Sbct

[John Osborne]

Well after farther review. I stink when it comes to making a new vehicle. I just can't get the knack if using the Paint program to make new tanks :nuts:

So instead I'm going to put my effort into making a Stryker Brigade Combat Team, (SBCT) OOB. Is there a need to make one for ATF?

[Pat Proctor]

I would love to see one. You could run some pretty cool scenarios fairly easily by simply copying ATF scenarios and replacing their force structures with SBCT battalions. It would make for an interesting play.

Of note when going through the OOB's...

While all of the OOB's SAY that the SBCT has 6 lightweight 155m howitzer X 3 batteries (total of 18), they in fact have 4 M198 howitzers X 3 batteries (total of 12).

It makes a big difference vs. armor and in emplacement/displacement times.

[John Osborne]

I would love to see one. You could run some pretty cool scenarios fairly easily by simply copying ATF scenarios and replacing their force structures with SBCT battalions. It would make for an interesting play.


Thanks, I was going to spend time doing that for TacOps but now I'm going to spend my time with ATF :D

Of note when going through the OOB's...

While all of the OOB's SAY that the SBCT has 6 lightweight 155m howitzer X 3 batteries (total of 18), they in fact have 4 M198 howitzers X 3 batteries (total of 12).

It makes a big difference vs. armor and in emplacement/displacement times.

Yes that is correct if it is a Initial BCT. But my assumption was that with the MAV in the Interim BCT then it will be 6 lightweight 155m howitzer X 3 batteries with a total of 18. So until the MAV gets onboard I will changed the Stryker OOB to reflect the 4xM198.

By the way, I notice that the OOB that I posted at TacOps is outdated. I forget to add some improtant units to it. So I'm redoing the OOB to reflect from the new FMs.

---John

[Deltapooh]

CPangras did design NATO vehicle icons for Stryker. Unfortunately alot of people understand the symbols. I've been looking for a top-down view of the Stryker family. Haven't found any.

If you want you could use the LAV chasis as a base vehicle. I'll likely be designing the Stryker vehicles in the not too distant future. ;)

[Pat Proctor]

I have a sinking suspicion that the M198 will end up being the final artillery piece for the SBCT. The Lightweight 155 is having a ton of problems getting ready for fielding. Meanwhile, the HIMARS is ready for primetime. I strongly suspect that the SBCT will get a HIMARS platoon and that will be the end of it.

[John Osborne]

CPangras did design NATO vehicle icons for Stryker. Unfortunately alot of people understand the symbols. I've been looking for a top-down view of the Stryker family. Haven't found any.

If you want you could use the LAV chasis as a base vehicle. I'll likely be designing the Stryker vehicles in the not too distant future. ;)

I'll tell you what I will do, Deltapooh :D I will do the Stryker vehicles, being that the Stryker vehicles are pretty much the same as the LAVs are. I have the OOB for the BCT. Probably going to need help on find tuning the vehicles.

So many questions and not enough time to do it all :nuts:

---John

[John Osborne]

I have a sinking suspicion that the M198 will end up being the final artillery piece for the SBCT. The Lightweight 155 is having a ton of problems getting ready for fielding. Meanwhile, the HIMARS is ready for primetime. I strongly suspect that the SBCT will get a HIMARS platoon and that will be the end of it.

Now just to find out how many HIMARS there will be for a platoon :D

---John

[Deltapooh]

Now just to find out how many HIMARS there will be for a platoon :D

---John

I'm certain it will be 3x HIMARS plus support per platoon. HIMARS is similar to the MLRS.

I'll tell you what I will do, Deltapooh I will do the Stryker vehicles, being that the Stryker vehicles are pretty much the same as the LAVs are. I have the OOB for the BCT. Probably going to need help on find tuning the vehicles.

I can handle editing to build the Strkyer base. I can then make turrets to suit the various roles.

Problem is, I'll probably end up building them from the ground up. As I learn about editing, the more particular I get to detail. It's so bad now I actually sit with a calculator to generate sizes for vehicles. :nuts:

[John Osborne]

I can handle editing to build the Strkyer base. I can then make turrets to suit the various roles.

