Cold War 2020 mod: first release!

[MarkSheppard]

Wait wait, you somehow figured out how to edit the picklists?

Please tell us how to!

[PlasmaKrab]

Well, I sorta had to, what with new formations and all...

No rocket science though, thanks to the explanations and examples Andy posted on the DOS SPMBT list site a while ago.
Granted, it took me the best of two days figuring out how the hell the whole thing was working, but once you get the whole picture it is nearly clear and very efficient!

If you want to have a try yourself please take some time to read the help file and examples thoroughly, kickstart some of your own edits and check what it does.
Editing itself is a pain even through a table editor, you keep jumping from Excel to MOBhack, and the only thing that will test is running endless random battles till the IA buy pick is right enough (IA purchases, you deploy).

Oh, and of course, BACK. UP. EVERYTHING.

Edit: changed the DL address to a freshly uploaded file, probably some registration issue with the Yahoo site.

[MarkSheppard]

Plasma, is it possible to say, copy the US picklist .dat file into the slot for say El Salvador, and get the AI to pick like it's the US; if you wanted to replace El Salvador with a US style force?

[MarkSheppard]

Okay, for some talk about the cold war mod.

Laser PDW, I don't think they would be developed well enough to be deployed until the 2010s or 2020s, evne with Cold War Budgets. You have to do a lot of basic research, etc which goes along at the same pace whether or not it's funded heavily.

Upgunning the T-xx Series and Abrams series to 140mm would be a major undertaking; I would imagine a remote unmanned turret would be picked for simple expediency, as opposed to a major major major redesign of the turret to take the much larger gun.

I'd imagine that 140mm would be phased in in the 2000s; since a lot of countries like the US etc, have fairly recently only just jumped to 120mm and would like to get as much life out of the new guns before they need yet another jump in calibre.

[MarkSheppard]

BTW your link to the Pick List design doesn't work, is there a chance you can email it to me at ryancrierie at yahoo dot com?

[PlasmaKrab]

Hmm, caliber upgrade isn't just about what you want to get out of your old guns, but mostly about what the enemy is throwing at you...

As for upgunning the Abrams, I know the idea sounds wild, but it prevents from having to pursue a totally different line of research, with e.g. low-power ETC 120mm guns. Not that it hasn't interest, I'll cetainly use it in other countries, but developping 140mm ETC guns from scratch is hard enough.

I haven't worried too much about the 140mm conversion since I know it has been seriously studied for the Leopard-II and the Leclerc IRL. I'm still considering my M1A3 as having manual loading (maybe assisted, artillery-style?), but you have to understand that the whole affair (as for the Germans) is a mere stopgap to counter the first T-95s that are more of a match for the M1A2 and Leo2A5 than any previous Soviet tank. The solution that was proposed at the time (apart from plugging a new autoloader in the turret bustle...) was to go for conventional combustible two-parts ammo, with 2/3 as a front part containing the projectile (gives a decent length for a sabot rod) and 1/3 back with most of the propellant and the primer. Gives you two 140mm rounds in the place of 3 120mm ones in an Abrams' ready rack.

If you've played with the Block-III vehicles, you know that they are nearly untouchable by contemporary Soviet weaponry. Of course, they are also shockingly expensive (ETC gun, autoloader, laser PDW, airburst coax, remote-piloted turret, I don't even want to think about the engine(s)...) and are reserved to some predeployed forces in Germany, Turkey, Korea, Quwait...
Hence the need for a cheaper tank to keep the bulk of the forces up to date until there are enough of these behemoths for everyone.

[PlasmaKrab]

MarkSheppard said:
Plasma, is it possible to say, copy the US picklist .dat file into the slot for say El Salvador, and get the AI to pick like it's the US; if you wanted to replace El Salvador with a US style force?

Frankly, I think not.
You see, the lists are mostly made up of formation numbers (plus pick probabilities and prices, of course), and I fear equivalent formations in the OBFs of say, USA and Salvador, aren't in the same place in the formation index.

You can try swapping files, but the most probable thing that will happen is that you'll end up with a Salvadorean force made up of, say, odd support platoons, lonely utility vehicles and tank transports by the dozen... or something equally useless.

Best is to use the Excel spreadsheet Andy made up (link posted earlier on this thread), and check the various entries against the formations in the country's OBF. Mostly, that's how it works.

[Siddhi]

hi plasmakrab, posting instead of pm'ing it as i would like to welcome other comments if applicable.

do you plan to remodel rifles as well? this is of course an infamous discussion to date, however i consider it essential as platoon to&e have been constructed around the capabilities of the individual rifle-men and thus their rifle - countries with "bullpup" rifles tend to e.g. have a sniper somewhere in the platoon, assigned or organic, to make up for the range shortfall, or alternativly have invested in MGs rather then SAWs.

i have no idea to what extent this is possible to mod in SPMBT, but IMO the critical tactical combat parameters for a rifle can be condensed to different range groups, and would very widely - a none-scoped "bullpup" rifle e.g. would have a higher short-range (<50m) and lower long-range (>200m) value then say the M16A1. alternatively, the OPPOSITE is true for "long" rifles, especially 7.62mm ones, thus the from my view "traditional" SPMBT approach "all rifles improve accuracy at a set rate with decling range" (i could be wrong) needs to be evaluated - if this is possible. do have an interest in going in this direction with your mod?

[pdoktar]

One question. How come bullpup rifles should be more inaccurate only by their design of being bullpup? Ergonomics or what? I´ve never shot a bullpup rifle and I´ve heard that at some situations bullpup-style design tends to present the shooter as a bigger target due to the ergonomics.

However, given that bullpup-design makes room for longer barrels and hence higher velocities for a given size, I see no point in making it less accurate. Enlighten me.

[PlasmaKrab]

Pleeease guys, don't start dragging me into this sterile debate!

First thing to remember is that (with similar experience levels) the rifle accuracy amounts to nearly nothing in the hit probability.
This being said, I have indeed expanded the accuracy rating of small arms, roughly from 1 to 6 (most assault rifles being between 3 and 4). But what's about bullpup in this? I've given better accuracy to a G-36 than to an AK-47, but to a Lee-Enfield .303 as well. Same way, an L-85 gets higher accuracy than a FAMAS, bullpup as well.
The rating I have given is basically guesswork, but the objective criteria are barrel length, recoil (and buffering thereof), ergonomics and vision devices. Bullpup designs tend to get higher values because they are more recent and technologically more advanced all around.

Now what about starting another thread on this subject if you want to?