Marines Module update at Blogfront

[Sequoia]

Okay then, since my first guess was shot down like a recruit against the Red Baron, my new guess for the surprise is the Infantry Brigade Combat Team TO&E will be mad available to everyone in a patch. (Still too radical?)

[JP76er]

Originally posted by Clavicula_Nox:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dragon67:

Action movies and TV make it look like you have to be stupid to get shot or blown up.

Well, I was blown up because of my own stupidity, that much is true, but some people just get hit and they're doing everything right. It just happens. </font>

[Battlefront.com]

TheVulture,

And you might remember the problems that arose when bridges went over anything that wasn't water - a vehicle could drive on to the bridge, turn right in the middle of it, and drive off on the road it was supposed to be going over. And vice versa I think. And IIRC you couldn't drive under bridges - you again went over the top of them. The bridges were, essentially, hard-coded on the assumption they'd be over water, and could go a bit screwy if you put them over anything else.

I don't think anybody managed to get something under a bridge other than water. In fact, I'm nearly positive of it since a water tile automatically went under a bridge. But who knows... some players figured out really clever ways to counteract Charles' restrictions If someone did manage to do it, however, the results would be as if the bridge was a solid object right down to the ground. That's the problem I spoke of above... trying to get the AI and pathfinding to understand the concept of being able to move in any direction in two or more planes is extremely difficult. Buildings are difficult enough to handle and there are extremely narrow possibilities for those. It's one reason why so many games don't allow units to go into buildings.

c3k,

Well then, if you don't think OVERpasses will work, how about coding up some UNDERpasses?

No difference from the code's perspective... it's still two things being able to move into and out of a space in more than one plane without enough restrictions.

With all that said, once we introduce water there will be bridges too. One without the other doesn't work in our opinion. And Normandy certainly requires both.

Steve

[Paper Tiger]

Well, now that we KNOW there won't be up-armoured humvees or underpasses, what about throwing us another bone on what will be coming? That blog post is already a week old. I want to know more about the Marines Engineer and Recon Battalions, as well as the Red stuff. Of course, I want to know what the 'surprises' will be too but I'm not holding my breath....

I'm hoping it will include 'Exit units for victory points' conditions. That would be COOL!

[TheVulture]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I don't think anybody managed to get something under a bridge other than water. In fact, I'm nearly positive of it since a water tile automatically went under a bridge. But who knows... some players figured out really clever ways to counteract Charles' restrictions If someone did manage to do it, however, the results would be as if the bridge was a solid object right down to the ground.

I managed to dig up one reference to it (and people managing to gets units to move beneath bridges...)

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=020684#000004

And another old thread confirming my memory of the TacAI managing to get vehicles to do 90 degree turns in the middle of a bridge and drive off on the lower road:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=013364#000000

I know I saw an AAR of this with screenshots once, but a) can't find it, and don't know if it was on this site or elsewhere.

[Combatintman]

Sorry - am I being picky here - but if we know what the surprise is then it won't be a surprise?

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[M1A1TC]

I doubt those would be installed in a export model T-90.

[Battlefront.com]

M1A1TC is correct... the export versions of the T-90s (Algeria and India have a bunch) don't include Shtora or Arena. They do, however, have a partial Shtora system that allows the crew to detect being lazed and to deploy anti-IR smoke automatically. Here is some info on the T-90 family of tanks

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

The Vulture,

Hey, cool finds! I don't remember that one at all. Well, clearly it didn't work very well. And I'm sure there are far more problems with it than those that were overtly noted by players. The list by Bullethead in the second link shows the overt stuff.

Good memory, BTW!

Steve

[SgtMuhammed]

"All or Nothing" was my favorite scenario in both CMBO and CMAK (Kingfish's conversion). I don't recall having any trouble with the bridge except some isolated incidents of tanks falling off the bridge. I don't believe that water automatically went under a bridge because I remember someone using a bridge piece to simulate the Brandenberg Gate.

[Cpl Steiner]

BFC,

Will it be possible to remove the M32 grenade launchers from a Marines unit, perhaps by using the equipment quality setting? I would like to simulate OIF battles such as "An Nasiriyah" (Ambush Alley) using the new module but the M32s weren't available in 2003. It would be helpful for scenario designers if one of the quality settings effectively produced OIF-era Marines units.

[Secondbrooks]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

They do, however, have a partial Shtora system that allows the crew to detect being lazed and to deploy anti-IR smoke automatically.

Btw. Which units in CMSF do laze their targets? tanks, IFVs, infantry ATGMS, aircrafts? Will there be TacAI able to not to laze at T-90, even if lazing would be it's normal thing to do when engaging enemy. And under what circumstances would they not laze (not messing T-90 to T-72 forexample).

