Need Help with Helo Unit Class Problem

[Suhiir]

I've been working on fine tuneing OOB 13 (USMC).
I need some expert advice on how the AI will attempt to use helicopters.

Looking at the manual I see :
53 - Helicopter (Basic Transport Helicopter)
203 - Attack Helicopter (Armed Attack Helicopter)
204 - Light Helicopter (Observation Helo, transport with < 1 squad lift)
205 - Heavy Helicopter (Heavy Transport Helo, Chinooks etc)
221 - Light Attack Helicopter (Attack Helo Clone)
222 - COIN Armed Helo (Attack Helo Clone)

My problem is the USMC has light (UH-1 types), medium (CH-46's, and V-22), and heavy (CH-53 etc) helos.
Due to the carry limits on the H-19 and UH-1 class helo's they won't hold a Marine Squad (13-14 men).
Prior to version 3.0 this wasn't a problem as I moved the light helo's to Unit Class 204 and created a series of smaller infantry units (just had more of them in a platoon).

However with version 3.0 :
"10) The Light helo class is now classed as an arty observer and has all the same abilities as the Leg FO and FO Vehicle classes with the exception that the 15 EW value for other FOOs is not used, as that interferes with AAA self-defence EW."

Now that Unit Class 204 (Light Helicopters) are classified ss FO's light helo's cost a lot more (from 57 to 117 points for a UH-1E) and we have the problem of a heloborne unit having a zillion FO's.

If I change the UH-1 type helo's to Unit Class 222 (COIN Armed Helo - no change in unit cost and they normally have a MG or 2 anyway).the AI seems to ignore loaded troops and use them as Attack Helos.

[DRG]

You are attempting to use an "Attack Helo Clone " helo class as a transport helo and you've demonstrated it will ignore troops and act like an attack helo. The light helo was intended to move, maybe scouts and that's it and now it can spot for arty . (It seems no matter what we do anymore somebody ends up unhappy. ) It was never intended to move "troops". I'm not sure what the question here is

53 - Helicopter (Basic Transport Helicopter)
205 - Heavy Helicopter (Heavy Transport Helo, Chinooks etc)

are transport helos

203 - Attack Helicopter (Armed Attack Helicopter)
221 - Light Attack Helicopter (Attack Helo Clone)
222 - COIN Armed Helo (Attack Helo Clone)

are attack helos

204 - Light Helicopter (Observation Helo, transport with < 1 squad lift)

is a light spotting helo with maybe the capability to carry scouts or FO's

Don

[thatguy96]

Surprisingly you're finding out a historical reality as well. The USMC never used the H-19 and UH-1 for major troop transport. The UH-34 and CH-46 were used in these roles primarily, with the H-53 series eventually taking over.

The H-19 and UH-1 were used for light transport, small troop movements, insertions and extractions of small teams, MEDEVAC, and forward observation. You really shouldn't be trying to mount aerial assaults with them. It was never their intended role.

[Suhiir]

thatguy96 said:
Surprisingly you're finding out a historical reality as well. The USMC never used the H-19 and UH-1 for major troop transport. The UH-34 and CH-46 were used in these roles primarily, with the H-53 series eventually taking over.

The H-19 and UH-1 were used for light transport, small troop movements, insertions and extractions of small teams, MEDEVAC, and forward observation. You really shouldn't be trying to mount aerial assaults with them. It was never their intended role.

Being a former Jarhead myself I'm aware of this.
BUT -
I'm trying to "correct" OOB 13 (USMC) while maintaining the current unit/formations (probably an impossible task). Unfortunately I ran face first into Formation #125 Rifle Pl (Huey) 1/60 thru 12/69. And while a player will be smart enough not to try to put full size (14 men at the time due to the M-79 Grenadier) on a UH-1E (capacity 8 men) the AI of course can't quite manage.

Guess I'll just have to use the X3 Radio Code so the AI ignores Hueys but a player can still buy them should they desire.

[DRG]

Suhiir said:
I'm trying to "correct" OOB 13 (USMC) while maintaining the current unit/formations (probably an impossible task). Unfortunately I ran face first into Formation #125 Rifle Pl (Huey) 1/60 thru 12/69. And while a player will be smart enough not to try to put full size (14 men at the time due to the M-79 Grenadier) on a UH-1E (capacity 8 men) the AI of course can't quite manage.

Guess I'll just have to use the X3 Radio Code so the AI ignores Hueys but a player can still buy them should they desire.

What EXACTLY are you trying to "correct" with that formation? For the life of that formation it only uses 8 man squads which matches the carry capacity of the UH-1E and all the units in the platoon can be loaded into 6 UH-1Es.

