Members Ssnake Posted April 14 Members Share Posted April 14 Yeah... no maintenance, no gun cleaning, ... "just the fun parts". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major duck Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 (edited) While we are at V5 Arty: HX smoke aka slow smoke but long lasting WP quick smoke/ Fire effect and weapons effect Super HE Super short delay HE so it buries itself 2m down then exploding so Trenches collapses. HE timed delay (Airburst) and proximity (Airburst) Assign support units to specific units so mortars are firing only for INF and 155 fire for all RCH 155 like fire on the move APCs with generic Nemo like turret just like the generic RVS Sounding / Radar location radar K239 Chunmoo, Puls, Atmos 2000 (8x8) with HIMARS like guidance aka 1 rocket 1 hit Tanks that fire generic loitering munitions APCs that fire Brimstone like generic ammo CV90 with spike ER etc... or that french one CV9035 where you can change gun to 50 mm like IRL CV9035 with mast like CV9035NL MIDlife update K2PL Autonomous combat drones for Tanks, IFV, INF Leopard 2A7, Leopard 2A8 with variants Boxer Heavy weapons carrier STRV 122 upgrade to fire control so it can mark 10 targets and then fire at all 10 (with auto tracking) without the gunner needing to reacquire the targets (Generic version off course) like irl A map direction and range tool Making a Unit template design function that's independent of callsign template Aka drag all the units stuff into it in the right numbers assign callsigns to each unit connect them with drag and drop with no restrictions because callsign and unit id are 2 fields aka unique ID pr unit/Man So we can regroup units after losses and a tanker from 1 tank can hop out of a damaged or crew damaged tank and replenish another tank on the fly if they are close or they can do ground recon without the whole vehicle Also let COs change callsign on the fly as needed and/or regroup multiple units Also in that unit template you can assign vehicles where they are suppose to be in a formation with all the different formations and decide which formation types they are trained in the use off Also make it possible to reload tanks from sister tanks or a damaged tank After seeing what arty is doing in Ukraine a upgrade to that weapon seem just a bit relevant maybe an idea just something to consider Server without a graphics interface that just runs the game like an app you tell it which scen and a start button and the rest is controlled by the designated DM. Control it from the COs(DM) and Opfor COs client session Join in progress without start and stop AAR with graphics from game including overlays Possibility to have map on secondary screen instead of running a full extra client which have never really worked well MD Edited April 16 by Major duck 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamfritz Posted April 22 Share Posted April 22 F5 map to match the F1 map view in IVIS in M1A2 plz. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamfritz Posted April 22 Share Posted April 22 Tom Carhart's "Iron Soldiers" portrays catastrophic T-72 explosions as including the engine shooting out the back "like a wet bar of soap". I wanna see that wet Ruski soap fly along with the turret popping off. Plz. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted April 23 Members Share Posted April 23 Never saw a T-72 wreck that had its engine shout out from it. Wouldn't know what to make from that description, as much as it may set your imagination on fire. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iarmor Posted April 23 Share Posted April 23 That T-72 probably looked like this T-54 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamfritz Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 On 4/23/2024 at 1:26 PM, Iarmor said: That T-72 probably looked like this T-54 Ahem... *uploads images smartly... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abraxas Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 (edited) This traffic sign is currently missing. It would be nice if this sign could be included in the next update/upgrade. Edited April 25 by Abraxas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamfritz Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 On 4/23/2024 at 1:26 PM, Iarmor said: That T-72 probably looked like this T-54 Also Heavy Metal by Conrad and Martz, page 10, in the opening tank battle a T-72 expels its engine out the back when hit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamfritz Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 I talked to a army vet who said in 1991 they lined their Bradleys with claymores. Banged infantry that got close. Said it was effective. Ver. 5 maybe? (I'm kidding just upping my post rating with interesting and informative facts) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart666 Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 I think I read they did that on M113's in vietnam as well, although ive never seen photos of it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nike-Ajax Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 I am highly dubious of strapping claymores to a m113 for a number of reasons. Did find this with M5 non-lethal mines that look a lot like a claymore but with a lower charge and armed with rubber balls: https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern-us-canada-em113a2-rapid-entry-vehicle-2/ Dont know how much its been used though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamfritz Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 I used to think M-113s were so big. Now I know they're so small. