Infantry weapons (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

ParachuteProne -> Infantry weapons (8/22/2015 7:41:46 PM)

In an effort to improve the foot infantry in my scenarios, I have been trying to find out what weapons we have available so the platoons can be armed with more than 7.62mm mgs. Having it on a list makes it easier for me to build my platoons.

Here is what I have found - hope it helps someone else. (Again - only infantry weapons)

RPG's - (this is where we seem to be short- would love to see some more)

Generic RPG
Carl Gustav 84mm

SAMS

Javelin
Stinger
FN-6 (China)
Redeye
RBS 70 & RBS 90
Mistral
Blowpipe
Sa 7 Grail a & b
Sa-14 Gremlin
Sa 16 Gimlet
Sa-18 Grouse
HN5a (Iran)
Misagh (Iran)
PZR Grom (Poland)
Starstreak

ATGM's

Hot3
HJ-8 (China)
FGM148 Javelin
Milan 2/2t/er
Tow
AT-14 Spriggan

MISC.

DHY 307 sensor tripod - DHY307 - camera/designator/IR camera - (France)
AN/PAQ-1 sensor tripod - AN/PAQ-1 LTD camera/Designator/IR camera (U.S.)
Generic binoculars
HF Radio
Seal saboteur - c4 high explosives
Spetsnaz Saboteur - High explosives
Saboteur - High explosives
Specop laser designator
Generic specop binoculars
SAS Saboteur - c4 high explosives

MORTARS
Various (Normally listed as seperate teams under each country)

Perhaps RPG's should be added to mech infantry platoons ?
Not sure of the advantage of having more than 1 binocular listed in a platoon.

If anyone can see something missed please post.

Mark




NakedWeasel -> RE: Infantry weapons (8/23/2015 4:25:46 PM)

I think we definitely should have SEAL/SAS/Spetsnaz .50cal rifles for anti-armor, as well as anti-personnel effects.

I also think some special demolition backpack nukes would be useful as well, albeit as a novelty piece for Cold War scenarios.

Most importantly, I again request that we have larger units such as battalions, regiments and brigades as single units, with the associated number hit points, sensors, (including organic ISR if appropriate) weapons, as well as the corresponding speed, range, and maneuverability of such an organization.



mikmykWS -> RE: Infantry weapons (8/23/2015 4:37:13 PM)

I can probably add a few standard anti armor weapons to the infantry formations but we've been holding off implementing too much until the game really has a deeper ground combat model defined. The more I add the more requests we get for this and we haven't really coded for it yet although I get why you want them. I want ground combat as well.[:)]

I think we may have added a generic company or battalion or two but for now you can just group the current platoons into companies, battalions and regiments.

Thanks guys for your patience on this.

Mike



NakedWeasel -> RE: Infantry weapons (8/23/2015 4:45:32 PM)

Patience is not required. The game is already amazing, and you are constantly adding our requests to make it better, at a speed that can only be described as "break-neck". So, implement away, and I look forward to all the other changes that you guys are constantly slinging in our direction as the development progresses.

Thank you, Mike and team. [sm=Cool-049.gif]



ParachuteProne -> RE: Infantry weapons (8/23/2015 6:34:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

I can probably add a few standard anti armor weapons to the infantry formations but we've been holding off implementing too much until the game really has a deeper ground combat model defined. The more I add the more requests we get for this and we haven't really coded for it yet although I get why you want them. I want ground combat as well.[:)]

I think we may have added a generic company or battalion or two but for now you can just group the current platoons into companies, battalions and regiments.

Thanks guys for your patience on this.

Mike



You have to stick to the "plan" :) No rush.
It's fun to talk about though.
A few more anti-armor weapons would be great :)
For me as long as the attrition rate is about right all the fine details like using terrain etc arent as big a thing in the near term.
Actually simply being able to unload troops is the itch I keep scratching :)
I'm sure it will be great once you get there !



kevinkins -> RE: Infantry weapons (8/8/2016 1:40:11 PM)

Is there another thread that discusses the ground combat model and future developments e.g. status of development? The grouping method above is tedious and probably less realistic than being able to start with battalions. Of course, with a much larger target for air power to engage, combat resolution will have to be adjusted to reflect supply lines along with front line units.

