OOB 066 Sweden [WIP] - Page 2

Mobhack · #1 May 2nd, 2010, 01:57 PM

Special "Command" versions of anything are a very bad thing to do in the game.

They have no special abilities like in other wargames (increased radios so they can be on several nets etc, say).

They do tell the human opponent that they are a priority target, though. If you spot something it is identified!. And they introduce another unit class into the OOB that has to be tracked for changes etc. as well as the regular APC or tank it is based on.

Same goes for infantry - someone gifted the WW2 Germans with nice "KPFue" special elements, so I know precisely which ones to kill first to decapitate the company command

!. (You can also do the same when playing the British, since coy HQ use a different unit class from the normal infantry, although they are not given a specific "kill me first" name. Someting one of the third-party OOB designers slipped into my OOB, so they could have an SMG or something? - I certainly would not have done it that way, but used a standard element as coy HQ).

So if it brings nothing that the normal APC or infantry element does to the game system - simply use the regular element. Then your opponent does not get a free gift for targeting HQs.

Cheers
Andy

wulfir · #2 May 3rd, 2010, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mobhack

So if it brings nothing that the normal APC or infantry element does to the game system...

This is true, it would add nothing to the game except maybe cosmetics.

wulfir · #3 May 3rd, 2010, 11:19 AM

Formation changed

Formation................Name

017...................... Arm. Inf Pl 63

Plt organisation:

124 Arm Inf Section
124 Arm Inf Section
709 Arm Inf Section (New unit)
53 Pbv 301
53 Pbv 301
53 Pbv 301

Change: The new units 709 Arm Inf Section, 710 Arm Inf Section, 711 Arm Inf Section and 712 Arm Inf Section are all class 72 Light Mech Infantry. Identical in all stats (cost, radio code etc) to the existing 124, 125, 126 and 124 Arm Inf Sections except the weapons - the new units do not have any LMG. The Arm Inf platoon had 3 Grg but only two LMGs. Usually it was the first section that lacked the LMG as it carried mine clearance gear - but I made it the last section in the OOB - to avoid the Plt HQ being spotted by human players.

(During the cold war the Swedish army suffred from a lack of adequat number of modern small arms.)

wulfir · #4 May 8th, 2010, 01:02 AM

New formation

Formation................Name

441.....................Arm Eng Co 63

Company organisation:

686 Engineer Sec (New unit)
140 Recon Sec
589 Pltgb 903
570 Tgb 1/2t (jeep)
1442 Arm Eng Plt 63 (New formation)
1442 Arm Eng Plt 63 (New formation)

Notes: This formation represents the Armoured Engineer companies found in the Armoured Brigade Engineer Battalion. Each Arm Eng Bn had two Eng Coy's along with some other elements that fall outside the scope of the game. Armoured in name only, as it was transported in trucks, the company nevertheless was expected to be able to deal with some combat assignments. In reality it had a third platoon - the Machine Plt - manning certain engineer vehicles (left this plt out as the machine plt builds roads, plow snow etc)

New formation

Formation................Name

442.....................Arm Eng Pl 63

Plt organisation:

686 Engineer Sec (New unit)
686 Engineer Sec (New unit)
686 Engineer Sec (New unit)
692 Eng Spt Sec (New unit)
657 Ltgb 934 (New unit)
657 Ltgb 934 (New unit)
657 Ltgb 934 (New unit)
657 Ltgb 934 (New unit)

Notes: The Plt had four squads - three engineer sections (without heavy weapons) and one engineer support section with two LMGs and one Grg. Units 686 Engineer Sec, 687 Engineer Sec, 688 Engineer Sec and 689 Engineer Sec are all class 20 Engineer units with similar cost and equipment as existing eng units, although none have flamethrowers. Units 692 Eng Spt Sec and 693 Eng Spt Sec are class 195 Engineer Support Squad. Ltgb 934 is a medium truck, with something of a cult status that was in use between the 60s and 90s.

wulfir · #5 May 8th, 2010, 02:02 AM

New formation

Formation................Name

437.....................ArmBde AT Co 63

Company Org:

709 Arm Inf Section
569 Pltgb 903
1438 ATGM Sec 63 (New formation)
1438 ATGM Sec 63 (New formation)
1438 ATGM Sec 63 (New formation)
1048 AT Troop Pvtgb
1048 AT Troop Pvtgb
1439 Rifle Plt (AT)* (New formation)

Notes: Each Brigade had an AT Company. The ATGM platoon had 6 ATGM launchers and 3 Grg. The AT Platoon had 4 Pvtgb 1111. I have broken these into sections to fit all the transport and give the formation some flexibility.

New formation

Formation................Name

438.....................ATGM Sec 63

Section Org:

185 BANTAM Team
185 BANTAM Team
170 AT-inf Grg
569 Pltgb 903

Notes: Formation uses units now present in the OOB. No modifications.