Don

[thatguy96]

Suhiir said:

Being a former Jarhead myself I'm aware of this.
BUT -
I'm trying to "correct" OOB 13 (USMC) while maintaining the current unit/formations (probably an impossible task). Unfortunately I ran face first into Formation #125 Rifle Pl (Huey) 1/60 thru 12/69. And while a player will be smart enough not to try to put full size (14 men at the time due to the M-79 Grenadier) on a UH-1E (capacity 8 men) the AI of course can't quite manage.

Guess I'll just have to use the X3 Radio Code so the AI ignores Hueys but a player can still buy them should they desire.

I'm guessing you "corrected" the size of the base Marine Squad in OOB 13 to 13-14 men for this to become an issue. In this case, I'm surprised that similarly for realism issues you didn't just delete Formation 125.

[Suhiir]

DRG said:

What EXACTLY are you trying to "correct" with that formation? For the life of that formation it only uses 8 man squads which matches the carry capacity of the UH-1E and all the units in the platoon can be loaded into 6 UH-1Es.
Don

Sorry, I should more accurately say "rebuild" OOB 13, while attempting not to mess up it's basic structure.

Mostly adding X3 Radio Codes to stuff like OH-58's, creating UH-1 class "Light Helo's" to be used as spotters, adding M107 175mm SP artillery (I know we had them, I saw them in the mid-70's), renaming the "Sikorsky H-19" to "HRS-1 Chickasaw", creating 14-man squads during the M-79 period (and 2x4-man & 1x5-man fireteams during this period), creating platoon TO's that include the "normal" attachments from the company weapons platoon (2xMMG teams & 1xAT team), creating a company level "slice" of the battalion and regiment weapons companies, etc, etc, etc.
Also doing a LOT of digging into availability dates.

While I can certainly rebuild the OOB (I've been researching and working on it for several weeks now) I'd hoped to make it compatible with the current one.
From what I've gathered the AI pick list is based on the Formation part of the OOB and as long as that's not messed with modifications to the units themselves weren't a problem. I can add new formations for players to use, and as long as I don't change the availibility dates and "type" (aircraft, armor, artillery, etc) of the existing formations the AI shouldn't have any problems.

However I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that it's not going to be possible to create an accurate OOB and not modify the Formations.

That leaves me with two choices, give up, or create a custom OOB.

I'd hoped to (eventually) submit my OOB for inclusion in the game but the constraints of maintaining the existing OOB make this appear impossible.

[DRG]

Here's a few general rules of thumb for modifying an existing OOB

1-Do not remove units that already exist. If they are used in a sceanrio the scenario will be buggered up as a result. If you absolutely have to remove a unit renationalize it to nation zero

2-Do not remove units that already exist and replace them with something totally different. See 1 above. If you correct info for a unit that's fine, but don't change a tank to an infantry unit or an aircraft to a artillery unit

3- The picklist looks for specific formations for specific time periods. Therefore, it is possible to change a formations structure and the AI will happily buy it and use it but if you radically change the dates it exists you may run into problems. I do not recommend altering the picklists. Some people have done it successfully, I still recommend against it.

As for "TO's that include the "normal" attachments from the company weapons platoon" there is no reason both the existing method and this method of formation building couldn't be included in an OOB. That way anyone wanting to use a company with a separate weapons platoon could and anyone wanted them blended with the rifle platoons can as well

Don

[Suhiir]

DRG said:
Here's a few general rules of thumb for modifying an existing OOB

1-Do not remove units that already exist. If they are used in a scenario the scenario will be buggered up as a result. If you absolutely have to remove a unit re nationalize it to nation zero

2-Do not remove units that already exist and replace them with something totally different. See 1 above. If you correct info for a unit that's fine, but don't change a tank to an infantry unit or an aircraft to a artillery unit

3- The picklist looks for specific formations for specific time periods. Therefore, it is possible to change a formations structure and the AI will happily buy it and use it but if you radically change the dates it exists you may run into problems. I do not recommend altering the picklists. Some people have done it successfully, I still recommend against it.

As for "TO's that include the "normal" attachments from the company weapons platoon" there is no reason both the existing method and this method of formation building couldn't be included in an OOB. That way anyone wanting to use a company with a separate weapons platoon could and anyone wanted them blended with the rifle platoons can as well

Don

Let me take these one at a time so I'm sure I understand them, I'd VERY much like to create an OOB that will continue to work with existing scenarios yet allow players to access an "accurate" (I use quotes on stuff like this because its subjective) OOB.

