Quote:
Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH
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
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
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
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."