[1.04b11] Add infantry fighting vehicle model

[1.04b11] Add infantry fighting vehicle model (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> Suggestions and Feedback

Message

Malevolence -> [1.04b11] Add infantry fighting vehicle model (6/21/2020 5:20:55 AM)
Recommend the addition of another model for more modern forces, infantry fighting vehicle. Essentially the firepower, protection, and mobility of a light tank with the ability to carry troops like an APC. The proposed transport vehicle has the firepower and protection of a light tank and the carry capacity for 10 infantry super-type models (in the same way as the truck, apc, etc.). [image]local://upfiles/34589/4323C88D4F1B4CDAA8C2D1B7C7CB8AC6.jpg[/image]

zgrssd -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (6/21/2020 11:22:08 AM)
I recently looked them up on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_fighting_vehicle They seem like a step just betwen Truck and APC. So a really lightly armored and armed APC could fit the role. But the APC propably should have access to lighter Howitzers (20-40mm). A light tank in the Morotized OOB could also stand in for the IFV. There is the whole factor that they transport troops but fight independantly, that is something neither Truck, APC nor Tank have.

Cornuthaum -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (6/21/2020 12:27:03 PM)
The APCs in the game basically need the option to mount Quad MG style weaponry because we don't have a dedicated autocannon tier (though I suspect that'd change once/if we get flying units), or also mount the Heavy MGs that the light Walkers are supposed to have, as a dedicated anti-Soft weapon. Unrelatedly, I'd like a dedicated autocannon weapon to mount on trucks, buggies and APCs. Let me fight the Toyota Wars!

zgrssd -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (6/21/2020 1:00:52 PM)
I think/fear Vic needs to rework how OOB's work, before he can add any new models. If the IFV takes the place of the truck for a Motorisation options, that is a solid +50% to the number of OOB's. Because [No Trucks/Trucks] becomes [No Motorized/Truck/IFV]

MatthewVilter -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (6/21/2020 7:20:50 PM)
In general IFVs are heavier, better armored, and better armed than APCs. IFVs also seem to be typically equipped with ATGMs. The comparison if you're familiar with American equipment is between an m113 (APC aka battle taxi) and a Bradley Fighting Vehicle (IFV). As I understand it APCs basically do replace trucks ferrying troops around behind the front lines while offering some protection from long range light arms fire or shrapnel. IFVs are intended to be able to provide direct fire support to their infantry and threaten tanks with their ATGMs. Because of their combat capabilities IFVs also (theoretically) do better in NBCR environments (or aggressively hostile alien atmospheres I suppose) because they can make do tactically in more situations without having to deploy their infantry. The dividing line between them does seem like it can get pretty blurry (especially in a sci-fi setting with customizable units lol) and I think there have been at least proposals for both types of vehicle that use both wheels and treads so I'm not sure what the best representation in game would be for either. Without autocannons or ATGMs I don't suppose there's much point in including AFVs yet. It would be interesting if there was the possibility of including lightly armored wheeled transports but beyond that I'm not sure there's much in this area that the game can currently represent that isn't already.

Malevolence -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (6/21/2020 8:05:06 PM)
The issue is trucks are intended to avoid direct fire and suffer greatly from indirect fire. APC's are intended to protect troops from indirect fire, and provide better direct direct protection and mobility than a jeep. IFV's are intended to move with and fight (offense and defense) with main battle tanks. They also provide a heavy capability for cover and guard missions in security and reconnaissance missions. IFV's occupy the assault position with troops. To be more clear, in an attack, troops move to an attack position (where they form), cross the line of departure and move to contact, then reach the assault position. The assault position is a covered and concealed position short of the objective, where final preparations are made to assault the objective. This is where short-range support by fire is established, assault infantry dismounts, etc. The assault force then moves to and assaults across the objective while the IFV's move and support. Finally, once set, a hasty defense is established in preparation for counterattacks. Follow on forces move, etc. In modern combat, you don't use trucks in the above. You can use APC's, but they are very weak. Because they were weak, IFV's were developed. I can tell you the US M113 is really an aluminum death trap from anything but small arms and shrapnel. Have you seen aluminum burn? [:-] At the time, however, the M113 was still better than a jeep or truck (and they could be airlifted). So why not use tanks? Because of economy of force. Tanks are decisive weapons of shock. They are used for penetrations--drive by, kill vehicles, keep moving. They carry limited ammunition and require time to rearm. They are wonderful at attack by fire, but suffer when trying to seize a fortified objective with infantry (as above). In many wargames, successful armor units get to move one hex beyond the hex attacked. Tanks can support infantry, but they don't protect them. IFV's give the infantrymen an organic tank-like support capability in the offense and defense. Most modern IFV's are equipped with ATGM's.

MatthewVilter -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (6/21/2020 9:05:51 PM)
Agreed on all points. As I understand it in game right now trucks are part of the back line and try to avoid combat and APCs are part of the front line and engage alongside their infantry. As I see it this makes the in game APCs effectively machine gun armed IFVs. If the added complexity of adding IFVs is deemed appropriate I think the way to do it would be: Make APCs a back line unit that fills the same table of organization and equipment slot as trucks — the tread mobility type equivalent of trucks basically maybe with some ability to protect their infantry from weak or indirect attacks somehow. Make IFVs work as troop transports that fight on the front line (as I believe APCs do currently) maybe with the option to mount some heavier weapons (I started a thread about autocannons and ATGMs). Maybe maybe include the option to build armored trucks (i.e. wheeled APCs) and wheeled IFVs. And I guess unarmored tracked transports e.g. transport tractors or snow cats?

