Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

ORIGINAL: Clux

Motorized AT guns: since we can have motorized arty, why not AT guns? they need to move a lot faster since they will be defending the frontline from tanks, which normally are faster than infantry

Isn't that in the game already?

Assault Guns and Tank Destroyers?

or do you mean AT Guns towed by Motorized trucks or mechanized APCs? I assumed they were towed. You can't haul them very far by hand. You would need horses or other beasts.

I suppose in my head, I didn't think the infantry were marching 250km each hex either--not with industrial age equipment. The transportation was simply less organized than the more specific OOB provided. Certainly those Operational Logistics Points aren't covering 5,000km back and forth each turn on foot.

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

Clearly my suggestion to modify OOB's was not a hit. [:D]

Eliminate or modify the Assault Infantry Formation

The new suggestion: make the model requirements for formation OOB's less restrictive of model types.

Examples...

Infantry can be Infantry, MG Infantry, RPG Infantry

Transport can be Truck, APC, IFV

Artillery can be towed-artillery, self-propelled artillery

Tanks can be Light, Medium, Heavy, etc.

etc.

With respect to formations, I keep thinking all the different model types (i.e. dimensions) are causing unnecessary complexity. It's a combinatorial explosion. Each model type adds an exponential increase of possible OOB's. As the potential for new models becomes a reality, I think it's important to consider the implications.

In the current WW2 models, we had a certain amount of history as a guide. With science fiction, we have historical, post-apocalyptic, modern, post-modern, and future models to consider and perhaps suggest.

Since we can already pick multiple models in the Raise Formation dialog window, allow players to choose any model in keeping with it's super-type.

With the current OOB design pattern, the players are left to negotiate and lobby for their method to be included as a hard coded design. This change, however, puts the responsibility on the player and not the OOB design. If you want a specific model equipped in a formation, the onus is on the player to provide the technology and the resources. If someone else wants something different, the onus is on them to provide it.

This also allows the game developers to retain their control and vision for the strengths and weakness of each super-type and type. MG Infantry are good in the defense, etc.

ORIGINAL: Destragon

I think you might be missing the point, Malevolence. This thread is just about a probable bug/oversight.

We can raise independent artillery units either with or without trucks. Without trucks, they have "foot" movement type, with trucks they have "wheel" movement type.
The weird thing is that we cannot raise independent anti-tank units with trucks (as far as I can tell). We can only raise them without trucks, meaning they are only available with "foot" movement type.

With respect to formations, I keep thinking all the different model types (i.e. dimensions) are causing unnecessary complexity. It's a combinatorial explosion. Each model type adds an exponential increase of possible OOB's. As the potential for new models becomes a reality, I think it's important to consider the implications.

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

@Malevolence:
You seem far off-topic.

This is about there being no "Independant Motorized Anti-Tank gun" unit.
Wich looks like a oversight.

This is not a discussion about OOB's. OOB and Independant Units are fundamental opposites.

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

@Malevolence:
You seem far off-topic.

This is about there being no "Independant Motorized Anti-Tank gun" unit.
Wich looks like a oversight.

This is not a discussion about OOB's. OOB and Independant Units are fundamental opposites.

Clearly an independent unit is an OOB, it is not, however, a formation of units. Go back an read my post about tables of organization and equipment. [;)]