[1.04b11] Add infantry fighting vehicle model

[OldSarge]

ORIGINAL: demiare

ORIGINAL: OldSarge

I have, watched a round from a LAWS burn a hole through the side of a sacrificial M113.

HEAT weapons aren't "burning", they're piercing - this process is described not as melting but as interaction of two dense liquids. Physics could be quite crazy sometimes [:D]

And no, HEAT weapons barely damage anyone inside (not pierced by blast itself ofk) if armor able to hold initial explosion and not crushed by it. Kinetic weapon instead will slash everyone inside with a shards of armor and everything on it's part (including even victim's bones).

It was the shrapnel I was remembering, the interior was painted white over red for effect. There wasn't a centimeter in the passenger compartment that was showing red flecks. That was an old memory tho', about 40 years ago.

[Malevolence]

[:D]

In any event, IFVs are the future not the past. It's the tank that is having issues at the moment.

Anyway, everything is fine, including all the other standard Land Component functions--long range precision fires, individual lethality, vtol, etc.

Cool things to watch for-- driver auto-pilot, smaller crews (2) carrying more pax, more modular for upgrades and maintenance, more speed and agility, hybrid-electric, drone launchers, less armor(?), stealth smoke (like the old sea destroyers), a remote control mode (like from a nearby bunker, etc.), moar guided missiles!, and moar guided missiles! Be prepared for direct versus indirect fire to become more blurred---off-board sensors.

The "Add a gun to the apc" made me laugh. Well, sure. That works. Or maybe, add transport infantry to a tank too. [:)]

I'm teasing, but think about the Marder for example. It's an APC with direct fire weapons to fight other vehicles. Sooo it's an IFV, and not an APC. [;)]

You could call it an APC, but you would be wrong.

Also, keep in mind the mission role matters.

IFV or not an IFV? Is it a truck with armor?



I'm joking some here, but seriously, if it were only me making a game, I would have thrown out all the legacy WW2 trash. Models would be whatever a player wanted to make based on a very few generic types. Player selected names, little counter art, and categories for data grids, etc. with an OOB system that was vastly more customizable. The limited, preconceived notions surrounding both models and OOB are a hinderance, not a help.

[demiare]

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

In any event, IFVs are the future not the past. It's the tank that is having issues at the moment.

[X(] Lol, I think recent Middle-East data was pretty clear for everyone. Artillery & tanks still winning battles, mobile light infantry slaughtered by then easily.

Don't forget that tanks turned into tank destroyers is a problem for only specific region on our good old Earth [:D]

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

long range precision fires, individual lethality, driver auto-pilot, smaller crews (2), less armor(?), stealth smoke

Useless crap. Much better to have high density of fire (artillery at best or at least heavy MG) plus wounded-but-alive enemies so they will force enemy to either waste resources to save them or suffer morale from watching their friends dying.

Smaller crews is sound really good... until you need to deal with battle damage.

I laugh so much about "less armor" because you'd mentioned Marder next. Good joke

Stealth smoke? Future? They're widely used and latest generation provide partial IR- and radar cover.

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

I'm teasing, but think about the Marder for example. It's an APC with direct fire weapons to fight other vehicles.

No, it's direct fire weapon capable to deal only with another APC and unarmored vehicles. And unsuited to supporting infantry. It's another attempt to compensate very poor amount of anti-tank weapons (in any form). Specific issue of several countries, huh.

ORIGINAL: Malevolence
Models would be whatever a player wanted to make based on a very few generic types. Player selected names, little counter art, and categories for data grids, etc. with an OOB system that was vastly more customizable.

Sad but will not work. Players ALWAYS want more. [:D]

[Hazard151]

Sounds to me like granting APCs access to RPGs and Light energy weapons would resolve the IFV question.

[Malevolence]

ORIGINAL: Hazard151

Sounds to me like granting APCs access to RPGs and Light energy weapons would resolve the IFV question.

Actually, RPG's, etc. are an infantry super-type. It's some kind of legacy grenadier name.

An IFV is a transport super-type vehicle in game terms.

So as well as transporting infantry, it could ostensibly tow equipment like towed field artillery.

That said, I'm all in for direct fire guided missiles--as components of vehicle models.

[Hazard151]

I meant the in game RPG/Bazooka weapon type, which could be made available to APCs.

Besides, IIRC in Mechanized units APCs are used to tow artillery in the game so...

[demiare]

ORIGINAL: Malevolence
That said, I'm all in for direct fire guided missiles--as components of vehicle models.

Thumbs up for this suggestion!
But for sake of balance I think they should provide only a hard defense. We already have a very small role for tanks with high-velocity guns, no need to reduce it to non-existing at all.

