Possible error in the US OB

[narwan]

Unit 57 (M93 Fox) and Unit 663 (M1117 ASV) both seem to carry any troops loaded into them on the outside as with tanks instead of internally. When firing mg's at the two units a hit will cause the troops to disembark, often with casualties. Looks like these two are coded to carry troops on the outside.

Attached is a setup for a test I did with the Fox (did a similar test for the ASV).

Narwan

[Mobhack]

You could try looking at the Unit class - which is No. 11, Armoured Car, so they naturally carry troops on the outside as with any other non-APC unit class.

Units 311 and 56 will have the same "problem" - but such vehicles are in any case only available to formation No. 25, which does not have any infantry in it anyway.

I'll look into it whenever we get around to the patch work.

Cheers
Andy

[narwan]

Ahh, I didn't realise all armored cars are automatically 'outside carriers'. Here's why; plenty of 'inside carriers' are classed as armored cars throughout the OB's like BTR-40's and BRDM's. So I assumed the the armored car could be carrying troops internally.

A quick scan throught the encyclopedia shows:
Polish OB: 11 armored cars with carrying capacity including BTR-40's, BRDM's, HMMWV's and others.
Czech OB: shows 4 such armored cars.
East german OB: shows some of these same vehicles as armored cars and some as light support APC's
Soviet OB: has these same vehicles as 'scout vehicles'
Bulgarian OB: these same vehicles are 'light support apcs'

That gets pretty confusing. A player used to a BTR-40 functioning as a light APC from playing the soviets will expect an identical polish one to behave likewise.
There may not be infantry with the armored car formations in the purchase screens, but once a game gets going things tend to get mingled up. If you have a 'Fox' nearby a squad that's lost it own transport I think most players will assume they can mount them inside the Fox. Which is how I got to checking this out in the first place; an opponent of mine complained about the inability of his Foxes to carry infantry past hmg-fire in another game he is playing.

Maybe this is something worth looking into?


Narwan

[DRG]

The short answer is this is what happens when people who think they know all about OOB editing forget that it's trickier than it looks.

Its why the OOB's rarely are worked on by anyone other than Andy or I any more.

This is on the to-do list to investigate

Don






`

[thatguy96]

Another minor nitpick, not really an error, is that the M93 has a larger carry capacity than the Fuchs in the German OOB, despite the Fuchs being intended as a personnel carrier, and the M93 not being primarily used in this role in the US Army. I wonder if the M93 might not be better put in the same category with the M577, even though its not really a command vehicle either. Its primary role in the US Army is as an NBC recon vehicle, a role not really required in SP.

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by thatguy96

Another minor nitpick, not really an error, is that the M93 has a larger carry capacity than the Fuchs in the German OOB, despite the Fuchs being intended as a personnel carrier, and the M93 not being primarily used in this role in the US Army. I wonder if the M93 might not be better put in the same category with the M577, even though its not really a command vehicle either. Its primary role in the US Army is as an NBC recon vehicle, a role not really required in SP.

If it were actually worth putting in (someone must have snuck it in at one point - as NBC vehicles are totally useless in SP as you say, I would have not have myself bothered to include it), it should probably be in the "command vehicle" formation. And it probably would have next to no carry capacity - it is stuffed with sensors and a few guys twiddling them (to no effect in SP ).

If it's not used in any scenarios, I may well consider nuking it to free up a valuable database slot. It really only would interest a scenario designer who wanted one as a value target or suchlike (ram the points cost up to max say to make it high-value), and even the could make one for a USA scenario that used one from the FRG OOB, as "set captured" and then some unit editing on the load capacity.

Cheers
Andy

[narwan]

Originally Posted by DRG

The short answer is this is what happens when people who think they know all about OOB editing forget that it's trickier than it looks.

Its why the OOB's rarely are worked on by anyone other than Andy or I any more.

This is on the to-do list to investigate

Don

`

Okay thanks. Unfortunately over half of the OB's I looked at for armored cars (about 30 OB's) have one or more of these 'inside carriers'. If you want help getting a specific list of all of them let me know. I'll be glad to help.

Narwan

[DRG]

Yes, I know. This is a "fine little mess" you've uncovered. Thanks ( I guess.... )

[Marcello]

Originally Posted by narwan

Soviet OB: has these same vehicles as 'scout vehicles'
Narwan

Class 32 "scout Vehicle" units are "inside carriers", or that at least was the last time I tested them. Which is very handy for vehicles like the BTR-40 and others recon armored cars capable of carrying dismounts.