Not an error report, just question about OOB12 *DELETED* *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by thatguy96

Re: Not an error report, just question about OOB12
 

There is a 7.62mm M60 LMG in US weapon slot 14 and a 7.62mm M60 MMG in US weapons slot 36. The light version is the issue here the MMG is ONLY used at the infantry level in this game in MMG sections attached to platoons and never in a "squad".

There are exactly two ( 2 ) regular army rifle squads that have the M60 LMG included and both are Vietnam era 1966- 1972 . That's it for the regular army units. Two squads-- and they cover the time period where the weapon was used at squad level when it could be acquired and are by NO means the only squads available in the game for that time period

There are 27 "rifle squads" in the US OOB so there are 25 that do not have an M60 LMG included and of that 27 there are 24 that exist after the introduction of the M60 that DO NOT have an M60 so just how do you get "In game, however, the M60 is a feature at squad level in every instance after its introduction."

??? "every instance" ???

The majority of the remaining cases where that weapon is found in a "squad" are airmobile ( six squads with four in the Vietnam era out of nine total in the OOB) and mech infantry ( 9 squads four of which are Vietnam era out of 30 total in the OOB) The balance has a few scout teams with one and some engineer squads. This is all available to you by using the data base checks in MOBHack. I'll save you the trouble, Here who uses an M60 LMG in the US OOB....

users of weapon ID 14 7.62mm M60 LMG:
375 - Airmobile Squad : 2 - Available 01/063 to 12/064
376 - Airmobile Squad : 2 - Available 01/065 to 12/074
377 - Airmobile Squad : 2 - Available 01/065 to 12/074
378 - Airmobile Squad : 2 - Available 01/065 to 12/074
379 - Airmobile Squad : 2 - Available 01/075 to 12/084
380 - Airmobile Squad : 2 - Available 01/075 to 12/084
422 - Rifle Squad : 2 - Available 01/066 to 12/072
423 - Rifle Squad : 2 - Available 01/066 to 12/072
443 - Patrol : 2 - Available 01/067 to 12/072
447 - Pioneers : 2 - Available 01/065 to 12/074
448 - Pioneers : 2 - Available 01/075 to 12/084
449 - Pioneers : 2 - Available 01/085 to 12/089
454 - Para Engineers : 2 - Available 01/073 to 12/084
455 - Para Engineers : 2 - Available 01/085 to 12/090
468 - Mech Rifle Sqd : 2 - Available 01/065 to 12/069
470 - Mech Rifle Sqd : 2 - Available 01/065 to 12/069
471 - Mech Rifle Sqd : 2 - Available 01/070 to 12/072
473 - Mech Rifle Sqd : 2 - Available 01/070 to 12/072
474 - Mech Rifle Sqd : 2 - Available 01/073 to 12/089
476 - Mech Rifle Sqd : 2 - Available 01/073 to 12/089
478 - Mech Rifle Sqd : 2 - Available 01/081 to 12/089
715 - Mech Rifle Sqd : 2 - Available 01/081 to 12/089
717 - Mech Rifle Sqd : 2 - Available 01/081 to 12/089
722 - LMG Team : 1 - Available 01/061 to 12/064
723 - LMG Team : 1 - Available 01/065 to 12/084
732 - Scout Team+ : 2 - Available 01/065 to 12/074
733 - Scout Team+ : 2 - Available 01/075 to 12/084
743 - Cavalry Scouts+ : 2 - Available 01/075 to 12/084
749 - Cavalry Scouts+ : 2 - Available 01/073 to 12/074
752 - Abn Scouts+ : 2 - Available 01/065 to 12/074
753 - Abn Scouts+ : 2 - Available 01/075 to 12/089
832 - Sandbag Foxhole : 3 - Available 01/066 to 12/089
837 - Sandbag Foxhole : 3 - Available 01/066 to 12/089


TWO rifle squads. And those two squads ONLY exist in the formation 200 ( Rifle Pl VN ) and NOT the regular army rifle squads and the Rifle Pl VN has two of the four squads in the platoon with M60's included in there make up ( so two that do not ) so once again hardly what you are claiming it's available.

So please explain how that became ..."In game, however, the M60 is a feature at squad level in every instance after its introduction. " unless all you ever buy is airmobile and mech infantry and even then this weapons is not available in every instance of those units ?

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

Don

Re: Not an error report, just question about OOB12
 

k, delete the thread.

Re: Not an error report, just question about OOB12
 

"delete the thread" ?

What's that ? An apology ?

Don

Re: Not an error report, just question about OOB12
 

An apology? You could say that I guess. Its more of a "I guess this doesn't need to be here" kinda comment. I don't know what I'd be apologizing for really, since I never said I had a problem with anything, I was just curious as to why things had been done, and apparently they weren't even done as I had remembered them in the first place. You could've just said "its not the case" and left it at that, I mean, I didn't force you to post a large and fairly hostile response, wasting your time. You didn't have to post anything at all. I shouldn't have to apologize for making an honest mistake, and not attempting to continue challanging the reality.

I do apologize for having a brain fart at 2 AM and deciding to post without checking, but really I feel like I'm being accused of trolling, when I would've gladly admitted to being wrong had it simply been pointed out. I have done that now. I mean, I am wrong, there's no question there.

Re: Not an error report, just question about OOB12
 

Well it's too bad you deleted your original post that is in itself long and involved and very, very definite in it's assertion that ..." In game, however, the M60 is a feature at squad level in every instance after its introduction." It was written in the tone of someone who KNEW this to be 100% true. Anyone casually reading it would have thought so. Do you really think I could have answered with a simple "its not the case" and left it at that and expect you or anyone else reading it to accept that answer without giving a detailed response ??

Not likely.

And just how does this constitute a "fairly hostile response" when all I did was lay out all the facts to prove my point ??

Don

Re: Not an error report, just question about OOB12
 

I understand that was how you took it from your response. All I can say is that inference about tone from text written on discussion boards, chat programs, and the rest on the internet can lead to interpretations quite different from author intention. My writing style has gotten me into trouble before, I apologize for leading you to believe my intentions were more hostile. My post was long simply because I wanted to make sure people had the history that I myself was working with in my mind when it came to mind after searching through infantry in OOB12 and it immediately appeared this way (I had been looking through mech and airmobile units while doing other edits, which led me to make this post, which are a small subset, and for which my assertion is in part true).

Furthermore, a response to me of "its really not the case if you look yourself," would have led me to look for myself and admit my fault, because it simply isn't the case. Why worry about giving the whole detailed response when any person checking to challange you would run into the same facts? This isn't academic discourse, this is a discussion forum, I don't think anyone would fault you for not providing references.

However, you can see the same in how I interpreted you response, which I felt in the cases of the 3rd and forth paragraph and the last one, that seemed to be overly hostile to the fact that you were having to do all the research that I could have done myself.

Re: Not an error report, just question about OOB12
 

It happens from time to time.