Malevolence -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (6/21/2020 9:09:11 PM)
I think zgrssd and others have suggested something like the Soviet/Russian wheeled BTR. A somewhat cool idea as well, but without ATGM's it's not as cool as it could be.

MatthewVilter -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (6/21/2020 9:18:42 PM)
Yeah, without autocannons and ATGMs we aren't missing that much in terms of model variety. Basically just non-frontline tracked transports and the maybe sort of odd cut off between, I guess, buggies and APCs as the light frontline wheeled/tracked, independent/transport vehicles. EDIT: And I should mention that I'm not necessarily convinced that the difference between tracked and wheeled vehicles is enough to make a fuss over.

zgrssd -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (6/21/2020 9:32:30 PM)
My understanding is still, that the IFV is "a truck that fights in battle". While APC seems to be more like "a truck with token armor and weapon". If so, the better armored APC actually is more of a IFV then a APC. Just needs something bigger then a MG as gun. And maybe those AT-Guided Missiles. So it would gp from least to most armed and armored (and thus expensive): Truck -> APC -> IFV -> Light Tank Let us please ignore the Bradley. Because it is the poster child of feature creep. It was originally designed as a APC. Then got forced into the role of IFV.

MatthewVilter -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (6/21/2020 9:49:35 PM)
Love that movie "If you have to design gd hats to hold the missiles do it!" rofl. Yeah, I believe the Soviet BMP (which I think translates to IFV) line is more well-regarded.

Malevolence -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (6/22/2020 12:08:52 AM)
Soviet BMP is the standard. They developed the early doctrine too. It wasn't until Airland Battle that the US got serious about offensive operations. Most people forget the prevailing NATO strategy was to use tactical nukes on Germany early until negotiations worked. There is a reason Germany was never Five Eyes.

Hazard151 -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (6/22/2020 12:16:34 AM)
Wouldn't you be able to abstract the IFV as a Light Tank in the game, after Medium Tanks take the battlefield?

Malevolence -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (6/22/2020 12:34:18 AM)
The point is they carry infantry. That is the difference. Really the idea of light, medium, and heavy tanks is very WW2. If I wanted to pretend that a current formation of light tanks and leg infantry is the same thing, I could certainly do that, but it's not military... more paramilitary. You see one hundred fighters and one or two tanks as the "formation" of a warband group in Syria now. But even they don't walk. The suggestion was incorporating modern concepts beyond the bazooka.

76mm -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (6/22/2020 1:50:40 AM)
I agree that an IFV should be added. I guess worse case it could be an upgraded version of a PC, although not sure how well that would work, since generally they are different and more robust vehicles.

Malevolence -> RE: [1.04b8] Add infantry fighting vehicle model (7/17/2020 6:01:47 PM)
Repeat. Version 1.04b8.

demiare -> RE: [1.04b8] Add infantry fighting vehicle model (7/17/2020 6:13:51 PM)
I disagree with this suggestion. IFV are relics of past era, now they are no longer in development. Why? Because of mass-produced ATGM and switch to much heavier APC designs (so they're better armed by design too). We already capable to simulate both light APC and heavy modern one using existing APC design. We already have light tanks, IFV will not provide anything new for us.

OldSarge -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (7/17/2020 6:18:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Malevolence I can tell you the US M113 is really an aluminum death trap from anything but small arms and shrapnel. Have you seen aluminum burn? [:-] I have, watched a round from a LAWS burn a hole through the side of a sacrificial M113. Anyone inside would've had a bad day! Which allows me to segue to Vaporifics Testing [8D]

lloydster4 -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (7/17/2020 7:58:40 PM)
I don't see the need to add an additional model type, just allow some light AT weaponry on an APC if the player chooses. You might also allow very light armor to be added to trucks, but without weaponry

demiare -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (7/17/2020 8:42:23 PM)
quote: 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).

OldSarge -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (7/17/2020 9:09:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: demiare quote: 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 -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (7/18/2020 7:35:01 AM)
[: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? [image]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Stryker_ICV_front_q.jpg[/image] 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 -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (7/18/2020 12:05:35 PM)
quote: 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] quote: 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. quote: 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. quote: 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 -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (7/18/2020 6:01:57 PM)
Sounds to me like granting APCs access to RPGs and Light energy weapons would resolve the IFV question.

Malevolence -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (7/18/2020 10:53:42 PM)
quote: 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 -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (7/18/2020 11:02:24 PM)
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 -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (7/19/2020 10:48:12 AM)
quote: 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 -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (7/19/2020 5:51:53 PM)
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 -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (7/20/2020 2:19:32 AM)
quote: 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. quote: 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. [image]https://media2.giphy.com/media/3oFzmlaOxc41XCMbS0/source.gif[/image]

demiare -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (7/20/2020 6:58:42 AM)
quote: 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.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.640625