Problem is, I'll probably end up building them from the ground up. As I learn about editing, the more particular I get to detail. It's so bad now I actually sit with a calculator to generate sizes for vehicles. :nuts:

Ok, So what do you want me to do :cheeky: I don't want you to do everything. We can work together on this.

---John

[Deltapooh]

Actually, painting the vehicles is not as important as adding them into the game, giving correct pK stats etc. This is where I slow up at. If it weren't for Kbluck's Database, I'd be in a real mess. So you've actually got the hard part.

I'll start work on the vehicles quickly. I also have a new scenario I am working on as well as going back to fix an old one. (If I didn't enjoy all this, it would be work. ;) )

[Deltapooh]

Well, thanks to the US Army it won't be so difficult after all. They have a nice top down drawing of Stryker in their FMs that can be used as a base chasis.

Which vehicles do you want to add? There is a whole sortment of them. Making turrets and other alterations won't be so difficult now for sure.

[John Osborne]

Actually, painting the vehicles is not as important as adding them into the game, giving correct pK stats etc. This is where I slow up at. If it weren't for Kbluck's Database, I'd be in a real mess. So you've actually got the hard part.

I'll start work on the vehicles quickly. I also have a new scenario I am working on as well as going back to fix an old one. (If I didn't enjoy all this, it would be work. ;) )

Ok, So let me get this straight ;) You will make the vehicles and then you will send them to me. I can handle up to 10MB of data by email, ok.

And then I will use Kbluck's Database . Is that correct?

Also you stated that "You can not add the pieces in the Power Tools kit as described in the Online Help Files. You'll need to create a new vehicle, save the database, create a new scenario in the builder, and import your database. Then you can select add your vehicle to make sure everything is lined up properly".

Can you elaborate some more on this. I can change and update the copy that I made before I convert it into a pdf file.

I take it that is how I will have to do it to add the new vehicles along with the data to ATF.

---John

[John Osborne]

Well, thanks to the US Army it won't be so difficult after all. They have a nice top down drawing of Stryker in their FMs that can be used as a base chasis.

Which vehicles do you want to add? There is a whole sortment of them. Making turrets and other alterations won't be so difficult now for sure.

Which FM are you using? I have about three of them from Platoon on up to Brigade.

I have a list on what vehicles to add. Let me wake up and have some coffee first. Its 0725 in the morning here :p

I will post the list in about an hour, ok. :cheeky:

[John Osborne]

Here is a list of the main IAV vehicles along with a attachment of a picture that I got off of the internet of the main vehicles.

Infantry Carrier Vehicle,
Command Vehicle,
Mobile Gun System,
Fire Support Vehicle,
Medical Evacuation,
Mortar Carrier,
Engineer Squad Vehicle,
AntiTank Guided Missile Vehicle,
NBC Reconnaissance Vehicle,
Reconnaissance Vehicle,

This is also what I like to add:
UAV,
Truck, Cargo 2.5t,
HIMARS,
M-198 155mm,Towed Howitzer,

This is a start :nuts:

---John

[Pat Proctor]

The engineer vehicle has a cute little gizmo on the front that the O/C's here have dubbed the "baby plow". Don't forget that. It's cute as a button ;)

Of course hitting a rock with it will break it, but that is beside the point.

[John Osborne]

Not sure if I'm asking this right :nuts:

Without me having to open each HTML document to see what information that I need when making a new vehicle or equipment ie vehicle, turret, personnel carrier.

Has anyone made a doucment that can be print out to fill in with a pencil the info need? If not I can put something together. I just don't want to reinvent the wheel again :nuts:

---John

[Deltapooh]

Ok, So let me get this straight You will make the vehicles and then you will send them to me. I can handle up to 10MB of data by email, ok.

Yeah, I'll make the vehicles and send them. They will be far less than 10mb.

And then I will use Kbluck's Database . Is that correct?

