inf assault

[Suhiir]

I quite agree that there are certain to be some transport pilots that are "better" then average.
For instance I'm sure the USMC pilots that fly Marine One (The US Presidents copter) are amoung the best there are.
But in general - much like fighter pilots VS bomber or transport pilots - the ones flying the more "aggressive" types of birds are more likly to be the "better" pilots.
With my method of giving combat type helos a +8 formation modifier to their experience they are statistically likly to be "better" then transport helos without the modifier, but given the random experience generation used by WinSPMBT some transport pilots will be, and are, better then some combat pilots.

While I'd be the first to admit my method and reasoning WILL annoy some players (and game designers *wink*) and/or seem to be cheating or mini-maxing I find that the actual in-game results of this modification to do a pretty good job of better simulating "reality" then the current methods. Does this mean I'm "right" and they're "wrong"? Hardly...as with ANY morale/experience issue its a VERY subjective thing. That's why any non official OOB modification is properly viewed quite skeptically by the game designers and labeled "Use at your own risk" by players.

[Imp]

The only real snag with it is it should be applied across the board to all nations, also it could be argued tank crews are better than AFV or truck ones.
I have noticed quite a few things that have crept in as diffrent people have a go at OOBs, its a lot to check before saying its correct.
Now this might be due to National traits which is what I think the experince rating is a partial reflection of.
Take for instance as can remember South Africa its set up with very good C&C giving extra rally chances.
You can buy a Mech Platoon which has its own Company Leader, forget the name & no doubt tryiing to represent a special formation.
Its artillery to is arranged nicely allowing you to buy in 2 groups of 3 or 4 with the first unit a Company Leader. Very handy now you can cross attach other support elements like AAA to him. Yet most nations will come as a battery of 6-8 units not 2 troops one being the Leader.
If you buy ATGM jeep type vehicles as a company they come as one lump so a large platoon & being a company makes no diffrence except you can cross attach & add even more units!! Yet the stock USMC version comes with them split in platoons, this I agree might be because they are a staple vehicle in that force.

As I said it may be done on purpose in some cases to represent a good or poor command structure like the WW2 Russian tanks, its certainly nice playing the likes of South Africa because it is a flexible force due to the number of Company Leaders.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by Imp

The only real snag with it is it should be applied across the board to all nations, also it could be argued tank crews are better than AFV or truck ones.

One could attempt such an argument
But in my case at least, I've made it a point NOT to allow myself to succumb to them.
On the ground side I give scout, Recon, and SEAL a bonus, but such units already had one in the vanilla game and across all OOBs anyway.

Originally Posted by Imp

If you buy ATGM jeep type vehicles as a company they come as one lump so a large platoon & being a company makes no diffrence except you can cross attach & add even more units!! Yet the stock USMC version comes with them split in platoons, this I agree might be because they are a staple vehicle in that force.

Actually this is exactly the sort of "administrative" orginization that exists in the current USMC OOB I'm eliminating as part of my OOB revision.

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

My reasoning is very simple. The "best" helo pilots are the ones that fly the attack helos, "average" pilots fly transports.

It's a valid point and somewhere on the to-do list is a note to give some consideration to this idea for ground attack airstrikes and attack helos.

Don

[Wdll]

Eh, any chance of allowing airplanes to be part of your core units?

I would also ask about increasing the 200 limit, but I think I know the answer to that one.

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Wdll

Eh, any chance of allowing airplanes to be part of your core units?

I would also ask about increasing the 200 limit, but I think I know the answer to that one.

No. They are meant to be support only in the context of a campaign

and

impossible without breaking way too many things.

Don

[Wdll]

ok, thanks for the replies.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by DRG

It's a valid point and somewhere on the to-do list is a note to give some consideration to this idea for ground attack airstrikes and attack helos.

Don

WOW!

Not only do I not get shot for making such a statement I actually get a sideways complement.

>feints<

[Imp]

Come now Suhiir you ladys have a way of doing these things, if by the time Don gets round to looking at it he thinks it was his idea balance will be maintained.
I have come to accept that half of my "great ideas" were never mine at all it just dawns on me later I have been bushwhacked .......again

[Cross]

Originally Posted by Lt. Ketch

I don't know how many are fimilar with Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker Guide to the Galaxy, but your advice is proven in the series. Not that anybody ever follows it, but it's good advice none the less. Thank you.

Great book, and excellent advice.

Intuitively, it doesn't sound right that you need to be careful - in a turn by turn computer game - not to panic, but you do.

It's all too easy to over react and abandon caution in order to attempt to rescue a situation that went poorly, or take risks hoping for a lucky outcome.

I agree that the way to make a 'come back' in fire fight or battle that's not going well, is to stay calm and make careful and sound tactical and strategic decisions. You can't make these decisions while in panic mode.

I've made some very unlikely comebacks, when I've managed to heed this advice.