Russian units v4 - Page 4

KraMax · #31 May 28th, 2008, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Marek_Tucan said:
212. RPG-6 team represents (if I got it correctly) a tank hunter group as those used frequently in WW2. OOB in SP doesn't include only proper OOB units but also attempts, if feasible, to present some "wartime only" creations.

We did the OOB being based on data about organizational-regular structures of our armies. On it we cannot allocate from structure squad group of several persons with anti-tank grenades for hunting for tanks. This group will operate as a part of uniform squad i.e. we should not allocate it from squad. In ours OOB we have shown the most exact structures squad's our armies. After the Second World War very many in army of the USSR has changed is both ranks, and structure of divisions, etc.

Quote:

214. Radio? In theory RPG teams and indeed most of infantry nits should have radio value 0, who in his right mind would bother with carrying RPG/RPG shells AND a radio?

Ok. From the beginning of 90th years at many countries the parametre radio grows to 80 or 90.

Marek_Tucan · #32 May 28th, 2008, 12:35 AM

Quote:

KraMax said:
We did the OOB being based on data about organizational-regular structures of our armies. On it we cannot allocate from structure squad group of several persons with anti-tank pomegranates for hunting for tanks. This group will operate as a part of uniform squad i.e. we should not allocate it from squad. In ours OOB we have shown the most exact structures squad's our armies. After the Second World War very many in army of the USSR has changed is both ranks, and structure of divisions, etc.

But that's it, while RPG-6 armed tank hunters aren't in official OOB, they do present a wartime ad-hoc tank fighting unit. RPG-7's also werent supposed to be fired over and behind the enemy fortification to shower the enemy with splinters but were used rather frequently in this manner in Afghanistan. And given footages from Chechnya etc., I really cannot recall whether I have seen regular army squad adhering to the standards atleast once.

KraMax · #33 May 28th, 2008, 01:38 AM

I agree with you that regular army the subdivision usually does not adhere to organizational structure and operates on current conditions. But to allocate from squad team for struggle against tanks it is impossible since such grenades basically were almost at all soldiers in squad. Therefore I also speak about organizational structure of troops in game. There we can allocate team RPG Only then when it allows both arms squad and number squad.
I will very soon lay out on a forum link on the archives prepared by us from different sites on organizational regular structure of our troops.

p.s. sorry for my bad English

narwan · #34 May 28th, 2008, 08:02 AM

Yes perhaps, but when it come to sneaking up on an enemy tank do you really think the whole squad (at size 1, ie not very stealthy) would do so or just two guys with a couple of AT rounds at size 0 (much harder to spot) while the rest stays back? Sometimes just a few men go out there and the game has to reflect that too, hence these teams.

While the game does build around the real orders of battles, those OB's are not the endpoint for the game. They're the start; often minor tweaks are necessary to make the game playable. You should not forget that there are two 'realities' that exist next to each other in the game, getting the OB's as real as possible and getting the gameplay as real as possible. Sometimes these two are in conflict and then minor tweaks can and will be implemented into the OB's. The russian/soviet OB is by no means the only one.

KraMax · #35 May 28th, 2008, 10:40 AM

narwan
--------------
Ok. We will assume that we allocate team from squad. Then we in squad still have 6 persons?
It is wrong - we should take organizational regular structure of armies for a basis, differently in game it is possible to make a lot of nonexistent formations and units. I do not speak that 2 persons with grenades could not exist, but allocating team from squad we can allocate also easier two fighters with rifles AK-47 or other weapon, that too will be wrong.
Probably you also are right about RPG-6, but there are sets of the weapon in game with which also it is possible to allocate in separate team, but for this purpose to us precisely will not suffice slots in OOB.

DRG · #36 May 28th, 2008, 12:29 PM

Narwan, the third "reality" you forgot to mention is that tearing an OOB apart in the way Maxim thinks we should totally destroys any scenario that was built with that OOB. In V4 I tried to balance what I felt should be done with the Russian OOB with what realistically could be done without causing massive disruption to not only the existing scenarios in the game but any that players may have made and posted to the various scenario depots on the 'net.

I recall at some point in the past an offer was made to have these "fixed" by well meaning third parties but I can assure you most of the "errors" people are finding in the game were made by "well meaning third parties "

We provide the tools for people to create their own OOBs and Shrapnel provides the means to distribute it and we have always considered that a perfect compromise. If players don't like ours...... they can use someone else's. However, Maxim has turn this into an obsessive crusade and nothing short of doing everything his way appears to be acceptable as the example of the ZSU-23 used as CS tanks for convoy support attest.

I will take this list and any other error anyone thinks they have found into consideration when and if I find the time to sit down and devote another 1000+ man hours to a patch as I did the last one but I reserve the right to make my own decisions about which "errors" need to be corrected.

Don

KraMax · #37 May 28th, 2008, 12:42 PM

Dear Don.

We appreciate your work and your patience. We also appreciate this tool - Mobhack with which help we can create the OOB. We also understand that it is your game and you are certainly free to make independent decisions.
I wish to clear once again a situation - there is no "crusade" on you or your game. We wish to help. For this purpose I publish here these data. And we are ready to conduct any discussion with dear lodgers of this forum to reach trues.

Yours faithfully.

p.s. sorry for my bad English

DRG · #38 February 18th, 2009, 08:51 PM

One thing I would like to point out is in many cases you use a "TMG" when a "CMG" would be more appropriate. In most cases there is no difference in a TMG or CMG version of a MG and the only difference is the name but TMG's are in most cases slot one weapons. CMG's are used in slot 2 and 3 and BMG's are used in slot 4. It's a bit odd to be using something named TMG in slot 3 though it would do the same job as a CMG

Don

iCaMpWiThAWP · #39 February 18th, 2009, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRG

One thing I would like to point out is in many cases you use a "TMG" when a "CMG" would be more appropriate. In most cases there is no difference in a TMG or CMG version of a MG and the only difference is the name but TMG's are in most cases slot one weapons. CMG's are used in slot 2 and 3 and BMG's are used in slot 4. It's a bit odd to be using something named TMG in slot 3 though it would do the same job as a CMG

Don

so that means that tanks equipped with CMG in slot #1 are the same thing than the ones equupped with TMG in slot #1?

KraMax · #40 February 18th, 2009, 11:23 PM

And TMG it is a tank (or BTR main gun etc) machine gun (not AAMG).
For example, in a case with T-10 and SU-100 - machine gun use 14.5mm CMG - is unjustified. Is not present units which would use this machine gun more.
We understand that you wish to specify in the machine gun name in what slot it to use, but what for to create clone other weapon, if at us and so almost is not present free slots For the weapon.

p.s. soory for my bad English