Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Crueldwarf

Pretty nice for a February actually.

I know, I looked for stuff that not likely to be used in many scenarios specifically. The most problematic are 23 mm guns for airplanes (I assume that MiG-17s could be pretty popular for air support) and especially 7,62mm vehicle MGs.

But I still do not understand why previous makers of the OOB decided to make distinct coaxial and bow machine guns of the same type within the same class. Is there something that I do not understand about the mechanic?

Detail freaks like details.......

Someone opens a book and sees that the standard BMG or Tank 'T' is XYZ and We used ABC they want it changed for "accuracy"..... the real problem is we didn't foresee running out of weapon slots when we expanded the unit and formations lists..... If we had done that at the beginning this would not be an issue but we never dreamed it would be and it is too late now.

The weathers been really nice here too for February but winter isn't done yet

[Crueldwarf]

Originally Posted by DRG

Detail freaks like details.......

Someone opens a book and sees that the standard BMG or Tank 'T' is XYZ and We used ABC they want it changed for "accuracy"..... the real problem is we didn't foresee running out of weapon slots when we expanded the unit and formations lists..... If we had done that at the beginning this would not be an issue but we never dreamed it would be and it is too late now.

The weathers been really nice here too for February but winter isn't done yet

Ah, OK, then I would ask some questions about overall design philosophy.

1. Soviet BMPs tend to have two more seats for the dismounts than they actually have in reality. First additional seat is vehicle commander seat I think as most IFVs and APCs have only two crew, but why there is another one?

Is it made because there is no way to split things like machine gun teams between two different vehicles?

2. Late 80s+ Soviet/Russian motor rifle platoons are under-strength in the game. Standard mech section have 7 men while support one have only six. It is 20 men total for the dismounted element and another 6 in vehicles.

Standard motor rifle section have 8 men in it (section commander, BTR/BMP gunner, BTR/BMP driver and 5 dismounts). And there is another 6 men in the platoon command group which is absent from the game as separate unit.

I always thought that command groups are simply spread out among the rifle squads. So mech sections should be either 7 men (if we have 3 men vehicle crews) or 8 (if commander dismounts too).

Also there should be two man PKM team in each BTR/Platoon after 90s as company machine gun platoon was disbanded. AT assets went to a company command and machine guns were spread out among the platoons.

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Crueldwarf

Ah, OK, then I would ask some questions about overall design philosophy.

1. Soviet BMPs tend to have two more seats for the dismounts than they actually have in reality. First additional seat is vehicle commander seat I think as most IFVs and APCs have only two crew, but why there is another one?

Is it made because there is no way to split things like machine gun teams between two different vehicles?

2. Late 80s+ Soviet/Russian motor rifle platoons are under-strength in the game. Standard mech section have 7 men while support one have only six. It is 20 men total for the dismounted element and another 6 in vehicles.

Standard motor rifle section have 8 men in it (section commander, BTR/BMP gunner, BTR/BMP driver and 5 dismounts). And there is another 6 men in the platoon command group which is absent from the game as separate unit.

I always thought that command groups are simply spread out among the rifle squads. So mech sections should be either 7 men (if we have 3 men vehicle crews) or 8 (if commander dismounts too).

Also there should be two man PKM team in each BTR/Platoon after 90s as company machine gun platoon was disbanded. AT assets went to a company command and machine guns were spread out among the platoons.

1/ yes partly partly to save slots when one carrier has 8 capacity and one has 9 it saves making an entire set of 9 by making them all carry 8 ( or vise versa)

2/ we CANNOT simulate reality exactly...close enough has to do. As I said before we've already had other Russians all over this OOB and what you see in mainly their corrections

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Crueldwarf

Standard motor rifle section have 8 men in it (section commander, BTR/BMP gunner, BTR/BMP driver and 5 dismounts). And there is another 6 men in the platoon command group which is absent from the game as separate unit.

I always thought that command groups are simply spread out among the rifle squads. So mech sections should be either 7 men (if we have 3 men vehicle crews) or 8 (if commander dismounts too).

Also there should be two man PKM team in each BTR/Platoon after 90s as company machine gun platoon was disbanded. AT assets went to a company command and machine guns were spread out among the platoons.

I have made OOB development adjustments to the Russian OOB that appear to set up the various mech formations more correctly with slightly larger mech units and so far I have not found a case where units were left on foot and the manpower count seems to be as close as we can get. Both the BMP and BTR Rifle plts now have 24 men on foot with 6 more as crew in year 2000 platoons but it's a juggling act to get this all to work with formations that span 75 years but I *think* I have. PLUS the BTR-50 formations are better represented in regards to manpower and number of carriers per plt/ coy

However, in future PLEASE use specific game formation numbers when making comments on formations so I know I'm looking at the same thing you are looking at