[lloydster4]

There are other ways you could balance direct fire missiles
-Large ammo costs
-Limited number of combat rounds
-Larger penalties to soft attack/soft defense

[Malevolence]

ORIGINAL: lloydster4

There are other ways you could balance direct fire missiles
-Large ammo costs
-Limited number of combat rounds
-Larger penalties to soft attack/soft defense

Indeed; vehicle and trooper models are explicitly assigned one primary weapon. A trooper may carry a pistol, rifle, grenades, etc. but only the model's property values matter.

One of the great capabilities of an ATGM is standoff. Can't be modeled as far as I know.

Ultimately we assign the primary weapon and attack values are calculated for offensive soft attack, offensive hard attack, defensive soft attack, and defensive hard attack. The applied engineering and chemistry techs provide modifier to the base. Number of attacks, ammunition use, etc.

A vehicle platform mounting an Standard ATGM receives only those properties, all other things being equal.

There is no 30mm auto-cannon and ATGM, for example, unless you call the primary weapon both of those and set the properties appropriately.

As far as I was able to discern, there is no "range" in combat. Two combat modes exist, direct fire and indirect fires--called ranged attack. No standoff in direct fire. [:@]

Everything I have described in this thread (the IFV, ATGM, etc.) is facade for player imagination.

Ultimately it could be---platform 1 mounts weapon 2 with 25 offensive soft attack, 10 offensive hard attack, 25 defensive soft attack, and 50 defensive hard attack, 2 attacks per round, etc.

I would be curious if 0.34 attacks per round would be possible. High alpha strike, lower average damage per round.

As I'm sure you know, armor is the basis for hitpoints, but the simulation is similar.

As others have pointed out here, it's only the strength of those values in their categories relative to other weapons that matter.

ORIGINAL: demiare

But for sake of balance I think they should provide only a hard defense. We already have a very small role for tanks with high-velocity guns, no need to reduce it to non-existing at all.

Your comments and Demiare's comments are the kind of analysis that would be done to add an ATGM, IFV, etc.

[demiare]

ORIGINAL: lloydster4

There are other ways you could balance direct fire missiles
-Large ammo costs
-Limited number of combat rounds
-Larger penalties to soft attack/soft defense

There is a problem here:
1) Ammo costs barely matter past early game (except very bad luck with metal too).
2) While limited number of uses seem to be nice - don't forget how much APC we have. They would have 2-to-1 ratio to enemy tanks if we're fighting equal sized units. This what I fear, ATGM APC turning into best way to counter tanks that completely not like in reality where APC is a food for tanks.
3) Well I don't think ATGM should boost soft attack/defense at all. But in same time they aren't prevent you to use machinegun...

Another option IMHO to include RPG infantry in every non-basic motorized/mechanized OOB. Maybe after special tech. This will more-or-less simulate having ATGM around plus simulate threat of infantry armed with ATGM.
For example - currently most mechanized/motorized OOB get +1 infantry sub-unit. Let's change it into RPG sub-unit.

[Malevolence]

ORIGINAL: demiare

...
This what I fear, ATGM APC turning into best way to counter tanks that completely not like in reality where APC is a food for tanks.
...

This is the reality, but they aren't called APC's then.

[;)]

The historical weakness of the ATGM, tracking and guidance, is diminishing significantly. Standoff is increasing. ISR platforms are improving due to digitization and miniaturization.

As an analogy, you're advocating battleship focused navies.

[demiare]

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

The historical weakness of the ATGM, tracking and guidance, is diminishing significantly. Standoff is increasing. ISR platforms are improving due to digitization and miniaturization.

Small issue here. Tanks are firing GM for a long time too And while their front armor usually hold hit from any man-portable ATGM - APC and infantry don't hold well a hits from tank's gun.

Guns on APC also increasing their calibers now = more range while man-portable ATGM are still limited by direct line of sight to it's target. Yes, there is a few experiments about indirect fire but with unsure results as small missile (for being man-portable) is very vulnerable to ECM.

So IMHO it's VERY hard to predict where it's going. Everything could change a lot. Carriers are great example - they are suddenly completely surpass battleships but in same time quickly became a prey to long-range super- and hyper-sonic ASM. Nobody expected that their golden age will be so short.

[Malevolence]

ORIGINAL: demiare

Small issue here. Tanks are firing GM for a long time too And while their front armor usually hold hit from any man-portable ATGM - APC and infantry don't hold well a hits from tank's gun.

Guns on APC also increasing their calibers now = more range while man-portable ATGM are still limited by direct line of sight to it's target. Yes, there is a few experiments about indirect fire but with unsure results as small missile (for being man-portable) is very vulnerable to ECM.