You can use whatever Database you prefer. I use Kbluck's because it has most of the vehicles I would use in a scenario as well as a number of weapon tweaks. He didn't add the LAVs or Stykers though.

Okay on adding vehicles, I made a typo error. It should read:

You can add the pieces in the Power Tools kit as described in the Online Help Files. You'll need to create a new vehicle, save the database, create a new scenario in the builder, and import your database. Then you can select add your vehicle to make sure everything is lined up properly".

Sorry about that.

Which FM are you using?

I obtained the image from FM 3-21.9. I have all three as well in .pdf format.

Infantry Carrier Vehicle,
Command Vehicle,
Mobile Gun System,
Fire Support Vehicle,
Medical Evacuation,
Mortar Carrier,
Engineer Squad Vehicle,
AntiTank Guided Missile Vehicle,
NBC Reconnaissance Vehicle,
Reconnaissance Vehicle,

This is also what I like to add:
UAV,
Truck, Cargo 2.5t,
HIMARS,
M-198 155mm,Towed Howitzer,

Kbluck already made pieces for the M1084 (same the older version) and the M198. If you though, I could add the M939A2 (I believe it is) and see about redoing the M198.

The HIMARS and other vehicles won't be a problem. The Stryker family pretty much look the same. I can go about making small alterations.

The UAV is not a problem either. However, I might have to increase its size to show up in the game though.

I've already completed the Stryker ICV. It has a turret (gun mount) as well, though not really visible in the game. I'll send you the pack just as soon as they are complete. All will be tiled and aligned correctly. All you'll have to do is add the pieces and enter vehicle data into your database. If you want me to change something let me know. :D

[John Osborne]

I obtained the image from FM 3-21.9. I have all three as well in .pdf format. Yes I saw it after I looked at the FMs.

Kbluck already made pieces for the M1084 (same the older version) and the M198. If you though, I could add the M939A2 (I believe it is) and see about redoing the M198.

The HIMARS and other vehicles won't be a problem. The Stryker family pretty much look the same. I can go about making small alterations.

The UAV is not a problem either. However, I might have to increase its size to show up in the game though.

I've already completed the Stryker ICV. It has a turret (gun mount) as well, though not really visible in the game. I'll send you the pack just as soon as they are complete. All will be tiled and aligned correctly. All you'll have to do is add the pieces and enter vehicle data into your database. If you want me to change something let me know. :D

Yes , please add the M939A2. I like what you have done already with the stryker vehicles.jpg

I see what you mean, making the vehicles is easy. Now I have the headache on looking up the data for the vehicles :p But hey, Thats why we have Kbluck, Capt Proctor, and the rest of the gang to answer my questions when it will come to the data for the weapons.

---John

[Ivan Rapkinov]

Here is a list of the main IAV vehicles along with a attachment of a picture that I got off of the internet of the main vehicles.

This is also what I like to add:
UAV,
---John

John (aka Red6 on the tacops list?) I made UAVs fore the manuveur/firepower tests based on the Firescout - rotary winged, fast, small hard to hit (because I wanted complete coverage without UAVs dropping easily.)

that would be the easiest way to add a UAV that can be moved realistically. Just use the image of a OH-6 and shrink it :D

[John Osborne]

John (aka Red6 on the tacops list?)

yes, but I don't go by Red6 anymore. I just use my name now.

I made UAVs fore the manuveur/firepower tests based on the Firescout - rotary winged, fast, small hard to hit (because I wanted complete coverage without UAVs dropping easily.)

that would be the easiest way to add a UAV that can be moved realistically. Just use the image of a OH-6 and shrink it :D

I'm not famillar with "Firescout"?

As for the image of the OH-6, I didn't find the bmp file of it in the ATF Data folder.

---John

[John Osborne]

Deltapooh, not sure if you have found any top down pictures of a UAV.

But I found these that may help.
The first one is the Pioneer which I belive is the one that SBCT will use. I can't find any info on what type of UAV that they will use. And the second one is the RQ-1 Predator, which I think that they will not use this one due to the size of it.

