US Modern Data File

[MikeAP]

Work permitting, in the next few days I will release a new User data file that I'm working on. It will feature the United States Army modern TOE, complete with new units. This user file stems from a campaign that I'm working on - which I plan on publishing once 2.04 is released.

Formations
-Removed DIVISIONS from unit table. The US Army no longer fights as Division formations
-Removed REGIMENTS from unit table.
-Removed Support formations (ADA, SPA, etc) - these organizations no longer fight as a whole. Units will remain under individual, section, and platoon so the player still have them available.

-Added Armored Brigade Combat Team - Combined Arms BN*2, RSTA SQDN, FA BN
-Added Stryker Brigade Combat Team - INF BN*3, RSTA SQDN, FA BN
-Added Infantry Brigade Combat Team - INF BN*3, RSTA SQDN, FA BN

Equipment
-Added the Stryker series of vehicles (M1126, M1128, M1129, M1134, with more to come)
-Added M1A2 Abrams for ABCT (increased protection, and firepower - M829A3!)
-Added M2A3 Bradley for ABCT

Features
-Improved Command Radius to mirror modern communications equipment


I'm also working on a new OPFOR data set that will revolve around the use of the MIB - Mechanized Infantry Brigade (REF: FM 7-100.1) that will be used in my campaign.

[CapnDarwin]

Sounds great. Can't wait to play it.

[Sabre21]

Looks pretty good although I would have left Divisions in there in the sense that the brigade types are assigned to an in theatre division Hq and when reassigned from the combat zone go back to their parent division.

What about the engineers? The heavy and infantry brigades usually have a combat engineer battalion assigned and the strykers have an engineer company.

You're also missing the support battalions.

Another thing to look at are the Heavy Brigades. I see where some divisions refer to their brigades as heavy rather than armored. I also see some have 3 combined arms battalions and some with 2.

[CapnDarwin]

Engineer units are currently abstracted. One item we will expand on in the future. Especially with a combat engineer on the team.

[JohnOs]

MikeAP,

Are you using FKSM 71-8 Dec 2009 for the information on the HBCT, SBCT, and IBCT? If not what are you using? If you need a copy of FKSM 71-8 let me know and will post a link for you to download from my dropbox.

JohnO

[MikeAP]

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

Sounds great. Can't wait to play it.

Bear in mind, I'm no Mad Russian of scenario design. It pales in comparison to the stock campaigns/scenarios.

ORIGINAL: JohnO

MikeAP,

Are you using FKSM 71-8 Dec 2009 for the information on the HBCT, SBCT, and IBCT? If not what are you using? If you need a copy of FKSM 71-8 let me know and will post a link for you to download from my dropbox.

JohnO

I'm using the *NEW* FKSM, which has yet to be published. It includes updates to the SBCT formation and the activation of Brigade Engineer Units.

[Sabre21]

I have to admit that is one heck of a good document to have. I don't have the new one as you indicate. Are there many differences?

[JohnOs]

Ok, just found my latest copy dated May 2010. Can't wait to see how you build your user database. Been working on a 1989 TF that I'm going to use for my campaign. Everyday I found something new that I didn't know when working on it.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: MikeAP

Bear in mind, I'm no Mad Russian of scenario design. It pales in comparison to the stock campaigns/scenarios.

If you would like me to look at the campaign at some point I'd be happy to.

We've all been so intent on going back before 1989 that's refreshing to see someone move forward.

Good Hunting.

MR

[MikeAP]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: MikeAP

Bear in mind, I'm no Mad Russian of scenario design. It pales in comparison to the stock campaigns/scenarios.

If you would like me to look at the campaign at some point I'd be happy to.

We've all been so intent on going back before 1989 that's refreshing to see someone move forward.

Good Hunting.

MR

Having two issues:

1 - In the scenario editor I'm placing units in defensive positions, dug in with advantageous line of sight. When I start the scenario, the AI will move out of those positions, and lose their dug in status. Why are themoving, and how can I prevent them from doing that?

2 - Sudden Death. I'm holding off on the releases of the campaign until SD is fixed. Currently, it is impossible for the player to win without decimating the enemy, but failing to capture the objectives.

*Remember* Doctrinally, offensive operations are conducted to capture ground, not destroy the enemy. Destruction is the goal in defensive ops.

[Tazak]

ORIGINAL: MikeAP

1 - In the scenario editor I'm placing units in defensive positions, dug in with advantageous line of sight. When I start the scenario, the AI will move out of those positions, and lose their dug in status. Why are themoving, and how can I prevent them from doing that?

MikeAP, if you set the units to inactive they will not do anything until contact with enemy, I'm not 100% if the activation range is limited to line of sight or perf engagement range but I find it does avoid the AI moving units from defensive positions until contact

forgot to add, if you don't place AD/Arty in inactive mode they will still provide support

[MikeAP]

ORIGINAL: Tazak

ORIGINAL: MikeAP

1 - In the scenario editor I'm placing units in defensive positions, dug in with advantageous line of sight. When I start the scenario, the AI will move out of those positions, and lose their dug in status. Why are themoving, and how can I prevent them from doing that?

MikeAP, if you set the units to inactive they will not do anything until contact with enemy, I'm not 100% if the activation range is limited to line of sight or perf engagement range but I find it does avoid the AI moving units from defensive positions until contact

forgot to add, if you don't place AD/Arty in inactive mode they will still provide support

Thank you.

If/When I make contact with the enemy, will they automatically move? For some reason the enemy AI doesn't like the position the engineers dug for them.

[Tazak]

Once contact is made, all bets are off.....the AI then takes control so it will most likely head towards the nearest VP.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: MikeAP

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: MikeAP

Bear in mind, I'm no Mad Russian of scenario design. It pales in comparison to the stock campaigns/scenarios.

If you would like me to look at the campaign at some point I'd be happy to.

We've all been so intent on going back before 1989 that's refreshing to see someone move forward.

Good Hunting.

MR

Having two issues:

1 - In the scenario editor I'm placing units in defensive positions, dug in with advantageous line of sight. When I start the scenario, the AI will move out of those positions, and lose their dug in status. Why are themoving, and how can I prevent them from doing that?

2 - Sudden Death. I'm holding off on the releases of the campaign until SD is fixed. Currently, it is impossible for the player to win without decimating the enemy, but failing to capture the objectives.

*Remember* Doctrinally, offensive operations are conducted to capture ground, not destroy the enemy. Destruction is the goal in defensive ops.

1. Currently the AI is an attack oriented AI. It wants to attack. That being a primary function that the AI was mostly intended to play the Soviets and would be mostly attacking. Until we get some changes to the AI features that allow defensive postures the AI will not defend well. That's the main reason that most of my scenarios vs the AI are having the player defend.

2. Sudden Death is next up to be fixed after the hoxfix for 2.03. I would expect that to take at least a month to work through the system.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Tazak

Once contact is made, all bets are off.....the AI then takes control so it will most likely head towards the nearest VP.

Unless you are threatening a VP, probably not. What I would expect, is for the AI to access the threat to each of them and then move to contact to eliminate that threat.

[MikeAP]

I have defensive positions on TOP of VP's and the AI still wants to move away

[CapnDarwin]

MikeAP,

The AI will spread out from a VPL to better defendable terrain if it can. I will chat with Rob and see if there is a tweak we can do for units in hold/screen to be less prone to reposition. The inactive will help. This area will be better addressed in 2.1 with the orders revamp, but maybe we can tune the AI a bit more with what we have.