improved special inf?

dust off · Post by **dust off** » Jan 14 2005

Just an idea to throw into the pot.
Nearly all unit types are improve with research. Concept units like land warrior and also improved tanks like M1A4 might seriously undermine the punch of special forces, rangers, marines airbourne etc. So that during the latter stages of the game the special forces rangers etc might not have the same ability to drop behind enemy lines to take and hold bridges etc. In the real world special force, rangers etc are likey to get the investment that maintains their edge.
So that there might be a case for these units to have researchable improved versions.

(PS. I personally think that the Foriegn Legion stats are a little low)

Post by **Balthagor** » Jan 14 2005

I think the intention was for there to be a land warrior special forces. Most of the special forces types should be availbale as new versions later on to make use of the new equipment. There are still tons of future units to be added, one of the many things on my to-do list.

I've flagged the Foreign Legion to look at it's stats...

Penta · Post by **Penta** » Jan 14 2005

I would agree.

the FL, at present, is sort of pointless.

Thought on similar matter:

Something not represented right now is the fact that most first-world forces (indeed, all of them) are just about completely motorized.

The lack of a distinction between administrative (non-combat) and tactical (combat) movement makes this harder, granted.

Also, are APCs' function as troopcarriers implemented? It is, after all, their whole point.

Post by **Balthagor** » Jan 14 2005

not so much, we have the APCs come with a battalion of soldiers attached. Limitation of the engine. I have a note for some more detailed supply truck type units that would include some APC type vehicles...

Draken · Post by **Draken** » Jan 14 2005

I have a note for some more detailed supply truck type units that would include some APC type vehicles...

Including amphibious (supply) vehicles?

Slash78 · Post by **Slash78** » Jan 20 2005

Including amphibious (supply) vehicles?

I have been asking for that for a while. If you have the beta you look at the SRUNITS.crv in the Ini folder. The LAV-L, which hasn't been implemented, is such a vehicle. The also have the Stormer supply truck (probably should changed to vehicle as it isn't a truck) which is an armored load carrier. I personally believe there should also be an 'AAVL7A1 Supply Vehicle', a cargo version of the AAVP7A1 (no seperate designation exists, as the AAVP7A1 carries either infantry or cargo, however you wouldn't want people confusing the two).

I was going to make a list of all the cargo and command variants, however I was finding too many command vehicles, so I put a halt to the project. Might just look for load carriers.

Post by **Balthagor** » Jan 20 2005

remember, we need stuff that would be used as a full battalion. I'm not sure you'd find a battalion of AAVs dedicated to nothing but transportation. I've made 3D Models for a heavier (HEMMT) supply truck and a tracked (Stormer) version, but George didn't really like the tracked version.

Slash78 · Post by **Slash78** » Jan 21 2005

remember, we need stuff that would be used as a full battalion. I'm not sure you'd find a battalion of AAVs dedicated to nothing but transportation.

The original intent for the LVT7 was for it to carry either troops, then cargo ashore. True, when it became the AAVP7A1 emphasis passed onto the APC role, but it can still do both. Because you can't seperate troops from vehicles, then a dedicated supply battalion I think is a logical move. The idea thing to do is give them the ability to 'rearm' from the APC to the Supply version and vice versa.

Didn't like the 3D model for the Stormer or doesn't like the tracked supply vehicle idea?

dust off · Post by **dust off** » Jan 21 2005

The British have amphibius wheeled supply regiments equipped with Stalwarts

Post by **Balthagor** » Jan 21 2005

he didn't like the vehicule idea...

dust off · Post by **dust off** » Jan 28 2005

Some unit issues:

1. Land warrior/ Elite Warrior: looks like you may have their stats about face, that is land warrior has better combat values than elite warrior.

2. Land warrior and elite warrior both have comabt time of 50hr. At the moment the battery life of land warrior kit is less than two hours. Although they are hoping to increas batery time to 30hr with next generation bateries. Just for debate, why is land warrior combat time so much more than regular inf? also once operational I should imagine there will be a land warrior adapted IFV to charge batteries, rebroadcast signals etc and basically move them about.

3. Why are Marine btns so small. Default strenght 27. Special forces are defaulted to 35. Marine btns are no smaller than other inf btns. also for debate might be an idea to slightly reduce special forces default strenght.

Draken · Post by **Draken** » Jan 28 2005

3. Why are Marine btns so small. Default strenght 27. Special forces are defaulted to 35. Marine btns are no smaller than other inf btns. also for debate might be an idea to slightly reduce special forces default strenght.

Marine (USA) squad size is 13, so 13 * 27 = 351 Marines per Btn

SF (USA) squad size is 5, so 5 * 35 = 175 soldiers per Btn

dust off · Post by **dust off** » Jan 28 2005

Sorry, I don't quite understand completely whether you agree that a change is in order Draken?

UK marine btns are pretty much the same size as inf btns.

Draken · Post by **Draken** » Jan 28 2005

I would have sworn that I typed the rest of my post....

D@rn work!!! It distracts you from important things....
Looks like I was trying to prove you that USA Marine Btn are not smaller than a USA SF Btn in the game... But after reading you post again I realized that that was not what you were talking about... Sorry.

dust off · Post by **dust off** » Jan 28 2005

Draken:

I would have sworn that I typed the rest of my post....

D@rn work!!! It distracts you from important things....
Looks like I was trying to prove you that USA Marine Btn are not smaller than a USA SF Btn in the game... But after reading you post again I realized that that was not what you were talking about... Sorry

No worries.
I am only talking about number of squads strength.