietnam anyway I'd suspect if they actually felt one was needed they'd probably break out an M202 unless all they were doing was clearing tunnels in which case the standard flamethrower would be better suited.
Come to think of it I don't even recall seeing an M202 since around 1976 but then I hadn't seen an M79 since about then either till 1991 when I saw a few in Kuwait.

Suhiir July 28th, 2014 09:48 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH (Post 825471)
I'm getting the feeling that small arms aren't covered, at least in the older histories.
Not too surprising since no doubt the sub-units of a division would get them at various times over the course of weeks/months.

FASTBOAT TOUGH July 28th, 2014 09:59 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Concerning the M202 found it interesting that the launcher could also fire an HE package. Also saw some that said the AT rocket as well. Read a lot of USMC blogs from flamethrower operators that they preferred the M202/A1/A2 because of it's range and relative accuracy. There were reported draw backs such as "drops" when reloading (NOT GOOD) and as the rockets got older, a fuel leakage issue down on the back of the operator, I suspect fuel-rocket motor ignition exhaust again-NOT GOOD! I think the dates are fine as well also.

Outta here!!

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir July 29th, 2014 09:59 AM
Re: Usmc oob
 
As I recall the M202 was MUCH preferred over the M72 LAAW due to range, better sights, and most importantly it had 4 shots and while I can't be 100% certain I'm fairly sure it had an AT round.
I can't say much other then that post about 1976ish I don't recall seeing the M202 around anymore, the fuel leakage problem you mention might well explain that.

In the 70's the anti-tank MOS still trained with the M20 Bazooka as part of their MOS school even tho they were "obsolete" and not used outside of the school because they were considered superior to the M72. I can't say for certain but I suspect that stopped with the introduction of the Dragon since that became the primary weapon of the anti-tank MOS.

sammy1339 July 30th, 2014 01:05 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir (Post 825486)
while I can't be 100% certain I'm fairly sure it had an AT round.
I believe there was a plan to provide the capability to fire the same 66 mm HEAT round as the M72, but this was never actually done.

Suhiir October 10th, 2014 10:25 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
1 Attachment(s)
Well about time to roll out another set of corrections/tweaks to the USMC OOB.

I'm afraid due to a little battle I had with a computer virus I lost the notes as to exactly what was changed from the official OOB this time around. Most of the changes are fairly minor tho.

FASTBOAT TOUGH October 11th, 2014 03:21 AM
Re: Usmc oob
 
3 Attachment(s)
You can add the M777A2 as discussed in the thread with the dates etc. already provided where we talked about this in the thread bearing the same name, but NOT for the reasons discussed concerning the EXCALIBUR accuracy issue and how to model it in the game since the player can set the artillery accuracy in the game options section anyway. The practical reason I came upon (And it was in the video I provided on the EXCALIBUR.) is because the M777A2 can fire AT rounds where the M777A1 could not because the electronics package needed to do so was unavailable to support that on the M777A1 pieces. The CORPS and USA both have them and used them therefore they should be game supported. The Aussies bought the German AT rounds in quantity and are on my list as well as the USMC and USA to get them added. Canada I'll have to check on as they might not have them due to their current MOD policies or treaty obligations, it'll require further investigation on my part later as my eye progresses.

2. Also you'll save about four or more slots here as you can delete all the USN helos in the OOB carrying the HELLFIRE missile. The HELLFIRE missiles were modified slightly for the USN to use them for ANTI-SHIPPING/ASW Ops (If the target of opportunity arises-think forced to the surface or caught running on the surface.) I believe they were used in the Gulf against the gunboats and to support our oil rig take downs a few years ago. For land ops that would be the USMC aviation helos and both the services "fast movers".

3. Got a LITTLE PO'd about the next but you should be able to regain a couple of slots (Or 1.) concerning the UH-1Y-
A. Pictures are wrong for all.
B. They are not classed as gunships/ALL CARRY 8 fully equipped troops+crew.
C. ALL should have EW 6/Vision 50. Third GEN and BRIGHT STAR II makes it so.
D. ALL structural associated numbers should match. These birds are 100% matched to each other and share an 85% commonality with the AH-1Z, i.e. it has basically the same "vision" equipment on board as the AH-1Z without the full FCS components carried which makes the difference in the vision package between the two and the numbers.
E. ALL should defensively have the same protection numbers as the AH-1Z around the engine area (Armor protection up to and including 23mm rounds.) and as a side note the four blades and rotor area were also protected in the same manner I think it's in the "Top" armor for that number.
F. You can have 2 MG's and 2 Rocket Pods but NO MORE.