Thanks.



mikmykWS -> RE: Infantry weapons (8/8/2016 2:19:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kevinkin

Is there another thread that discusses the ground combat model and future developments e.g. status of development? The grouping method above is tedious and probably less realistic than being able to start with battalions. Of course, with a much larger target for air power to engage, combat resolution will have to be adjusted to reflect supply lines along with front line units.

Thanks.


Not really. Its not a priority at this point.

Thanks

Mike




kevinkins -> RE: Infantry weapons (8/8/2016 3:33:31 PM)

Thanks. Did not realize. Thought it might be WIP.



mikmykWS -> RE: Infantry weapons (8/8/2016 6:41:05 PM)

It is but not really worth talking about yet as a detailed ground combat model is a ways away. Right now all land units are really amazing targets with some ability to move and shoot. It works for what we need it for but isn't great to truly model land combat. Coming up soon is cargo which is all about landing these objects. More on that when we're ready.

Thanks!

Mike



kevinkins -> RE: Infantry weapons (8/9/2016 2:03:31 AM)

Understand. I actually have a test Soviet T-72 /BMP attack going against a handful of M1s and Bradley's. The US serves as a speed bump awaiting a flight of A10s while MiGs and F15s duel a few flight levels above. With a little imagination platoons = companies etc.. The only thing is a platoon is eliminated much quicker. But if the scenario goal is to keep a sector of ground free of enemy, the current ground model provides a way to simulate the orchestration of a combined arms defense. In this case a hasty US air base at Bandar Abbas. Funny the way the T-72s tend to break right through the line US line sort of like NTC episodes. But they are toast if the A10s would just find them.



mikmykWS -> RE: Infantry weapons (8/9/2016 2:47:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kevinkin

Understand. I actually have a test Soviet T-72 /BMP attack going against a handful of M1s and Bradley's. The US serves as a speed bump awaiting a flight of A10s while MiGs and F15s duel a few flight levels above. With a little imagination platoons = companies etc.. The only thing is a platoon is eliminated much quicker. But if the scenario goal is to keep a sector of ground free of enemy, the current ground model provides a way to simulate the orchestration of a combined arms defense. In this case a hasty US air base at Bandar Abbas. Funny the way the T-72s tend to break right through the line US line sort of like NTC episodes. But they are toast if the A10s would just find them.


Use 3-4 platoons.

M



kevinkins -> RE: Infantry weapons (8/9/2016 4:45:50 AM)

I was thinking the sim would slow down with all the units needed to have a proper brigade+ sized attack ... but I will give that a try. Any way to get ground units to engage on the move? They do not expend any.



mikmykWS -> RE: Infantry weapons (8/9/2016 12:15:58 PM)

You could try turning on opportunity fire in ROE. A brigade shouldn't slow the game down too much unless you're running XP or something like that.

Mike



Dysta -> RE: Infantry weapons (8/9/2016 12:25:23 PM)

As for the infantry unit sizes, my solution is combine multiple (1/2) platoons into one group, and then rename it as a bigger unit designation. Like 6 1/2-Plats (5-6 mens) grouped them and rename to company (30-36 men).



kevinkins -> RE: Infantry weapons (8/9/2016 2:04:32 PM)

Yes, tried various ROE settings and moving Soviet tanks will not engage (no weapons expended). I was thinking they would behave like aircraft, so I switched them from plotted movement to a group "patrol". Even tried a "strike" and a minimal US force cuts them apart. That would be fine if I knew the Soviets had the ability to engage. Then the exchange ratio would be OK since the US are stationary and presumably "hull down". Finding a way to stop them in range of the US will be tricky. aka a phase line attack. This is not the focus of Command (ground combat) but I enjoy playing with war game editors. How do you physically combine ground units? I have to see about that. Thanks guys.



mikmykWS -> RE: Infantry weapons (8/9/2016 3:18:41 PM)

You can actually edit a unit and add more mounts. The down side is spacing as the mounts are treated as aimpoints. If this isn't a concern I'd take this route.

We have a good reason for retaining the present size of units. When cargo is released you'll see a change.

Thanks!

Mike



mikmykWS -> RE: Infantry weapons (8/9/2016 3:19:14 PM)

Ah and grouping is just selecting all the units and pressing the g key.

