Armored Recovery Vehicles?

thatguy96 · #1 December 29th, 2005, 01:38 PM

I know this has been asked before, but I forget the answer: Is it possible to use the "Heavy Transporter" class in order make vehicles such as the US M88 or M578 ARVs? Also, would it be possible to give a carry capacity of 255 to engineering vehicles such as the M728 in order to allow them this recovery function?

Mobhack · #2 December 29th, 2005, 04:33 PM

tank recovery takes hours, well beyond game time frame.

using the tank recovery class could work, but would give you an instant pick-up-and carry, which is totally unrealistic. (But feel free to enter the hex, and then wait 30-60(+) turns before moving off!

Cheers
Andy

thatguy96 · #3 January 3rd, 2006, 12:45 AM

Well so does having the Tank Transporter in game, that's not a quick affair. ARV's are designed to drag away disabled vehicles in semi-active combat zones (that would be why they're armored in the first place and not just giant tractors), in most cases its just to drag the hulk away.

Mobhack · #4 January 3rd, 2006, 04:16 AM

The "tank transporter" sort of snuck in a few years ago when some third party OOB designers found an exploit that allowed vehicle carry which was really only meant originally to be for LCT etc.

When I found these, I wanted to nuke any such found in the OOBS as being completely outside of the game's scope. But it was eventually decided to leave them in just for those folks who wanted to ignore realism and do "instantaneous tank evacuation", and a unit class was added for them.

Cheers
Andy

hoplitis · #5 January 3rd, 2006, 10:12 AM

Constraints imposed by the designer of a game can be more important than the limitations imposed by the "code". Taking into account the excellent (x2) job done here by Don and Andy and the other contributors I usually tend to agree with the "rejection" of various proposals which are considered to be "outside the game's scope". A word of notice though. There is a tendency by some scenario/campaign designers to increase the time scale (above 40 rounds)and map scale. So it seems to me that we are already "pushing the envelope" and at same time the "scope" of the game maybe becoming more "unclear".

Maybe it is time to discipline the troops

) !

BTW is the (actual) timescale for unloading from tank transporters comparable to unloading barges from barge carriers?

Mobhack · #6 January 3rd, 2006, 06:55 PM

The barge carrier is a form of trying to get 12 or so hours of engineering work done in a 60 or so minutes game time frame. It can be seen as representing building ferries, bailey or pontoon bridges etc.

So - a "playability" thing, the original designers put in, for a mission type that I personally would have ignored for a batallion/brigade sized game if I had designed one myself, since bridging operations require hours of work, and the infantry to have cleared the far bank for some time ahead of the work starting. (See the crossing of the Suez canal for example - even with ferry equipment in place, tanks were not moved over till the far side was secure, and then several hours after H-Hour).

Cheers
Andy

WestKent5097 · #7 January 3rd, 2006, 03:08 PM

The tank transporters can be useful for scenario design, such as one I'm working on for Kuwait 1990 where a Kuwaiti Brigade ambushed an Iraqi Division which had their armour still loaded on transporters.

If anything the game might be further improved with the addition of functioning bridgelayers, as the British Chieftain AVLB(according to the British Army official website) can lay a No. 8 Bridge 24.4m long in about 5 minutes. The bridge can then be recovered from the far side of the gap and carried along behind the battlegroup being supported (no estimates on how long but I'd assume a considerably longer period of time).
I would consider this to be in the scope of the game, but it's just my opinion and know this is an old chestnut and won't be happening anytime soon.