All this is posted in the Helo Thread in the refs already provided however I'll leave here the NAVAIR version of things to save time or to supplement the rest.

About #2...
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm...3-372CD723D22C

ABOUT #3...
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm...0-F386299C8FF8
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm...5-A46CAE6C2381
Pictures from NAVAIR...
Attachment 13260 Attachment 13261

Attachment 13262

Notice in the last it can carry the standard 19 round rocket pod (2), note they are mounted slightly aft of the "cargo" doors to allow for the ingress/egress of troops. The primary purpose of the two machine guns (7.62mm GAU/or 12.5mm (Improved w/nights sites.) and the two 19 shot rocket pods is for INFIL/or EXFIL LZ suppression or self defense. Actually the first picture shows this as well.

There were about three other issues I submitted and we discussed after you deservedly beat me up about them that I believe are in this thread or PM's after the last release.

My eyes are tired so I'll quit here.
Have a good weekend.

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir October 11th, 2014 05:09 AM
Re: Usmc oob
 
1. Given the way artillery is modeled in the game there was no practical way to implement the M777A2/EXCALIBUR, so like LANTERN pods it's kinda just ignored.

2. While it's 100% true that USN Hellfires (for that matter almost all USN helos) would almost never support USMC operations, there's no reason they couldn't/wouldn't be used to support SEAL or pilot recovery ops. While many players of course don't know/care about the difference between USMC and USN aircraft/helos/units the purists (and hopefully most scenario designers) will.

3. The pictures are wrong, but the best I could find in the current default photo set. The unit classification is based on the mission they're outfitted to perform NOT the actual official classification of the helo.
Light Helicopter (UC 204) = Observation
Light Attack Helo (UC 221) = Gunship
COIN Armed (UC 222) = Troop Transport
In both Observation and Gunship configurations they would not be carrying troops; and in when carrying troops they wouldn't be heavily armed as the need the lift capacity for those troops. And yes in reality they Vision/EW/structural system should be the same for each BUT who wants to spend 260 points for a transport helo? Even 157 is a bit much. Judgement call on my part.

FASTBOAT TOUGH October 11th, 2014 12:53 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Have we forgotten how to read?
Concerning #1: I clearly stated the issue of accuracy was not practical but the player could "control" that through the game options section. This is about the CORPS and others having the capability of using an AT Cargo munitions round that is readily available in the field then and now.

Concerning #2: This is the mission of SOCOM/USA. The "purists" wouldn't use them at all. You and the game would save slots we're likely to need in the next few years. You had made the inference yourself about NAVAIR being the decision maker for all air in an issue I was discussing with Don a while back-so what's changed now and against any reference on this helo and the next. When have we ever not been driven by ourselves and others to be as accurate as possible in our equipment submissions or changes? Don has held to this standard that I embrace as well anyway. If we can't do that to some degree we might as well play any other wargame you disliked instead. These are the issues that separate these (Our) games from the rest out there. Even in the game reviews I've words like "accuracy", "detailed" and "frequently updated" are attributed to the equipment and other issues in the game.

Concerning #3: Your "The unit classification is based on the mission they're outfitted to perform NOT the actual official classification of the helo." kind of fits what you said about the CH-53 being primarily a resupply bird I guess we should delete them then? And they do and can carry those troops in that weapons configuration even NAVAIR says that. The rest I would refer you back to #2.

We work hard all of us that do this work for the many countless hours and in some cases sacrifices to our personal lives. We therefore owe it to the players to get it as right as we can (And none of us are perfect in that regard but, we try our collective best to be.) and leave the final decision to the player as to what they want to use or not use.

Regards,
Pat

shahadi October 11th, 2014 12:55 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir (Post 826872)
Well about time to roll out another set of corrections/tweaks to the USMC OOB.

I'm afraid due to a little battle I had with a computer virus I lost the notes as to exactly what was changed from the official OOB this time around. Most of the changes are fairly minor tho.
In this set of corrections/tweaks have you changed units numbers or formations? Really, I'd like to know, if installed, do I need to rework my USMC scenarios so the units and formations play as intended.