Quite many armies are not expected to face Sthora in their travels (dunno is US army or marines one of them), so they leave this thing without notice in their battledrills, but atleast we had pretty strong emphasis during my service time in taking these activeprotection devices into count when working against tanks.

[Other Means]

Originally posted by SlapHappy:

The lowdown on the new APC baddie:

http://www.enemyforces.com/apc/bmp3.htm

Which leads to the question - Will the BMP3 in CMSF have the improved Arkan missile?

More importantly, will it be able to pop a wheelie?

[Pandur]

Secondbrooks;

i guess they will call out "Battlesight" than and fire away. below 1300m thats more or less fool proof too as far as i know. just you get a problem with moving vehicles and lead.

also you can simply set a range manualy.

[Arrigo Velicogna]

Anyone one but me has problem in viewing the Marine preview? I can't access that page or the other new pages on battlefront website... including the ordering page!

Arrigo

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by Secondbrooks:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

They do, however, have a partial Shtora system that allows the crew to detect being lazed and to deploy anti-IR smoke automatically.

Btw. Which units in CMSF do laze their targets? tanks, IFVs, infantry ATGMS, aircrafts? Will there be TacAI able to not to laze at T-90, even if lazing would be it's normal thing to do when engaging enemy. And under what circumstances would they not laze (not messing T-90 to T-72 forexample).

Quite many armies are not expected to face Sthora in their travels (dunno is US army or marines one of them), so they leave this thing without notice in their battledrills, but atleast we had pretty strong emphasis during my service time in taking these activeprotection devices into count when working against tanks. </font>

[Secondbrooks]

Yes. I'm after missiles and lazing in general. If tank's gunner does as he should, then Sthora doesn't much do any good. But there are ATGM-vehicles as well as ATGM-teams and aircrafts, which atleast basically should/could have laserrangefinders.

Then again with average maps with average engagement distances i've seen in CMSF, "Sthora's ability to turn it's turret + launch fog/smoke + and let fog/smoke affect = Not enough time for Sthora to fullfill it's job even against ATGMs". Distance is usually less than 1 kilometer, TOW would spent 5 seconds in flight + maybe couple of seconds of lazing and giving fire-commands etc. Turret should be somewhat directly at firer and yet could ask does it have time enough to get smoke formed against missile.

[dima]

Originally posted by Secondbrooks:

Yes. I'm after missiles and lazing in general. If tank's gunner does as he should, then Sthora doesn't much do any good. But there are ATGM-vehicles as well as ATGM-teams and aircrafts, which atleast basically should/could have laserrangefinders.

Then again with average maps with average engagement distances i've seen in CMSF, "Sthora's ability to turn it's turret + launch fog/smoke + and let fog/smoke affect = Not enough time for Sthora to fullfill it's job even against ATGMs". Distance is usually less than 1 kilometer, TOW would spent 5 seconds in flight + maybe couple of seconds of lazing and giving fire-commands etc. Turret should be somewhat directly at firer and yet could ask does it have time enough to get smoke formed against missile.

T-90 smoke grenades are of newer type and smoke screen forms pretty fast, so it may have a chance.

Watch this vid

[Dragon67]

I want my Marine mod... yesterday !!

[Battlefront.com]

I don't know if we'll make any special TacAI behavior for dealing with the T-90 (none of the other vehicles in the game are relevant). I'm curious to know if it is SOP to withhold the laser since a T-90 generally looks like a T-72. Meaning, it's hard for me to imagine one would not jump into the haystack instead of bare ground just on the off chance that there is a needle amongst the hay and that one MIGHT possible find it the hard way

Also note that US man portable AT missiles do not use lasers. TOW-2 doesn't use one either AFAIK. So this is pretty much about Abrams vs. T-90s.

Steve

[Secondbrooks]

Ok, so use or simulated use of leaserrangefinder isn't as common in CMSF as i thought. Thanks for answering.

I wondered that if it would be US battledrill to laze each target before engagement, also conserning ATGM-teams if it (the team) happens to own laserrangefinder... and this possibly would have been simulated in CMSF. Well, that thing has been sorted out. So thanks again.

[slug88]

What about red-on-red? Are any of the Syrian ATGM's laser guided?

[Flanker15]

Originally posted by slug88:

What about red-on-red? Are any of the Syrian ATGM's laser guided?

Yeah most of them are. Does the export model of the T-90 come with the IR jammer system that would work on US ATGMs? Also does it come with the AT-11 ATGM? Also can we make a map large enough so that the T-90 can use its longer range advantage over the M1A2?

[JP76er]

Originally posted by Dragon67:

I want my Marine mod... yesterday !!

I agree! My credit card has been pestering me all day. I thought I was impatient, meet my credit card. Mmmm...Maybe not. The wifey wants to kill me anyway.