I hope that this will help.

---John

[Ivan Rapkinov]

Firescout is rotary-winged UAV that various militaries are looking at purchasing.

I went with the rotary type for ease of movement, and increased loiter time.

[John Osborne]

I would like for anyone to look at the ATF Stryker Specs that I made for the Stryker ICV. It is a Microsoft Excel spreedsheet. I use the same format that Deltapooh used. Please let me know if there is any problems with the specs. I will work on the next Stryker vehicle which will be the MGS.

---John

[Pat Proctor]

John,

The Stryker mounts the M2 .50 cal in a special mount called the RWS (don't ask me what that stands for). The gun can be fired from the buttoned up position and, I believe, has a 7X power site on it. It is also partially motion stabilized. I guess what I am saying is that I would copy the M2 .50 cal to a new weapon and call it ".50 cal RWS" or something to reflect the new weapon sytem.

Also, and I might be wrong here, I have not seen the Stryker mount a Mk-19 or an M240B, and we have had both stryker brigades out here in the past year.

[John Osborne]

John,

The Stryker mounts the M2 .50 cal in a special mount called the RWS (don't ask me what that stands for). The gun can be fired from the buttoned up position and, I believe, has a 7X power site on it. It is also partially motion stabilized. I guess what I am saying is that I would copy the M2 .50 cal to a new weapon and call it ".50 cal RWS" or something to reflect the new weapon sytem.

RWS= Remote Weapons System

Also, and I might be wrong here, I have not seen the Stryker mount a Mk-19 or an M240B, and we have had both stryker brigades out here in the past year.

This is what I got for the weapons spec:

Armament
Remote weapon station (RWS) with a universal soft mount cradle capable of mounting:
MK19 40mm grenade launcher
M2 .50 cal machine gun
MK240 7.62mm machine gun (with adapter)
Ancillary:
(4) M6 Smoke grenade launchers
Stowed Ammunition
(32) 66mm smoke grenades
(3200) 7.62mm rounds
(2000) .50 cal rounds OR
(430) MK19 rounds
For Troops:
(2240) 5.56mm ball
(1120) 5.56mm linked

As for the MK-19 I belevie it will be use by the RSTA Squadron Recon Troops.

Other then that, how is the rest of the specsa that I'm using for the Stryker ICV :D

---John

[John Osborne]

Hi Deltapooh,

Without me nitpicking :D

I was under the impression that the Stryker vehicles will have there wheels noticeable. Not to say that what you have done is not good. I just think that the vehicle looks allmost like any other track vehicle.

Attach is a comparison of the two. What do you think?

---John

[Deltapooh]

Sorry, I've been busy. I'll be working on the vehicles throughout the weekend.

I can add design all the UAVs, including the FireScout (I like that one), if you want. Then you can decide which one you want.

I was under the impression that the Stryker vehicles will have there wheels noticeable. Not to say that what you have done is not good. I just think that the vehicle looks allmost like any other track vehicle.

Attach is a comparison of the two. What do you think?

I debated on this for a good bit. I just decided to go against it since the actual pixel number would be about 1W x 3L, which is not too defined in the game (at least I think so). I have a rack system on the chasis, and RWS turret. Both are barely noticable because of the transfer.

However, I'll make the change and you can decide. It's your project after all. :D

[John Osborne]

Sorry, I've been busy. I'll be working on the vehicles throughout the weekend. I'm not rushing you. As soon as you can get to it :D I'm working on the vehicle specs.

I can add design all the UAVs, including the FireScout (I like that one), if you want. Then you can decide which one you want.

Yes, that will work. I will add any and all UAVs that you make.


I debated on this for a good bit. I just decided to go against it since the actual pixel number would be about 1W x 3L, which is not too defined in the game (at least I think so). I have a rack system on the chasis, and RWS turret. Both are barely noticable because of the transfer.

However, I'll make the change and you can decide. It's your project after all. :DI can understand that. I'm finally getting the hang of it. Thanks to my son :D He showed me how to shrink down a picture.