Suhiir October 11th, 2014 04:17 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by shahadi (Post 826876)
In this set of corrections/tweaks have you changed units numbers or formations? Really, I'd like to know, if installed, do I need to rework my USMC scenarios so the units and formations play as intended.
The ONLY change done to any formations was to change the HQ (Unit 0) for all heliborne infantry companies from a 13-man unit to a 6-man one so everything would fit in the transports.

Suhiir October 11th, 2014 05:32 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH (Post 826875)
Have we forgotten how to read?
Concerning #1: I clearly stated the issue of accuracy was not practical but the player could "control" that through the game options section. This is about the CORPS and others having the capability of using an AT Cargo munitions round that is readily available in the field then and now.
The only way to model an AT cargo munition would be to create an aircraft type unit armed with "Air-to-Surface, LGB" (Weapon Class 17) weapons or an MLRS type one with "Aircraft Cluster Bomb, MLRS" (Weapon Class 14) ones. In Item #2 you speak of saving unit slots (actually there are plenty of those available - weapon slots are an entirely different matter) I judge that here is a place that's easily done as units with similar capability already exist. So while it would add a missing (and real/existing) specific weapon it would add no missing capability to the OOB.
On a similar note I'm REALLY tempted to eliminate the VT units (#093 and 557) from the OOB, had I known then what I do now I would have done so during the OOB revision.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH (Post 826875)
Concerning #2: This is the mission of SOCOM/USA. The "purists" wouldn't use them at all. You and the game would save slots we're likely to need in the next few years. You had made the inference yourself about NAVAIR being the decision maker for all air in an issue I was discussing with Don a while back-so what's changed now and against any reference on this helo and the next. When have we ever not been driven by ourselves and others to be as accurate as possible in our equipment submissions or changes? Don has held to this standard that I embrace as well anyway. If we can't do that to some degree we might as well play any other wargame you disliked instead. These are the issues that separate these (Our) games from the rest out there. Even in the game reviews I've words like "accuracy", "detailed" and "frequently updated" are attributed to the equipment and other issues in the game.
Unfortunately SOCOM/USA isn't modeled in any OOB (there are Rangers, Force Recon, SEALS, but no Green Berets) and given the game scale (company/battalion size formations) one could easily argue that SEALs should be removed altogether. Unless Andy/Don are willing to make an official call that it should be done I don't want to remove anything from the OOB that would create a "hole" where a scenario has no units in to reference from when it did in a previous version of an OOB.

One of the most "fun" parts of the revision was doing everything possible to insure changes to units that existed in previous versions of the OOB were as minimal as possible. And in no avoidable case was an existing unit replaced by new unit of a fundamentally different type; replacing an infantry unit with an infantry unit of a different Unit Class was OK, replacing it with say a tank was most certainly not. All new units that were needed were placed in previously empty unit slots.

I was (and still am) tempted to remove the SEALs and USN aircraft/helos altogether but it would have caused too many potential problems. Just getting USAF aircraft and a few US Army specific helos from the OOB was a minor nightmare.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH (Post 826875)
Concerning #3: Your "The unit classification is based on the mission they're outfitted to perform NOT the actual official classification of the helo." kind of fits what you said about the CH-53 being primarily a resupply bird I guess we should delete them then? And they do and can carry those troops in that weapons configuration even NAVAIR says that. The rest I would refer you back to #2.
I'd be tempted to delete the CH-53 if it weren't for the fact they're needed to lift vehicles/artillery, and that they are used for troop lift (tho never to "Hot" LZs if at all avoidable).

One of the things I did during the revision was alter a good many unit weights to make sure tanks and such could not be carried by helos or inappropriate landing craft. Again this did/does have repercussions with some existing scenarios but it's deemed "tolerable".


Quote:
Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH (Post 826875)
We work hard all of us that do this work for the many countless hours and in some cases sacrifices to our personal lives. We therefore owe it to the players to get it as right as we can (And none of us are perfect in that regard but, we try our collective best to be.) and leave the final decision to the player as to what they want to use or not use.

Regards,
Pat

Ideally all real-life weapons and vehicles/units could be modeled in WinSPMBT but this is unfortunately not the case.
One restriction that's always bugged me to no end is the maximum of 4 weapon slots on units, but that's not gonna change as the amount of recoding necessary for such a "simple" change is something no one in their right mind would want to tackle, and Andy isn't insane last time I checked.
So we do what we can as best we're permitted by game code AND preexisting scenario data and at times just have to say "Yeah, you're right, but we just can't do that in any reasonable to implement manner."