#1
OK, there's enough empty slots in the OOB (unlike say the Russian) there's no need to remove units.
BUT - if I were to change availability dates would that effect existing scenarios? I'm assuming the dates are used for scenario creation but once a specific unit (for example Marine Squad 262 default dates 1/66-12/74) is selected for a scenario that unit number (262 in this case) will be used regardless of the dates or even a change in unit type (as you mentioned in your #2). I chose unit #262 for my example because it's primary weapon in #8, the M16 - while the Air Force got them in 1965, and the Army in 1967, the Marines didn't actually start using them until 1969 ... so I'd change the availability date to 1/69-12/74ish. The other "problem" is this squad has an M60 LMG as it's 2nd weapon - the Marines never used M60's at the squad level, and in fact in 1966 there's a good chance they would have had M14's and BAR's (the Marines hung onto the BAR until 1969ish officially and longer unofficially).
I've noticed (from experiments) that if you use the editor to change a weapon the information screen pulls it's data from the unit number not the unit itself. So should there be a change in weapons it appears the game will use the weapon data from the unit in the scenario rather then the weapon data from the unit number - correct? But any newly created scenario's (using the modified OOB) will use the "correct" weapons.

#2
Understood - infantry NEEDS to stay infantry and Lt Tanks NEED to stay Lt Tanks.
However - if the "new improved" Lt Tank now has an X3 radio code will it still be used in existing scenarios yet NOT be used when the AI decides to buy a Lt Tank formation? I assume it will look for another Lt Tank WITHOUT an X3 code (assuming the same availability dates) and select that instead.

#3
Much as I figured, the AI looks for specific formation numbers and expects them to exist from X start date to Y end date, but could care less what actually exists within the formation itself. So as long as an infantry formation stays infantry (as opposed to Mech, Armor, Helo, what-have-you), the AI picklists will function correctly.
You say not to "radically" change the formation dates. Can you define "radically"? Is it acceptable to alter them a couple years one way or the other? Or can you only change the start/end month?

I used the weapons platoon attachments as an example. A more "important" one would be say the size of an artillery battery.
In the current OOB Formation #28 Howitzer Bty 1/46-12/120 has 6 tubes, yet around 1986 when the Marines traded their old 105's in for M198 155's they also changed the battery from 6 tubes to 8. I can "fix" this by creating section type formation with 2 tubes and an availability date of 1/86-12/120 and put it in an empty slot in formation #28 (#7 in this case) so that from 1/46-12/85 a battery will have 6 tubes and from 1/86-12/120 it will have 8.
This will of course create a problem as a battery is now 33% more capable and expensive.
And while I could of course create a new battery formation with 8 tubes that the AI will ignore (it not being on it's pick list) and the players can use.

The "problem" is that WinSMBT is a game that's attempting to simulate "real" units and warfare. I AM NOT attempting to criticize the game or your truly excellent work. I am attempting to help improve the game.

[DRG]

Suhiir said:
if I were to change availability dates would that effect existing scenarios?

Short answer.....no it will not affect the scenario.

Suhiir said:

I've noticed (from experiments) that if you use the editor to change a weapon the information screen pulls it's data from the unit number not the unit itself. So should there be a change in weapons it appears the game will use the weapon data from the unit in the scenario rather then the weapon data from the unit number - correct? But any newly created scenario's (using the modified OOB) will use the "correct" weapons.

If you change the weapon data for a weapon the change will show up in the sceanrio

If you change a units weapon to something else ( say... a BAR to a Bazooka ) the the original sceanrio will retain the BAR but any new purchases will be the bazooka and any changes in ammo will also be carried over with the new change but the old numbers will be retained for the old weapon

Suhiir said:

Understood - infantry NEEDS to stay infantry and Lt Tanks NEED to stay Lt Tanks.
However - if the "new improved" Lt Tank now has an X3 radio code will it still be used in existing scenarios yet NOT be used when the AI decides to buy a Lt Tank formation?

Correct. Radio code changes do not affect sceanrios

Suhiir said:

You say not to "radically" change the formation dates. Can you define "radically"? Is it acceptable to alter them a couple years one way or the other? Or can you only change the start/end month?

It depends on the the picklist and how much you want to change things. The picklist looks for formation X and from year Y - year Z it picks it .

Suhiir said:
I used the weapons platoon attachments as an example. A more "important" one would be say the size of an artillery battery.
In the current OOB Formation #28 Howitzer Bty 1/46-12/120 has 6 tubes, yet around 1986 when the Marines traded their old 105's in for M198 155's they also changed the battery from 6 tubes to 8. I can "fix" this by creating section type formation with 2 tubes and an availability date of 1/86-12/120 and put it in an empty slot in formation #28 (#7 in this case) so that from 1/46-12/85 a battery will have 6 tubes and from 1/86-12/120 it will have 8.
This will of course create a problem as a battery is now 33% more capable and expensive.
And while I could of course create a new battery formation with 8 tubes that the AI will ignore (it not being on it's pick list) and the players can use.

Adding a section to the formation at a specific date to increase it's size is one way things like this have been used before in other OOB's