Dismounts, again (RT) [Archive]

View Full Version : Dismounts, again (RT)

Hub

21 Jun 04, 13:59

RedMike

21 Jun 04, 15:44

Pat says in the demo literature that you can set the dismount distance to whatever you want in the scenario editor. That is, it can be defined by a particular scenario. So I guess the answer is YES. The demo doesn't include the scen editor so can't check that out for sure, but apparently it is user defined now. Still getting used to the new layout.

kbluck

21 Jun 04, 15:57

What this seems to mean for you, Hub, is that "old" scenarios will still behave in the same way, unless you open them in the Raging Tiger Scenario Builder, change the "rule" yourself, and save it back out. It is a rule embedded in each actual scenario, not a game-wide configuration switch.

The RT demo scenarios, at least, still seem to be set to the old value of 300m by default as well.

I presume this would be a one-way trip, i.e. saving a scenario with the RT Builder would prevent it from ever again being run by a previous version of the game.

--- Kevin

CPangracs

21 Jun 04, 16:05

Trying to download the RT demo (dial-up). In the meantime, has the issue of dismounts been settled, or do they still teleport 300m from their carriers on unloading? This spoils an otherwise excellent game system- enough so that I won't buy RT unless I know it's been fixed so the distance is 100m or less. ATF sits on the shelf because of this already...
The ability to set the distance, for both dismounts AND vehicles, is included in Raging Tiger. The demo scenarios are at the default 300m. If you run scenarios in Raging Tiger from previous versions of ATF, then you just import the scenario data into the RT data folder, along with the database used for the scenario, and alter the properties in the scenario editor. Dismount distance is a property set in the "Environment" in the "Component" menu of the scenario editor.(I have not messed with it, as I've been on an awesome vacation!;)). Just select "Add" and "Dismount Radius Rule" is a selection, along with "Phase Order".

There are 3 properties:

Personnel Dismount Radius (m/10)
Vehicle Dismount Radius (m/10)
Mount Radius (m/10)

Default is still 300m, and is represented by a -99 in each of the setting boxes

These are GLOBAL settings, and it is particular to each scenario as needed.

There is no reason to alter your scenarios so they won't work in ATF. Raging Tiger is a BETTER Armored Task Force. Import your scenarios and databases and have a ball! Now, ATF should NEVER be sitting on anyone's shelf, and now you can dust it off and get cracking,...there's no excuse! Keep your ATF install if you like nostalgia!;)

See you on the high ground!!

Hub

21 Jun 04, 16:31

Well, I think I can live with that. It means that it will be a little harder to make sure eveyone has the same variant of a scenario when they go to play, I guess.

It seems that in the DMZ Sweep II scenario, the Bradleys are carrying far more dismounts then they should be able to, or is this the "super carrier" attribute, representing dismounts riding on top?

There is an impressive amount of equipment shown in the database. The new look is also interesting. I'm confused by the data for the AC-130U though:

Vehicle Carrier

Time To Open:
5 s

Time To Mount:
10 s

Time To Dismount:
0 s

Time To Close:
5 s

Max Number of Carried Units:
3

Max Carried Weight (lbs):
None

Max Carried Area (m^2):
None

Can Carried Units Fire?
No

Carried Units Left Fire Limit (mils, negative left):
N/A

Carried Units Left Fire Limit (mils, negative left):
N/A

Can Dismount While Moving:
Yes

Can Mount While Moving:
No

Carried Unit Restrictions:
No Restrictions

It seems that it can carry units, but can't at the same time: is this to allow uploading ammo pallets or something?

CPangracs

21 Jun 04, 16:47

Well, I think I can live with that. It means that it will be a little harder to make sure eveyone has the same variant of a scenario when they go to play, I guess.

It seems that in the DMZ Sweep II scenario, the Bradleys are carrying far more dismounts then they should be able to, or is this the "super carrier" attribute, representing dismounts riding on top?

There is an impressive amount of equipment shown in the database. The new look is also interesting. I'm confused by the data for the AC-130U though:

The AC-130 should not be able to carry vehicles, but can carry 3 dismounts only, no vehicles, and can airdrop them (dismount while moving). I used the vehicle carrier attribute for this to take advantage of the "airborne drop" feature of the vehicle carrier attribute. The final will have this fixed!

The Bradley carries no more than before. Look at the number of weapons carried by the dismount "teams", and you will see that a Bradley is carrying just about the right "mix", providing for more than one weapon by one person.

Hub

21 Jun 04, 16:53

CPangracs

21 Jun 04, 17:12

I'm sorry- it's not my intent to be a killjoy or a bean counter, or a pain in the ass. But, I did a count of just the rifles, SAW's, and carbines off one M2A3, and got 11. Then there is all the space for the other gear- Javelins, OCSW's, extra ammo, etc...