Suhiir October 11th, 2014 05:34 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Don, Andy ... if I've stepped on your toes with the above post I apologize. It wasn't intentionally.

FASTBOAT TOUGH October 12th, 2014 02:29 AM
Re: Usmc oob
 
I "read you" and "message received" that's Squid to Devil Dog code. I'll leave you here with just this last for my case for the M777A2. After having more time to look into the matter of the AT round (Again that only the M777A2 can fire.) it's just an Improved Conventional Munition/or ICM round. That is plentiful in the game as a CM/or FASCAM munition. Copy the M777 call it the M777A2 and give it HE and some AT/CM/FASCAM munitions and done. You can still and should if you proceed with this offer the M777A2 with just an HE package of course.
I offer also the following 2014 USMC gift to you which you and others might find useful concerning the current status of the CORPS across the board "arty" systems and current munitions to include USN gunfire support.
http://cdn2.usmcofficer.com/wp-conte...re-Support.pdf

I'll go deep and "float the wire" for the rest. Please understand though I'm beyond the "diesel boat" stage, I'm still not fully under "nuclear power" yet. More like a newer "hybrid" class boat still. So I ask for a little patience but let me know your timeline. ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir October 12th, 2014 06:05 AM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Useful!
Been having a bit of trouble finding out exactly what the current artillery/rocket/mortar complement of the Artillery Regiments are at the moment (and OF COURSE they're always subject to change - wouldn't be the Corps if anything was above the rifle platoon organization was consistent).

shahadi October 14th, 2014 07:32 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir (Post 826877)
Quote:
Originally Posted by shahadi (Post 826876)
In this set of corrections/tweaks have you changed units numbers or formations? Really, I'd like to know, if installed, do I need to rework my USMC scenarios so the units and formations play as intended.
The ONLY change done to any formations was to change the HQ (Unit 0) for all heliborne infantry companies from a 13-man unit to a 6-man one so everything would fit in the transports.
Great info, however, I do not add helos to my formations anymore. I've found that buying the rides separately from the line companies enable me to maneuver the two separately when using the "A" All key in the game. Otherwise, I have to move helos individually rather than as a formation.

Suhiir October 14th, 2014 09:31 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Same here. I NEVER buy combined infantry/helo formations.
But they're needed for the picklists so needed correction.

shahadi October 15th, 2014 06:44 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir (Post 826918)
Same here. I NEVER buy combined infantry/helo formations.
But they're needed for the picklists so needed correction.
True regarding the picklists. And, I'm glad you mentioned that you never combine infantry & helo formations, so that other designers follow suite.

Suhiir October 17th, 2014 09:28 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
1 Attachment(s)
I had not even remotely planned on another update this year, much less this soon. But after considerable behind-the-scenes discussion with a certain Squid I've been persuaded to create this OOB update.

ALL of the changes are transparent to existing scenarios and either the default OOB or this one can be used interchangeably (if none of the new units added in this update are used in a scenario).
##############################