Mike



kevinkins -> RE: Infantry weapons (8/10/2016 1:38:40 AM)

The grouping of platoons makes for a much more tidy OOB. Moving units are sitting ducks based on various settings and tests. Moving units seem to be blind to their surroundings and will not engage with op fire even in the face of the enemy. I will post any other finding since they might be helpful when the ground combat model model rises on the to do list. I keep thinking, there has got to be a way to get those guys to shoot with all the settings we have to play with.



mikmykWS -> RE: Infantry weapons (8/10/2016 2:00:16 AM)

post a file and I'll a look.

Mike



kevinkins -> RE: Infantry weapons (8/10/2016 2:49:21 AM)

OK, my latest test has the Soviets expending some AT ammo so that's a step in the right direction. I will post the snec file when I am done farting around LOL.



Dysta -> RE: Infantry weapons (8/10/2016 3:18:03 AM)

So infantrymen launched AT at each other before their smaller guns were used. This might be true for busting covers and spamming cheap munition like RPG-7 IRL, but it won't be as easily as wiping out an entire platoon in few shots.



mikmykWS -> RE: Infantry weapons (8/10/2016 5:07:53 AM)

Hi guys

The land combat model isn't that deep but its something we'd like to approach down the line. If you'd like to to do land combat perhaps there are better game in the matrix catalog to approach this. We'll get there someday.

Thanks!

Mike



kevinkins -> RE: Infantry weapons (8/10/2016 5:27:12 AM)

Understood, but there seems to be enough in the model now to add a third dimension to operations and asset allocation. The designer just has to figure out when and where ground units make sense. Some what more than a sideshow but no where near the focus of the battle.



mikmykWS -> RE: Infantry weapons (8/10/2016 6:11:26 AM)

Some are good for spotting and lazing targets too.

Mike



kevinkins -> RE: Infantry weapons (8/11/2016 1:24:02 PM)

Here is a small novice scenario based on our discussion re: ground combat. Play USA. Soviet AI has been plotted and briefings can guide the player. An overlay of the road network leading to the Bandar Abbas airfield is included. About 3 hours RT. Not a "serious" scenario, but take a quick look if you like.

Thanks.




ParachuteProne -> RE: Infantry weapons (8/11/2016 2:01:47 PM)

Very excited to see cargo coming soon !



kevinkins -> RE: Infantry weapons (9/18/2016 3:24:38 PM)

FYI, increasing the awareness and proficiency level of ground troops helps get them to engage (even while moving) based on a test battle in the Ukraine with present day armor I conducted. In hindsight, this makes sense.



hellfish6 -> RE: Infantry weapons (9/19/2016 12:00:58 AM)

Just as a thought experiment, what do people want ground forces to do? What is your ideal end-state for them in Command as we know it now? Beyond adding weapons and vehicles and equipment.



kevinkins -> RE: Infantry weapons (9/19/2016 2:28:12 PM)

I think there is plenty of variety in the database. I was looking for a way for the AI to fight/engage on the move. By increasing their quality they seem to "wake up" and shoot. So now a ground attack can result in a breakthrough where before the moving attacker was cut to pieces. It's beyond the scope of Command to incorporate terrain effects on combat. So other than perhaps offering company or battalion sized formations, I am happy. Ground troops are an added dimension to the battle space and the time/space problem presented to the player since they can hold strategically important areas that would otherwise go abstracted.



mikmykWS -> RE: Infantry weapons (9/19/2016 3:41:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kevinkin

I think there is plenty of variety in the database. I was looking for a way for the AI to fight/engage on the move. By increasing their quality they seem to "wake up" and shoot. So now a ground attack can result in a breakthrough where before the moving attacker was cut to pieces. It's beyond the scope of Command to incorporate terrain effects on combat. So other than perhaps offering company or battalion sized formations, I am happy. Ground troops are an added dimension to the battle space and the time/space problem presented to the player since they can hold strategically import areas that would otherwise go abstracted.


The "wake up and shoot" part probably has to do with siting and OODA. Terrain doesn't impact combat but does impact movement.

Right now using Command as a land sim is a stretch but we've added sensors, designators and the ability to move and shoot to add to storylines and provide great targets. Keep in mind SSM's, Rocket systems etc are legitimate strike assets so we've added tons of those as well along with their warhead effects. In future db iterations you're going to see some more spec ops infantry units to help with designation stuff etc.

Mike



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
7.701172