Take a look again at the attachment. I got the Stryker on the left to be the same size as the Stryker that you made on the right :nuts:

What do you think?

---John

[Deltapooh]

On the wheel issue, you might want to consider looking at this pic. You can see the wheels are tucked in.

[John Osborne]

On the wheel issue, you might want to consider looking at this pic. You can see the wheels are tucked in.

http://www.armyrecognition.com/Amerique_du_nord/Etats_Unis/vehicules_a_roues/Stryker/Stryker_MGS/Stryker_MGS_Mbile_Gun_System_USA_03.jpg
Well hell Deltapooh :D I can see why you haven't finished the vehicles :D Your playing in the sandbox :D

Seriously, I see what your talking about now.

---John

[Pat Proctor]

John,

I think the RWS can mount any of those three weapons. But I have only seen the M2 .50 cal on the RWS. You might be right about RSTA having the Mk-19. I have not been around them. But, at any rate, it will only have ONE of them mounted. If you put all three weapons on the vehicle, it will be like it has three weapon mounts (pretty cool, but not accurate).

Other than that, the stats look good.

BTW, the MGS is not yet fielded, and may never get fielded. They are having a lot of problems getting it to work.

The JUST got the TOW vehicle and, I believe, do not have the ADA vehicle yet (though I could be wrong about that).

[John Osborne]

John,

I think the RWS can mount any of those three weapons. But I have only seen the M2 .50 cal on the RWS. You might be right about RSTA having the Mk-19. I have not been around them. But, at any rate, it will only have ONE of them mounted. If you put all three weapons on the vehicle, it will be like it has three weapon mounts (pretty cool, but not accurate). If I'm not mistaken, The Recon Troops will have 2xStryker Recon HMG (M2.50cal) and 2xStryker Recon AGL (MK-19) per platoon.

Other than that, the stats look good.

BTW, the MGS is not yet fielded, and may never get fielded. They are having a lot of problems getting it to work.

The JUST got the TOW vehicle and, I believe, do not have the ADA vehicle yet (though I could be wrong about that).

I will still have the MGS in the Stryker Brigade anyway :D As for the ADA, I did not read anywhere were the ADA was being tested for a Stryker unit. I was under the impression that the ADA will be augmented from Div. Which would probably be Avenger's anyway :D

---John

[John Osborne]

Just to give a heads up on the SBCT status :D Deltapooh has finished two Stryker vehicles. The ICV and the MGS :D I have already added them to the database. While I'm waiting for the other vehicles from Deltapooh :D I will start to work on a scenario using the Stryker Brigade. It will be at NTC and then another one in Iraq.

Attach below is a screenshot of the MGS vehicles.

---John

[Pat Proctor]

John,

If you are looking for relative "historical accuracy" in your NTC scenario, here is a set piece battle that occured toward the end of the first Stryker NTC rotation. I believe the friendly force was 5-20 IN. The artillery battalion, I believe was 1-37. They were defending in a prepared defense, and attacked along the northern wall by two OPFOR battalions.

I won't tell you how it turned out ;)

[John Osborne]

John,

If you are looking for relative "historical accuracy" in your NTC scenario, here is a set piece battle that occured toward the end of the first Stryker NTC rotation. I believe the friendly force was 5-20 IN. The artillery battalion, I believe was 1-37. They were defending in a prepared defense, and attacked along the northern wall by two OPFOR battalions.

I won't tell you how it turned out ;)

Thanks, I will look at this. What was the unit that you saw when you saw the Stryker vehicles? Where they from the 2ID?

---John

[Pat Proctor]

I have seen both 2 ID and 1st BCT, 25 ID here on rotation. I spent a lot of time with 5-20 IN, 1-37 FA, and 2-8 FA. I spent considerably less time with other units. I did get to see the brigade TOC, though. It looks like the control room for the death star.

[John Osborne]

I did get to see the brigade TOC, though. It looks like the control room for the death star.

Was that the C2/TOC Stryker vehicle? Or another type of vehicle?