WEAPONS
Weapon#174 7.62mm M23 MG - Sound=121
##############################

UNITS
Unit#106 SH-2DSeasprite* - Radio=93
Unit#107 SH-2FSeasprite* - Radio=93
Unit#108 SH-3G Sea King* - Radio=93
Unit#109 CH-3C JG Giant* - Radio=93
Unit#110 HH-60H Seahawk* - Radio=93
Unit#113 HH-2CSeasprite* - Radio=93
Unit#125 F8F Bearcat* - Radio=91
Unit#131 AD4 Skyraider* - Radio=90
Unit#134 F8U Crusader* - Radio=91
Unit#147 AD6 Skyraider* - Radio=90
Unit#150 A-7A Corsair* - Radio=91
Unit#151 A-7E Corsair* - Radio=91
Unit#167 HH-3A Sea King* - Radio=93
Unit#168 UH-3H Sea King* - Radio=93
Unit#169 UH-1N Twin Huey - Weapon#1 Sound=55
Unit#171 UH-1N Gunship - Vision=25, Weapon#4 Sound=55
Unit#174 UH-1N Gunship - Vision=15, Weapon#4 Sound=121
Unit#197 F-14B Tomcat* - Radio=91
Unit#198 F-14D Tomcat* - Radio=91
Unit#199 F-14D Tomcat* - Radio=91
Unit#200 A-7E Corsair* - Radio=91
Unit#255 SH-60B Seahawk* - Radio=93, Weapon#1 Sound=55
Unit#256 MH-60S Seahawk* - Radio=93
Unit#257 MH-60R Seahawk* - Radio=93
Unit#312 HH-3E JG Giant* - Radio=93
Unit#313 MH-53J PaveLow* - Radio=93
Unit#314 MH-47E Chinook* - Radio=93
Unit#316 MH-47G Chinook* - Radio=93
Unit#323 UH-1Y Venom - Weapon#1 Sound=55
Unit#518 TBM-3 Avenger* - Radio=91
Unit#519 P2V-2 Neptune* - Radio=91
Unit#520 P2V-5 Neptune* - Radio=91
Unit#525 P2V-2 Neptune* - Radio=90
Unit#526 P2V-7 Neptune* - Radio=91
Unit#527 A3D Skywarrior* - Radio=91
Unit#574 F-35B Ltng II - Dates 01/117-12/120
Unit#575 F-35B Ltng II - Dates 01/117-12/120
Unit#583 F-35C Ltng II* - Dates 01/118-12/120, Radio=91
Unit#584 F-35C Ltng II* - Dates 01/118-12/120, Radio=91
Unit#585 F-35B Ltng II - Dates 01/117-12/120
Unit#586 F-35B Ltng II - Dates 01/117-12/120
Unit#587 F-35B Ferret - Dates 01/117-12/120
Unit#592 F-35B Ltng II - Dates 01/117-12/120
Unit#593 F-35B Ltng II - Dates 01/117-12/120
Unit#594 F-35B Ltng II - Dates 01/117-12/120
Unit#613 SB2 Helldiver* - Radio=91
Unit#616 F6F-5 Hellcat* - Radio=92
Unit#618 AD4 Skyraider* - Radio=90
Unit#619 AD6 Skyraider* - Radio=90
Unit#641 CH-53E Sup Stal - NEW UNIT - Duplicate of Unit#646 - Radio=92, Vision=20
Unit#646 CH-53E Sup Stal - Radio=90
Unit#648 CH-53K KingStal - NEW UNIT - Duplicate of Unit#647 - Radio=90, Vision=40
Unit#850 MH-60R Seahawk* - Radio=93
Unit#881 UH-1N Twin Huey - Weapon#1 Sound=55, Weapon#2 Sound=55
Unit#882 UH-1N Twin Huey - Weapon#1 Sound=55, Weapon#2 Sound=55
Unit#902 UH-1Y Venom - NEW UNIT - Duplicate of Unit#323 - EW=6, Radio=90, Vision=40
Unit#906 A-7A Corsair* - Radio=91
Unit#907 A-7E Corsair* - Radio=91
Unit#908 HH-3A Sea King* - Radio=93
Unit#909 UH-3H Sea King* - Radio=93
Unit#911 A-7A Corsair* - Radio=91
Unit#912 A-7E Corsair* - Radio=91
Unit#913 A-7E Corsair* - Radio=91
Unit#915 A-7E Corsair* - Radio=91
Unit#922 F8F-2 Bearcat* - Radio=91
Unit#927 F8U Crusader* - Radio=91
Unit#934 AD4 Skyraider* - Radio=90
Unit#937 AV-8B+ Harrier - Dates 01/106-02/112
##############################

Note: All US Navy/US Air Force aircraft/helicopters have had an "*" added to their name and been changed to radio code x3, in most cases, so the AI cannot purchase them yet they are still available for scenario designers.
##############################
##############################
##############################

Since I couldn't find any default scenario where Unit#093 (155mm M777 (VT)) or Unit#557 (155mm Sec (VT)) was used I decided to take the plunge and get rid of VT artillery in the OOB (:angel YAY :angel). In it's place we now have VERY expensive CM+ artillery with lots of CM ammo.
##############################

WEAPON
Weapon#233 <155mm M777 VT> - Marked for deletion but left on OOB "just in case".
##############################

UNITS
Unit#093 155mm M777 (CM+ - Duplicate of Unit#092 - Radio=91, Weapon#1 HE=15, AP=15
Unit#557 155mm Sec (CM+) - Duplicate of Unit#559 - Radio=91, Weapon#1 HE=20 AP=40, Weapon#2 HE=20 AP=40, Weapon#3 HE=20 AP=40
##############################

FASTBOAT TOUGH October 18th, 2014 02:39 AM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Suhiir,
For all you've done past and present and for your consideration of everything discussed, I simply say THANK YOU!!

