Usmc oob

[Suhiir]

1. Given the way artillery is modeled in the game there was no practical way to implement the M777A2/EXCALIBUR, so like LANTERN pods it's kinda just ignored.

2. While it's 100% true that USN Hellfires (for that matter almost all USN helos) would almost never support USMC operations, there's no reason they couldn't/wouldn't be used to support SEAL or pilot recovery ops. While many players of course don't know/care about the difference between USMC and USN aircraft/helos/units the purists (and hopefully most scenario designers) will.

3. The pictures are wrong, but the best I could find in the current default photo set. The unit classification is based on the mission they're outfitted to perform NOT the actual official classification of the helo.
Light Helicopter (UC 204) = Observation
Light Attack Helo (UC 221) = Gunship
COIN Armed (UC 222) = Troop Transport
In both Observation and Gunship configurations they would not be carrying troops; and in when carrying troops they wouldn't be heavily armed as the need the lift capacity for those troops. And yes in reality they Vision/EW/structural system should be the same for each BUT who wants to spend 260 points for a transport helo? Even 157 is a bit much. Judgement call on my part.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Have we forgotten how to read?
Concerning #1: I clearly stated the issue of accuracy was not practical but the player could "control" that through the game options section. This is about the CORPS and others having the capability of using an AT Cargo munitions round that is readily available in the field then and now.

Concerning #2: This is the mission of SOCOM/USA. The "purists" wouldn't use them at all. You and the game would save slots we're likely to need in the next few years. You had made the inference yourself about NAVAIR being the decision maker for all air in an issue I was discussing with Don a while back-so what's changed now and against any reference on this helo and the next. When have we ever not been driven by ourselves and others to be as accurate as possible in our equipment submissions or changes? Don has held to this standard that I embrace as well anyway. If we can't do that to some degree we might as well play any other wargame you disliked instead. These are the issues that separate these (Our) games from the rest out there. Even in the game reviews I've words like "accuracy", "detailed" and "frequently updated" are attributed to the equipment and other issues in the game.

Concerning #3: Your "The unit classification is based on the mission they're outfitted to perform NOT the actual official classification of the helo." kind of fits what you said about the CH-53 being primarily a resupply bird I guess we should delete them then? And they do and can carry those troops in that weapons configuration even NAVAIR says that. The rest I would refer you back to #2.

We work hard all of us that do this work for the many countless hours and in some cases sacrifices to our personal lives. We therefore owe it to the players to get it as right as we can (And none of us are perfect in that regard but, we try our collective best to be.) and leave the final decision to the player as to what they want to use or not use.

Regards,
Pat

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Well about time to roll out another set of corrections/tweaks to the USMC OOB.

I'm afraid due to a little battle I had with a computer virus I lost the notes as to exactly what was changed from the official OOB this time around. Most of the changes are fairly minor tho.

In this set of corrections/tweaks have you changed units numbers or formations? Really, I'd like to know, if installed, do I need to rework my USMC scenarios so the units and formations play as intended.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by shahadi

In this set of corrections/tweaks have you changed units numbers or formations? Really, I'd like to know, if installed, do I need to rework my USMC scenarios so the units and formations play as intended.

The ONLY change done to any formations was to change the HQ (Unit 0) for all heliborne infantry companies from a 13-man unit to a 6-man one so everything would fit in the transports.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

Have we forgotten how to read?
Concerning #1: I clearly stated the issue of accuracy was not practical but the player could "control" that through the game options section. This is about the CORPS and others having the capability of using an AT Cargo munitions round that is readily available in the field then and now.

The only way to model an AT cargo munition would be to create an aircraft type unit armed with "Air-to-Surface, LGB" (Weapon Class 17) weapons or an MLRS type one with "Aircraft Cluster Bomb, MLRS" (Weapon Class 14) ones. In Item #2 you speak of saving unit slots (actually there are plenty of those available - weapon slots are an entirely different matter) I judge that here is a place that's easily done as units with similar capability already exist. So while it would add a missing (and real/existing) specific weapon it would add no missing capability to the OOB.
On a similar note I'm REALLY tempted to eliminate the VT units (#093 and 557) from the OOB, had I known then what I do now I would have done so during the OOB revision.

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

Concerning #2: This is the mission of SOCOM/USA. The "purists" wouldn't use them at all. You and the game would save slots we're likely to need in the next few years. You had made the inference yourself about NAVAIR being the decision maker for all air in an issue I was discussing with Don a while back-so what's changed now and against any reference on this helo and the next. When have we ever not been driven by ourselves and others to be as accurate as possible in our equipment submissions or changes? Don has held to this standard that I embrace as well anyway. If we can't do that to some degree we might as well play any other wargame you disliked instead. These are the issues that separate these (Our) games from the rest out there. Even in the game reviews I've words like "accuracy", "detailed" and "frequently updated" are attributed to the equipment and other issues in the game.