[Pat Proctor]

The TOC itself is a massive array of tents, antennae, commo vehicles, HMMWV's, and trucks. What was interesting about the SBCT TOC was the ammount of automation they had. There were big computer screens and projectors everywhere. It was about 15 times more automation than you see in a normal TOC. They even had CNN running on a big screen for information OPS.

What was funny was that, even with all of that automation, the brigade commander and all of the battalion commanders were huddled around a 1.5 X 3 foot plexiglass map board with acetate graphics to do their rehearsal!

I guess you can lead the horse to water...

The Stryker C2 vehicle is a forward command vehicle. It is used by the battalion and brigade commander to lead the fight forward.

[kbluck]

Here's a USMC LAV-25 I happen to have drawn up.

I didn't originally include these in my custom DB because I just didn't want to get into USMC systems at that particular time. Nor did I include Stryker because I didn't want to get into notional systems, and that is what I still consider Stryker. Anybody remember when 9th "light motorized" division was the "next big thing"? Exactly.

For what its worth.

--- Kevin

[John Osborne]

Well I knew that this may happen someday. I have two hard drives, main and secondary and the secondary just crashed on me. Thankfull that the main is still working. Anyway I lost everything that I was doing for ATF, The Stryker vehicles and scenario. I sent an email to Deltapooh to please send me the Stryker vehicles again. I have loaded up ATF to the only hard drive I have left. Will take some time to get back to where I was at before the crash.


---John

[kbluck]

Yet more proof of how substandard the LAVIII design is. The M113 would *never* have crashed your hard drive!

:D

--- Kevin

[kbluck]

If I might offer a small criticism of the Stryker pieces shown thus far:

They look a little "stubby". I checked the length/width ratio of the piece, and its about 2:1. In fact, the 8x8 LAV hulls are more like 2.56:1, so if you keep your present length of about 71 pixels, they should only be about 28 pixels wide.

A drawing of the LAV-25 (which has essentially the same chassis) is attached for your reference.

--- Kevin

[Deltapooh]

Hmm, maybe I did something stupid like use size constraints when resizing. If need be, I can resize.

The other problem I have is maintaining sizes used by the stock vehicles, while creating more detailed vehicles. What I really wish is that I could split pixels. (Can't but it would be nice). Adding clear details in a few dozen pixels can be a real pain.

The pic below illustrates some of the best vehicles I've created. They also show my pixel woes. For the M1037, I added something like two or three pixels to the rear of the M1025 and it ballooned. Then I used Kblucks M1084 to get a good ideal of the length and width of the M939, and it came out smaller. Not trying to make excuses, but it's a real challenge for me.

[kbluck]

When you have this few pixels to work with, it is a challenge to make things look decent. This is one reason I'm not a fan of the graphic images; unless one is an absolute virtuoso with Photoshop or whatever, most pieces are going to look cartoonish at best and atrocious at worst. There are even examples of this in the "stock" images; the UH-60 included with the game looks absolutely awful; sufficiently bad that I felt compelled to draw a new one. (Attached.) Herein lies the problem; most people are just "OK" with a graphics editor, if they know how to use one at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think most would-be modders find making the graphic pieces by far the most difficult, intimidating, and time-consuming part of the process, and it is certainly the part that is most difficult to do well.

I know the "ease of learning" rationale, but in my opinion the bitmaps aren't much of an improvement; a typical tank doesn't look much different than a typical SP howitzer, at least at the scales of the game pieces, yet they have radically different capabilities. If a newbie is really that clueless, I doubt they're going to be less confused by the subtle differences in an overhead view than by the clear differences between the corresponding icons. The NATO icons (like Curt drew, not the collective symbols in the game now) are distinctive, easily drawn, highly reuseable, independent of scale, and show the unit's capabilities rather than it's appearance. Let's face it, anybody picking up this game is interested in military science, and I don't think they're going to have much trouble picking up some icon symbology, especially when they have tooltips and info dialogs to jog their memory. If they want to see pictures of the systems they're pushing around the map, put some *real* pictures in the online help.

