The link Pat provided in both post 380 and 382 work for me....the one Suhiir provided produces a 404
and since I get constantly nitpicked about things like this the actual manual states
Quote:
Load capacity 21 combat-equipped troops
......and the USMC OOB has it set up for 23 but in THIS CASE it is justified as two of the three AAVP7A1 are under capacity but the third is at max because the game does not allow enough unit slots to break down the MMG teams
Just saying......sometimes we have to adjust RL to fit the game but in this case, the overall platoon has the correct number of vehicles and the correct number of troops when I check it deployed in the game in April 2017 the Rifle Plt(Mec) loads 17+13+23 = 53 and Rifle Plt*(Mec) loads 13+13+23 = 49
53 / 3 = 17.6
49 / 3 = 16.3
so *technically* the Rifle Plt*(Mec) will load all available troops into a SU but the Rifle Plt(Mec) will not by half a man per vehicle
In the big scheme of things it's a minor issue but allowing a one or two added capacity to make it work in the game is one thing...6 over capacity is stretching things a bit too far and I would LOVE to have 12 slots instead of 10 but 10 is what we have
Bottom line.....we will do what we can do within the limitations of the game structure and the information we have available
Don
__________________
"You are never to old to rock and roll if you are too young to die".--- What do you expect to be doing when you are 80?
The other possibility is removing the sniper and ATGM Teams from the platoon formations (neither is actually part of the platoon TO&E anyway, they were just put there because there was room) to make room for the AAVs and putting them in the company level formations ... I'm playing with different possibilities.
__________________
Suhiir - Wargame Junkie
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Formation# 484 Rifle Plt (Mec) - DELETE FORMATION (no longer used - CHECK PICKLISTS)
Formation# 486 Rifle Plt* (Mec) - DELETE FORMATION (no longer used - CHECK PICLISTS)
HeHeHe..... EVERY picklist in the USMC uses those formations...all 100 of them and I have little enthusiasm for that but we can accomplish this change a slightly different way that won't involved changing 100 picklists
>
>
>
EDIT
490 is copied to 484 and 486 which are the primary mec platoons used by the picklist...then 490 is deleted
484 runs 1/46-12/74
486 runs 1/75-12/125
the remaining coys are set up with the appropriate platoons and all is right with the universe again and no picklists were harmed........484 and 486 are duplicates but so what ? It's not like we are going to run out of formation slots in that OOB....and it's NOT how the OOB is structured in MOBHack that is important....it's what's displayed in the game for players to use and from that POV it does not matter at all that 484 and 486 are the same
There are 10 picklist issues remaining that involved Form 487 ....I will deal with those later..
FURTER EDIT
I dealt with is now while it's fresh.
Form 487 is now a duplicate of 485 with different dates
485 runs 1/75 - 12/85
487 runs 1/86 - 12/92
picklist remain untouched and the change to the game is seamless
Everything fits, nobody is on foot, the picklists remain as they are and the CC for the vehicles is closer to spec than they have ever been and all that is "a good thing" getting the formations to work with the AAV7 and the SU is " a very good thing"
AND..... you CAN fit everyone into a SU coy @ 17 per vehicle
__________________
"You are never to old to rock and roll if you are too young to die".--- What do you expect to be doing when you are 80?
The USMC would be proud you've managed to get one below their "notional" goal of 18 in an AAV. I know I left the definition of the above word but, in this case it was the desired goal of the CORPS if you took the time to read from that ref. A job well done!! Even I can live with it, not that I'd have much choice in the matter, however, it's still worth mentioning for the effort alone to get there.
I was wondering however, what caused all the flurry of activity surrounding the AAV-SU. I gave it a quick thought and "low and behold" there it was in the OOB and the good news is that you can use it now instead of six years from now!!!! Now I've always been held to the six month standard (Our agreement for SWAG.) of a projected fielding date with Don, maybe I misunderstood the agreement all these years and it really was six years all this time!?! Oh Happy Day!!!! Stand by to receive incoming traffic!!!! First a little Icon party: , , , , and !!
As a note, I have found other USMC data that's holding to late 2022/or 2023 for fielding the AAV-SU. Can post if desired.
Seriously to you both, well executed and a good job!!!!
Regards,
Pat
__________________ "If something is not impossible, there must be a way of doing it." - Sir Nicholas Winton
"Ex communi periculo, fraternitas" - My career long mentor and current friend -QMCM/SS M. Moher USN Ret..
I was wondering however, what caused all the flurry of activity surrounding the AAV-SU. I gave it a quick thought and "low and behold" there it was in the OOB and the good news is that you can use it now instead of six years from now!!!!
Regards,
Pat
It's in operational testing AFAIK so I put it in the OOB
__________________
"You are never to old to rock and roll if you are too young to die".--- What do you expect to be doing when you are 80?
I ran a quick check with the current date and the coys work well for both types of AAV and the load combination I got with the SU's put everyone inside with a max per vehicle of 16. I will check other decades tomorrow but it's looking very good. When I'm more awake than I am now I will recheck this......as it looks like the SU's can be made their RL 17 CC
Don
__________________
"You are never to old to rock and roll if you are too young to die".--- What do you expect to be doing when you are 80?
I ran a quick check with the current date and the coys work well for both types of AAV and the load combination I got with the SU's put everyone inside with a max per vehicle of 16. I will check other decades tomorrow but it's looking very good. When I'm more awake than I am now I will recheck this......as it looks like the SU's can be made their RL 17 CC
Don
Nope, they'll need 18 ... you have to fit the sniper teams and javelin teams into them too. With the limit of 10 units per formation and having to split the MMG section into teams the snipers and ATGMs are no longer in the platoon formations.
__________________
Suhiir - Wargame Junkie
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Nope, they'll need 18 ... you have to fit the sniper teams and javelin teams into them too. With the limit of 10 units per formation and having to split the MMG section into teams the snipers and ATGMs are no longer in the platoon formations.
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Re: APC Development and related topics.
, 
, 
, 
, 
and 
!!
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Hybrid Mode