Unfortunately SOCOM/USA isn't modeled in any OOB (there are Rangers, Force Recon, SEALS, but no Green Berets) and given the game scale (company/battalion size formations) one could easily argue that SEALs should be removed altogether. Unless Andy/Don are willing to make an official call that it should be done I don't want to remove anything from the OOB that would create a "hole" where a scenario has no units in to reference from when it did in a previous version of an OOB.

One of the most "fun" parts of the revision was doing everything possible to insure changes to units that existed in previous versions of the OOB were as minimal as possible. And in no avoidable case was an existing unit replaced by new unit of a fundamentally different type; replacing an infantry unit with an infantry unit of a different Unit Class was OK, replacing it with say a tank was most certainly not. All new units that were needed were placed in previously empty unit slots.

I was (and still am) tempted to remove the SEALs and USN aircraft/helos altogether but it would have caused too many potential problems. Just getting USAF aircraft and a few US Army specific helos from the OOB was a minor nightmare.

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

Concerning #3: Your "The unit classification is based on the mission they're outfitted to perform NOT the actual official classification of the helo." kind of fits what you said about the CH-53 being primarily a resupply bird I guess we should delete them then? And they do and can carry those troops in that weapons configuration even NAVAIR says that. The rest I would refer you back to #2.

I'd be tempted to delete the CH-53 if it weren't for the fact they're needed to lift vehicles/artillery, and that they are used for troop lift (tho never to "Hot" LZs if at all avoidable).

One of the things I did during the revision was alter a good many unit weights to make sure tanks and such could not be carried by helos or inappropriate landing craft. Again this did/does have repercussions with some existing scenarios but it's deemed "tolerable".

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

We work hard all of us that do this work for the many countless hours and in some cases sacrifices to our personal lives. We therefore owe it to the players to get it as right as we can (And none of us are perfect in that regard but, we try our collective best to be.) and leave the final decision to the player as to what they want to use or not use.

Regards,
Pat

Ideally all real-life weapons and vehicles/units could be modeled in WinSPMBT but this is unfortunately not the case.
One restriction that's always bugged me to no end is the maximum of 4 weapon slots on units, but that's not gonna change as the amount of recoding necessary for such a "simple" change is something no one in their right mind would want to tackle, and Andy isn't insane last time I checked.
So we do what we can as best we're permitted by game code AND preexisting scenario data and at times just have to say "Yeah, you're right, but we just can't do that in any reasonable to implement manner."

[Suhiir]

Don, Andy ... if I've stepped on your toes with the above post I apologize. It wasn't intentionally.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I "read you" and "message received" that's Squid to Devil Dog code. I'll leave you here with just this last for my case for the M777A2. After having more time to look into the matter of the AT round (Again that only the M777A2 can fire.) it's just an Improved Conventional Munition/or ICM round. That is plentiful in the game as a CM/or FASCAM munition. Copy the M777 call it the M777A2 and give it HE and some AT/CM/FASCAM munitions and done. You can still and should if you proceed with this offer the M777A2 with just an HE package of course.
I offer also the following 2014 USMC gift to you which you and others might find useful concerning the current status of the CORPS across the board "arty" systems and current munitions to include USN gunfire support.
http://cdn2.usmcofficer.com/wp-conte...re-Support.pdf

I'll go deep and "float the wire" for the rest. Please understand though I'm beyond the "diesel boat" stage, I'm still not fully under "nuclear power" yet. More like a newer "hybrid" class boat still. So I ask for a little patience but let me know your timeline.

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

Useful!
Been having a bit of trouble finding out exactly what the current artillery/rocket/mortar complement of the Artillery Regiments are at the moment (and OF COURSE they're always subject to change - wouldn't be the Corps if anything was above the rifle platoon organization was consistent).

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

The ONLY change done to any formations was to change the HQ (Unit 0) for all heliborne infantry companies from a 13-man unit to a 6-man one so everything would fit in the transports.

Great info, however, I do not add helos to my formations anymore. I've found that buying the rides separately from the line companies enable me to maneuver the two separately when using the "A" All key in the game. Otherwise, I have to move helos individually rather than as a formation.

[Suhiir]

Same here. I NEVER buy combined infantry/helo formations.
But they're needed for the picklists so needed correction.