Also, why would a valuable and rare platform like the AC-130U, be used to toss dismounts out the door?

Really, I'm sorry...
LOL! No apologies necessary, Hub, and I can understand your questions. You are correct about the numbers,...to an extent. Each "team" has a mix for between 5 and 6 personnel and a mix of weapons. an example is the Javelin,...a Jav gunner often will carry an M4 as well. Also, notice the nade launchers? Those are in addition to the weapon they are attached to.

I guess you could say I took liberties with the numbers, but I was "guesstimating" at the mix/capabilities of the next generation of equipment. I was actually debating whether or not to bring the number of teams for all IFV's down to 2, and I was waiting for any mention during Beta testing, but had no mention of it. I may still reduce the numbers for final. I will discuss it with Pat Proctor tonight.

So, let's just say that there are a couple people hanging on the outside! J/K. I am trying for a mix of realism, future capabilities, and fun. If things aren't fun for you, then I'll do my best to ensure it IS fun!

As for the airborne in the AC-130, it is a vehicle which supports the Spec Ops. Having the capability to drop a few teams seemed a natural progression to me. It is by NO means strictly an airborne delivery system! This puppy packs a punch!

kbluck

21 Jun 04, 17:13

The weapon count per carrier does seem a bit high. I've got the following packed into each Bradley:

2x OCSW
2x SAW
1x Javelin
4x Rifle/GL
1x Rifle
4x Carbine

It's hard to reconcile that against a 7-man dismount squad.

There's actually a total of 14 standalone weapons there. Could it be that you meant to load only one unit per Bradley?

--- Kevin

CPangracs

21 Jun 04, 17:20

The weapon count per carrier does seem a bit high. I've got the following packed into each Bradley:

2x OCSW
2x SAW
1x Javelin
4x Rifle/GL
1x Rifle
4x Carbine

It's hard to reconcile that against a 7-man dismount squad.

Could these actually represent entire dismount squads, and you meant to load only one per Bradley?

--- Kevin
Very likely, as the teams were one of the first units built. I screwed the pooch on that one! I'll fix this immediately! I know what happened - I doubled just about everything with each squad! I'll get this fixed then ensure the scenarios aren't screwed by the fix.

Thanks guys!

Hub

21 Jun 04, 17:38

Yes, if that load were distributed across two M2's, that would be more reasonable. I know we're discussing the hypothetical future here, but if you want to have the OCSW, what about the OICW as well then, instead of the mix of rifles/carbines? Or is that what the XM8/XM230 is supposed to be? (I heard it called something else)

kbluck

21 Jun 04, 17:44

As a suggested organization, similar to my database:

3 squads per platoon:

2xRifle team
SAW
Rifle/GL
Carbine

1xOSCW team
OCSW
Carbine

1xJavelin team
Javelin
Carbine

Actually still a touch high at 30 weapons/plt, but its the best we can do under the game constraints without leaving the heavy weapons teams with no small arms. Notice it also omits the SLs and PL. So, even this is optimistic.

Obviously, this means the squads are not neatly distributed between the Brads. That's real life.

I think a somewhat more realistic alternative is to greatly reduce the squads and add a weapon squad, like this:

3 rifle squads
2x rifle teams as above.

1 weapon squad:
3x OCSW team
-- OR --
3x Javelin team
-- OR --
Some combination adding to 3 per METT-T.

This still allows room for the leadership.

Or, perhaps, you could replace one SAW per squad with an OCSW.

--- Kevin

CPangracs

21 Jun 04, 18:12

I have altered the db for the release to reflect 7-man squads or smaller, and the vehicles can only carry one squad. This will reflect 28 dismounts or less per platoon. The scenarios are also being adjusted to reflect this change.

As for the XM8 and XM230, etc are the new weapon systems.

I think this new representation will be a bit more realistic.

Thanks again, and these changes will be reflected in the public demo release and the final release.

kbluck

21 Jun 04, 18:29

One last lash on this rapidly expiring horse...

Lumping entire squads together has two main disadvantages in my book... it limits the player's deployment flexibility, especially on the defense, and it greatly increases the "kill" granularity, as entire squads now get wiped out at a stroke due to ATF's "dead or not dead" casualty convention.

On the other hand, it reduces map clutter and perhaps reduces the incidence of unrealistically decentralized operations.

Of course, custom DBs can change these assumptions. But, it will be interesting to see how full "indivisible" squads will play out in what promises to be a fairly dismount-intensive game.

--- Kevin