--- Kevin

[Deltapooh]

When you have this few pixels to work with, it is a challenge to make things look decent. This is one reason I'm not a fan of the graphic images; unless one is an absolute virtuoso with Photoshop or whatever, most pieces are going to look cartoonish at best and atrocious at worst. There are even examples of this in the "stock" images; the UH-60 included with the game looks absolutely awful; sufficiently bad that I felt compelled to draw a new one. (Attached.) Herein lies the problem; most people are just "OK" with a graphics editor, if they know how to use one at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think most would-be modders find making the graphic pieces by far the most difficult, intimidating, and time-consuming part of the process, and it is certainly the part that is most difficult to do well.

I know the "ease of learning" rationale, but in my opinion the bitmaps aren't much of an improvement; a typical tank doesn't look much different than a typical SP howitzer, at least at the scales of the game pieces, yet they have radically different capabilities. If a newbie is really that clueless, I doubt they're going to be less confused by the subtle differences in an overhead view than by the clear differences between the corresponding icons. The NATO icons (like Curt drew, not the collective symbols in the game now) are distinctive, easily drawn, highly reuseable, independent of scale, and show the unit's capabilities rather than it's appearance. Let's face it, anybody picking up this game is interested in military science, and I don't think they're going to have much trouble picking up some icon symbology, especially when they have tooltips and info dialogs to jog their memory. If they want to see pictures of the systems they're pushing around the map, put some *real* pictures in the online help.

--- Kevin

I agree with you. I asked whether or not people would accept Curt's symbols as standard. Those that responded really were not too hot on the ideal.

So in a way we're quietly stuck. Like you, I do alot of this stuff for the community. We're soldiers and must follow orders. :D

Nice UH-60 by the way.

[kbluck]

I asked whether or not people would accept Curt's symbols as standard. Those that responded really were not too hot on the ideal.

Maybe the answer would have been different if you'd presented it as the choice it actually is:

"Would you rather have:
1. A few neato new vehicles with sorta pretty pictures eventually;
2. A lot of neato new vehicles much sooner with NATO icons only?

Seeing how creating the graphic pieces probably chews up more than 90% of the development time for new units, and arguably bars a number of would-be modders from the process altogether (could John do this if you weren't drawing his pieces?), I think this is a pretty accurate statement of the tradeoffs involved.

Besides, people often express strong opinions about subjects that, in truth, they have only lukewarm feelings about. I'd bet that if the minor shock of replacing graphic pieces with icons was cushioned a bit with a couple of cool scenarios featuring interesting new systems, nobody would have any real heartburn.

Actually, I think SBCT is the perfect venue for this sort of conversion. After all, the real heart of the Objective Force concept isn't that LAVIII boondoggle; its the information systems and automation that will allow the commander to visualize and fight the battle in new ways. What is the Stryker commander is going to be looking at on his screens? Icons, of course! Using proper NATO icons would be downright atmospheric for Stryker scenarios, I think.

--- Kevin

[KG_Norad]

I would rather have new vehicles even if only Nato Symbols. I always play with Nato Symbols on anyway execpt in the extreme close up view which I never really use much. The Nato Symbols work really well with this game and fit the graphic style just fine. I do not feel they detract anything at all. On the other hand I like looking at little squads and tanks in a game like steel panthers because it fits the graphics of the game.

So Bring on the Nato Symbols! More units = more game play options period.:)

Michael

[Scully]

I would rather have new vehicles even if only Nato Symbols. I always play with Nato Symbols on anyway execpt in the extreme close up view which I never really use much. The Nato Symbols work really well with this game and fit the graphic style just fine. I do not feel they detract anything at all. On the other hand I like looking at little squads and tanks in a game like steel panthers because it fits the graphics of the game.

So Bring on the Nato Symbols! More units = more game play options period.:)

Michael

I'm with NORAD and KBluck on this one. I also only use NATO symbols. To be honest, creating vehicles has given me heartburn as I think about developing scenarios and OOB's.

Take care,
Brian