Apocal Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 That'll certainly do it for building a scenario. For folks building said scenerios, at least in US Armyland: You have the following flavors of fighting positions: 1. Primary. This is where it is optimal for you to shoot the heck out of the enemy and where you would like to fight from. 2. Alternate. Still focused on the same engagement area as primary, but in a different position. Usually intended as where the tank displaces to once the enemy identifies the primary position 3. Supplementary. If there's two avenues of approach, the primary will focus on the most likely of the two, while a supplementary position will be available if the enemy does the unexpected 4. Subsequent. This is where the tank goes to once the first set of positions is threatened, or conditions are met to merit moving back. Often part of a defense in depth (so the enemy gets attritted to some degree, company withdraws to a subsequent position while the enemy is disrupted, crosslevels ammo and then gets ready to do it again). This can take a LOT of engineering work and time, so in practice not all of these are full on fighting positions, like the Primary position might be a hull down position, while the alternate is simply a handy berm, with the supplementary is some low ground that offers cover, or might be fighting positions to different degrees (primary is turret down, alternate is merely hull, supplementary is a simply a scrape made by the company's M88) All the same just an idea if you want to do it right, and it'll leave a convincing number of positions scattered around the map as effectively decoys. Got a handy diagram of how these positions would be arranged in relation to each other? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 I don't think that the positions are in relation to each other as much as they would be in relation to the terrain and the circumstances. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 I was thinking.. It could be a good way of showcasing stuff like the krysanthema in a scenario 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 Yeah it could. Sadly I have to many projects on the go. Are you thinking of giving it a go? Could be a nice deep map where if could engage at long range while other forces hold a skirmish line. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 I think to really take advantage of the krysanthema, you need 3-4km maps at least. Maybe using it as an overwatch for a defensive position way behind lines. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Yeah it could. Sadly I have to many projects on the go. Are you thinking of giving it a go? Could be a nice deep map where if could engage at long range while other forces hold a skirmish line. I just setup a quick test map with the two-tier fighting positions. The laser warning behavior causes tanks to do weird things. Since the TacAI doesn't account for terrain, the tank will orientate towards the threat and reverse, even if it means driving sideways out of their fighting position instead of just backing down to the turret down position. You can kind of micro-manage two tanks in real-time (or at least I can anyway) to get them to go hull-down, get off a shot, reverse to turret down and reload, then pop back up for another engagement, but I can't think of any way of performing the same feat in WEGO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 OH yeah that would be a problem. In my simple test the threat was nearly straight ahead so I did not see any over the side reversing. Humm that could be an inconvenient problem. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 OH yeah that would be a problem. In my simple test the threat was nearly straight ahead so I did not see any over the side reversing. Humm that could be an inconvenient problem. Perhaps impassible tiles? I don't know, it might be that in-game it isn't as much a concern, although the automatic smoke deployment definitely is a spoiler. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) ...although the automatic smoke deployment definitely is a spoiler. Won't it run out of smoke after one or two uses though, granting even that is a bother? Michael Edited March 16, 2015 by Michael Emrys 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Won't it run out of smoke after one or two uses though, granting even that is a bother? Michael Yes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.