New formation

Formation................Name

439.....................Rifle Plt (AT)*

Plt organisation:

125 Arm Inf Section
125 Arm Inf Section
213 Support Team (New unit)
213 Support Team (New unit)
218 8mm Ksp m/36
218 8mm Ksp m/36
657 Ltgb 934 (New unit)
657 Ltgb 934 (New unit)

Notes: The Brigade AT Coy included a bizzare rifle platoon. It had two rifle sections and two at sections but an unusual number of heavy weapons, including 4 LMGs, 4 Grgs and 2 HMGs. Unit 213 is a 5 man, size 1, support element - that might be revised as it has the LMG in slot 1. When the HMGs go out of service by 12/94 they are currently not replaced by any similar weapon.

wulfir · #6 May 8th, 2010, 02:29 AM

New formation

Formation................Name

440.....................ArmBde AT Co 63

Company Org

709 Arm Inf Section
569 Pltgb 903
1059 Arm SP-ARGM Plt
1059 Arm SP-ARGM Plt
1439 Rifle Plt (AT)* (New unit)

Notes: This formation "replaces" formation 437 ArmBde AT Co 63 in 1/82. I still need to find solid sources on this formation.
The BANTAM ATGM were replaced with the TOW armed Pvrbv 551 in the early 80s.

The Pvrbv 551 was a "re-used" and modified Ikv 102 or Ikv 103 Assault Gun - but heavier and with a weaker engine. The system was slow and had limited mobility. It was not overly popular with the crews but quickly filled a void in the Arm Bde org at a low cost. They were withdrawn from service in the early 2000s.

Unit changed

Unit................Name

440...................Pvrb 551

Change: End date changed from 12/120 to 12/101.

Mobhack · #7 February 5th, 2015, 01:42 AM

Points cost is nothing to do with AI targeting.

Relative importance is - so HQ, FOO, MRLs, SAMs, ATGMs, A/T guns, ammo units, engineers are all units that the AI will prefer given an array of choices to plot arty on.

See also the section on "AI interest" in the Game Guide release history section.

The priorities are different for direct fire plotting. Best target to shoot at differs for a sniper from an SP_ATGM. Planes prioritise FLAK.

But that sort of stuff is "duh" obvious. Splatting the battalion HQ if its spotted is a no-brainer. Liking ammo units is ditto - since only the human uses these to feed critical units and they tend therefore to be situated close by an important asset (SAM, ATGM, artillery). Engineers are good to kill, if its defending as that preserves field defences (and they tend to be deployed for a breach, or to be heading towards such).

shahadi · #8 February 8th, 2015, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scorpio_rocks

Quote:

Originally Posted by shahadi

What I've played with, to simulate realism, is to coax the AI into attacking Supply units, etc, by dramatically increasing their cost value from say 20 for a truck to 520. Now with this cost premium the player must defend the non-fighting units because the AI will go after those targets.

Does this actually work? Does the AI make targeting choices based on target cost? or will it target the unit that is more of a threat?, closer?, easiest to kill?, in its target priority (ie inf v inf, AT v Tank, etc)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mobhack

Points cost is nothing to do with AI targeting.

Relative importance is - so HQ, FOO, MRLs, SAMs, ATGMs, A/T guns, ammo units, engineers are all units that the AI will prefer given an array of choices to plot arty on.

See also the section on "AI interest" in the Game Guide release history section.

I got ahead of myself in my reply, no defense really; just was at my son's karate dujo - being a parent sometimes the multi-tasking thing does not always work. To proceed, I have dramatically increased the cost of a unit so that the player will use that unit in a realistic way. As I've done in the Red Line Syria series. For instance, not using the Osprey ferrying troops as a gunship, or buying a handful of trucks, rush them forward so that an ATGM will expend a shot on a cheap truck, and there are countless other examples.

Also, another unit that the AI will prioritize is the machine gun: light, medium, or heavy. And, I've talked about making separate formations of machine guns so that I can field individual units rather than sections, admittedly, primarily for maneuver and fire suppression concerns, rather than AI targeting (Although, if you have two MG targets, that's one more the AI has to target.)

"I Stand Accused," most notably by Issac Hayes, but some may remember the song of the same title by the immortal Jerry Butler.

------

Suhiir · #9 February 8th, 2015, 06:23 PM

While point costs have zip to do with AI targeting it can still be very useful to alter the value of support units with the editor, make sure you mention this in the scenario notes so the player is aware these are high value targets they want to protect.

shahadi · #10 February 8th, 2015, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suhiir

While point costs have zip to do with AI targeting it can still be very useful to alter the value of support units with the editor, make sure you mention this in the scenario notes so the player is aware these are high value targets they want to protect.

Yes, this is an important point to relay to the player of your scenario.