Regards,
Pat

shahadi October 18th, 2014 10:14 AM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir (Post 826956)
I had not even remotely planned on another update this year, much less this soon. But after considerable behind-the-scenes discussion with a certain Squid I've been persuaded to create this OOB update.

Since I couldn't find any default scenario where Unit#093 (155mm M777 (VT)) or Unit#557 (155mm Sec (VT)) was used I decided to take the plunge and get rid of VT artillery in the OOB (:angel YAY :angel). In it's place we now have VERY expensive CM+ artillery with lots of CM ammo.
Wow, CM+ arty has nasty effects on infantry and light vehicles. Putting a lot of CM ammo in the scenario may just temp some of us to load up on CM and waylay the opposition.

The CM arty should be used sparingly so that a lot of thought should go into it's employment in a scenario, and that can best be accomplished by limiting the ammo.

Otherwise, I looking forward to integrating this OOB in existing scenarios.

Just give me an IFV that can close to 850m of the enemy (in support of advancing infantry) and fire and I'll be happy.

Suhiir October 18th, 2014 03:22 PM
Re: Usmc oob
 
CM artillery is hardly new, I just added some with a lot more CM ammo then is normally available, and let the cost calculator do it's thing, the stuff ain't near as cheap as VT was and has about the same effect VT should have.

FASTBOAT TOUGH October 19th, 2014 01:09 AM
Re: Usmc oob
 
I'd love to see the CORPS get a "BRADLEY" type IFV but it's just not in the cards, but then the CORPS was never really armor heavy like the USA. Also the focus is on getting a replacement for the AAV-7. The top candidate for that looks to be the "HAVOC" at the moment (See the APC Thread for more on the topic.) but as a CO I had always said "Change is a constant" but it might get announced as early as the end of the year what one or two candidates move on for the final opeval testing phase. In the meantime the following might be useful especially under the sub categories of Structure and Equipment in the Operating Forces tab...
http://www.marines.com/operating-forces/equipment

On the HAVOC it will give the CORPS a faster over the horizon beach landing capability, the same for land ops and be more heavily armed and armored (Even over any current AMV.) out of the box with an add on modular armor package also available. But here's some info...
http://www.army-technology.com/proje...dular-vehicle/
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/new...wim-tests.html
http://www.military.com/video/combat...2777785430001/

Been watching the MPC Program for awhile now and I believe it should make the game hopefully within the next three years.

My times up have a great weekend!!

Regards,
Pat

DRG October 19th, 2014 08:18 AM
Re: Usmc oob
 
If they do it saves me the trouble of making an Icon for it as it already exists in five OOB's as the Patria. Just let me know when they make the final decision. They need it and it would be a good fit

Suhiir October 19th, 2014 09:28 AM
Re: Usmc oob
 
The Corps has little to no use for an primary APC/IFV that can't float. While that means it will always be underarmored and usually undergunned by most standards they tend to make up for it with their very close cooperation with helos and air support.

Given the history of the EFVP I think everyone will be content to wait until the USMC actually buys HAVOC or something else before we bother including it in the OOB. I'm betting they'd much prefer a tracked vehicle for mobility reasons.

Suhiir October 19th, 2014 09:35 AM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Looking it over the other problem is it only carries 9 troops. There's just not enough space on the amphib ships to carry enough of them to land a full battalion, and I don't see the USMC downsizing their rifle squads from 13 to 9 men anytime soon, the size of the rifle squad/platoon/company has been the ONLY constant in the USMC OOB since 1944, it works very well with their tactics and usual missions.

DRG October 19th, 2014 09:57 AM
Re: Usmc oob
 
Good point with the carry capacity. Even if you made the crew part of the squad ( which is unlikely ) you are still 2 men short of a standard squad and it doesn't quite work by loading it with fire teams either. ( unless you stretch it 3 feet )

So I suppose the next question to ask is what is being considered that carries 13 troops and is tracked and if the answer is nothing then what ??

Also, one requirement is water speed and even at best the water speed for the Havoc is a game 4 which isn't all that swift compared to the EFV........ON THE OTHER HAND.. the EFV held 17.....how exactly was that going to fit the USMC TO&E ?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:28 AM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.