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major duck Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 On 4/27/2024 at 11:44 PM, iamfritz said: I used to think M-113s were so big. Now I know they're so small. Yep M113 vs Piranha 5 Small container home vs high-rise M113 carries 11 troops (2 crew 9 INF vs P5 3 Crew 8 INF) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted April 29 Members Share Posted April 29 The two are hardly comparable. Mine protection was pretty much non-existant on the M113 and is quite good with the Piranha. That requires special shaping of the belly, and also the 95% percentile of male adults that are supposed to fit has changed substantially since the early 1960s, which again drives up the volume requirements. But, yes... there is a considerable size inflation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamfritz Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 3 hours ago, Major duck said: Yep M113 vs Piranha 5 Small container home vs high-rise M113 carries 11 troops (2 crew 9 INF vs P5 3 Crew 8 INF) Local airport, many years ago, had a big military display for Veterans' Day. They had an M-113 and another, some earlier model of same with an open roof (this was 20 years ago). My toddlers could climb up on the seats and look out almost. I was amazed they were so tiny inside. Decades pass, the memories fade, yesterdays become yesteryears... I get a 1:72 Bradley and M-113. And ya, so tiny! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 One for the "Ver 5.x List". Currently the Mission Editor seems to display "ideal" night vision and weather compared to playing the scenario normally: Mission Editor: Offline Session: I can understand that for fault finding, etc. but it can be frustrating when in the Editor something is clear as day and you wonder why the AI isn't seeing it or the engagement ranges are very short. Can we perhaps revise the Mission Editor to either have a choice to display either an "ideal" version of the visibility or a "as per the scenario settings" version, or given resource constraints, just the "as per the scenario settings" version? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted May 10 Members Share Posted May 10 Mission Editor shows you thermal view, execution phase will show what the controlled unit has (in this case, image intensifier). I recognize how that may cause confusion, however. Is now registered under #12341. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 1 hour ago, Ssnake said: Mission Editor shows you thermal view, execution phase will show what the controlled unit has (in this case, image intensifier). I recognize how that may cause confusion, however. Is now registered under #12341. Aha! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocalypse 31 Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 Wish: Unit Map Icons When I change the overhead weapon station on a recon vehicle (like: VAMTAC ST5 or Tigr) to an ATGM in the editor then that vehicle gets an wheeled ATGM map icon instead of a wheeled recon map icon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocalypse 31 Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 Wish: Bail Out / Abandon Tank feature. No, this is not a request to fight on foot or generate a dismounted tank crew. But rather a way to abandon or 'soft kill' a vehicle that is beyond repair. Backstory. In today's session we had a Leopard 2 that was heavily damaged - almost entirely every system was damaged or destroyed, but it sucked down a platoons worth of BM-60 ammunition from a T-72 platoon. Instead of moving on, the T-72 platoon became entirely fixed on the immobile vehicle - despite the owner's attempt to keep the platoon moving forward, they remained fixed on the vehicle - even turning their turrets backwards to continue to fire. There was nothing that anyone (myself, the owner) could do. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgs Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 (edited) A manual "cease fire" override might be helpful to. (One that isn't "hold fire", since that counts for all target leaving your vehicle completely without any reaction to other enemies.) In reality a tank crew would have to asses themselves whether the target is still threat. It would be neat to have a function that allows me to tell my crew they can ignore a target. Of course that leaves the possibility of human error but I think it would still be very helpful. Someone who wants to can use it and someone who doesn't feel certain enough can still hit it another time and let the AI judge. Edited May 12 by Higgs 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Colossus Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 2 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said: Wish: Bail Out / Abandon Tank feature. No, this is not a request to fight on foot or generate a dismounted tank crew. But rather a way to abandon or 'soft kill' a vehicle that is beyond repair. you can do that with the destroy if argument in the mission editor- i already attach that kind of a script to all units in a scenario my request is a dismount / mount if dialog in the mission editor, so that the crew is visually represented and is manipulated outside of the vehicle (to depict bailing, or conduct survey of the terrain, simulating maintenance or instances of mounting up with contact reported imminent or something) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted May 12 Members Share Posted May 12 Under the current engine vehicle crews are treated as a vehicle component. Therefore, dismounting them, no matter the circumstances, is not possible. One more reason why we're focusing on V5 development. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocalypse 31 Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 16 hours ago, Captain_Colossus said: you can do that with the destroy if argument in the mission editor- i already attach that kind of a script to all units in a scenario I know, but not every scenario designer knows how to do this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.