So IMHO it's VERY hard to predict where it's going. Everything could change a lot. Carriers are great example - they are suddenly completely surpass battleships but in same time quickly became a prey to long-range super- and hyper-sonic ASM. Nobody expected that their golden age will be so short.

I'm feeling you. Don't think I hate tanks. My first, as a PC, was named "Angel of Death".

Tanks aren't going away, but they are being relegated to a supporting role (i.e. Fires)-- like battleships.

It's the need to move troops to and on the objective that tips the scales. That requirement is not going away and cannot be avoided, even with drones.

Armor (RHA) is going down, not up--just like ships--given cheaper lethality. You can't put frontal armor on the entire tank. I can personally knock out an M1A2 Abrams, from the outside and above, with a hand grenade--placement matters.

The cost ratio is becoming more disproportionate as ATGM probability of kill (Pk) is increased. Tanks become too expensive relative to their mission capabilities.

With an IFV, we keep the same capabilities provided by tanks, but add the ability to protect and move infantry.

If the same could be done at cost and with the same level of protection, it would be VTOL "Long Range Assault Aircraft" instead of IFV's. air battle positions looked great on paper, but didn't work out well in practice.

With respect only to this world, I'm not even touching on the issue of worldwide urbanization, and how that is impacting R&D.

I get it, I've played countless versions of Operation Barbarossa games. To expand strategy, etc. a game needs to break out of the thought debt created by WW2 design and simulation.

[demiare]

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

Armor (RHA) is going down, not up--just like ships--as cheaper lethality increases.
The cost ratio is becoming more disproportionate as ATGM probability of kill (or Pk) is increased.

Your mistakes are here. Ship is a big and very expensive target so it's okay to waste tactical nuke on it (to be honest USSR & Russia naval doctrine was and still based on massed tactical nukes). Even without nukes armor capable to hold hyper-sonic missile is too heavy even for a ship.

Situation is completely different for land vehicles. While tactical nukes are still the thing - they're much more protected from them because of landscape. Hyper-sonic man-portable missiles aren't existing and will not exist at least in nearby several decades (atmosphere on low altitudes is extremely against hyper-sonic movement), while latest gen active defense systems are providing full protection against even APDS-shells. Plus advanced composite materials are holding super-sonic kinetic & HEAT quite well.

In fact even against obsolete soviet tanks at current wars on Middle East ATGM show very low kill ratio in frontal hemisphere. Usually crew simply retreated after being hit while tank still have full combat potential but this is mostly morale&discipline issues.

ORIGINAL: Malevolence
With an IFV, we keep the same capabilities provided by tanks

Seriously? We are lacking firepower, protection and ability to advance through firestorm / nuclear fallout. So we're sacrificing offensive power for ... what? AFAIK infantry zero offensive potential was clear since WW1. And artillery capabilities only increased a lot since WW1-2. Only tanks have a chance to break through it, engage & distract enemy and allow APC to follow them.

VTOL... VTOL are magic birds. [:D] As currently we have no VTOL capable to withstand any fire - I don't think we need to waste time discussing fairies & unicorns here

[Malevolence]

I get your hyperbole, I've played countless versions of Operation Barbarossa games. To expand strategy, etc. a game needs to break out of the thought debt created by WW2 design and simulation.

You don't counter ubiquitous use of lethal ATGM's with moar equivalent RHA, unless you can make a breakthrough in materials. You have to develop new strategies.

ORIGINAL: demiare

I don't think we need to waste time discussing fairies & unicorns here

This game, and the others, are fairies & unicorns already.

[demiare]

ORIGINAL: Malevolence
This game, and the others, are fairies & unicorns already.

Without any real-life example with actual combat experience - we can't make a constructive dialogue. Instead it will end like "You're liking Spiderman, I'm liking Batman - we're both mortal enemies". [:D] It will be funny discussion but fruitless.

Sure, game have a large inheritance from WW2. But IMHO it's a good thing as most players will instantly get at least vague guidelines. Plus game isn't WW2 in space - some things are different and some WW2-inspired tactics will not work at all. It's leaving an area for discovery and experiment without turning game into extreme sandbox do-your-own-way. Even now game is quite complex I really unsure that more complexity is a good idea (plus take in mind that we WILL get more complexity with ships and possibly aircraft DLC/expansion/patch).

[Malevolence]

ORIGINAL: demiare

"You're liking Spiderman, I'm liking Batman - we're both mortal enemies". [:D] It will be funny discussion but fruitless.

That describes this discussion well, I think. I'm enjoying the humor. I hope I've provided you some insights, nonetheless. You seem interested in military vehicles.

For me, it's procrastination. [:@]

[Malevolence]

Repeat. Version 1.04b11.