NATO Icons

[Hub]

I'm finding examples in the demo where it seems (to me) that the NATO icons don't always represent what they should: for one example, it appears that leg infantry and heavy weapons teams are swapped around (see pix). Another is light recon being shown as heavy...

This may seem a bit nitpicky, but I only play with the NATO icons, and I rely on a quick visual glance to see what's what, without always waiting for the tool tip to appear.

I'm probably going to go to Nitpicker Hell for this...

[CPangracs]

Actually, they are Operational Icons, and the two you showed were dismounted mech infantry on the left and regular infantry, which is used as an overall symbol for an infantry unit


As for "light" recon and "heavy", I think the terminology you are using is wrong. There are a number of different types of recon symbols, but they are all based on US Operational symbology, not NATO symbology.

[kbluck]

By my understanding, the little line on the left is a "modifier" that means "gun-system equipped". In the case of mech infantry, it refers to a cannon-equipped IFV, as opposed to a traditional APC with some sort of machinegun. By extension, an infantry symbol with such a qualifier refers to any infantry unit which is carried by an IFV, as opposed to an APC.

Personally, I think it is a meaningless distinction --- I mean, really, why do I care what carrier the infantry dismounted from? If I want to know about the carrier, I'll look at the carrier symbol. I want to know the capabilities of the infantry now that it has dismounted, not the carrier it left behind. I think this is a good example of official "heavy-itis" syndrome, where the grunts are generally considered unimportant compared to the vehicle they ride in, although few would openly admit such.

Reference pages 4-9 and 4-17 of FM 101-5-1.

--- Kevin

[CPangracs]

The release will have an AT symbol for the Dismounted Rifle Squad (It has the Javelin) and the Weapons Squad will retain the dismounted Mech Infantry symbol.

The reason I wanted two distinct symbols is to give the player a quick reference when using Operational Symbols instead of picture icons as to the capabilities of each squad.

As for this being a "meaningless" distinction, I refer you to the great Abraham Lincoln,..."You can please some of the people some of the time..."

[Hub]

Maybe things have changed, but the symbol to the left of my example, has always indicated (in my wargaming experiences) "leg infantry with support weapons other than what a regular leg unit would have," like a light mortar team, or in this specific case in RT, an MG fire support team with two M-60's ("heavy weapons"). The symbol to the right is straight leg infantry, what the rest are after they fall off the back of the truck. I'm just saying that these two are reversed in the demo (the M-60's are depicted as straight infantry, and vice versa. As for recon, a couple of fellows with carbines and an AT-4 should not be considered "heavy," which is also what is being shown in the demo. I also realize that with units portraying multiple weapon types, it can be hard to categorize them exactly. I just think these particular examples should be changed is all. I also know I can change these sort of things myself in the editor, if I don't like it, but I'd rather spend my time playing the game...

[kbluck]

As for this being a "meaningless" distinction, I refer you to the great Abraham Lincoln,..."You can please some of the people some of the time..."

Actually, I was agreeing with you. (Surprise!) I think infantry *should* be distinguished by their own capabilities rather than their carrier's.

Probably the "official" reason for the distinction is that these symbols are generally not used for units below the section/platoon level, and you can make a case that the composition of those units is indeed highly dependent on the vehicles they need to fit into.

At the "team" level of ATF, I think the "correct" symbols are the "equipment" symbol representing the team's primary weapon, which as I recall you once undertook to create. But, of course, those are even more obscure for the unindoctrinated. Most officers I know couldn't identify most of them without a cheat sheet.

BTW, a small curiosity. I noted the MGM-51 Shillelagh missile is in the DB, but not Sheridan or M60A2. Do the Koreans use that in some other system?

--- Kevin

[CPangracs]

BTW, a small curiosity. I noted the MGM-51 Shillelagh missile is in the DB, but not Sheridan or M60A2. Do the Koreans use that in some other system?

--- Kevin
Not that I know of, but who knows what the future holds? I didn't know the Sheridan was a weapon!;) As for the M60A2, as with the Sheridan, I had to drop some things and add others. Although I didn't drop all that COULD have been dropped, nor add what COULD have been added, I think there is a good mix of weapons available, as well as vehicles. You'll notice that I used your naming convention for weapons, and that most of the vehicles are, in fact different from any other database seen in ATF.

BTW, sorry for misunderstanding your comment. Sometimes tongue-in-cheek can be misinterpreted in writing.:devious:

[CPangracs]

Maybe things have changed, but the symbol to the left of my example, has always indicated (in my wargaming experiences) "leg infantry with support weapons other than what a regular leg unit would have," like a light mortar team, or in this specific case in RT, an MG fire support team with two M-60's ("heavy weapons"). The symbol to the right is straight leg infantry, what the rest are after they fall off the back of the truck. I'm just saying that these two are reversed in the demo (the M-60's are depicted as straight infantry, and vice versa. As for recon, a couple of fellows with carbines and an AT-4 should not be considered "heavy," which is also what is being shown in the demo. I also realize that with units portraying multiple weapon types, it can be hard to categorize them exactly. I just think these particular examples should be changed is all. I also know I can change these sort of things myself in the editor, if I don't like it, but I'd rather spend my time playing the game...
I'm still confused. There are dismounted scout teams and then scout vehicles. Those are the only distinctions but for Motorized Scouts, Armored Scouts, etc. there are no distinctions between "heavy" and "light" scouts in RT, and none as far as US Operational Symbols are concerened. The generic box with a slash through it can be used for ANY scout and still be correct.

[Hub]

As for scouts, I can only remark on what I saw in the demo.

As for the rest, I can't seem to explain what I mean. I'll just edit the symbols, I guess.

I'm not referencing any vehicles at all, just dismounts and their display by function and primary weapon...

[kbluck]

Hub: The icon for dismount scouts is the way it is (doctrinally speaking) not because the scouts themselves are heavy, but because they dismounted from a Bradley IFV, which is a "gun-equipped" system. The weapons the scouts might be carrying is irrelevant.

In my DB, I chose not to observe that nicety because I thought it would not improve player recognition, but Curt is actually being more technically correct in his observance of FM 101-5-1 details.

Another item I took some liberty on is my incorrect use of the "wheeled" modifiers to signify motorized as well as wheeled armor elements in my DB, because I thought they were easier to recognize and less likely to "muddy" the icon than the proper device of a centered vertical line.

Of course, historical precedent for wargames in general may differ from the "blessed" US Army conventions.

--- Kevin

[Hub]

Hub: The icon for dismount scouts is the way it is (doctrinally speaking) not because the scouts themselves are heavy, but because they dismounted from a Bradley IFV, which is a "gun-equipped" system. The weapons the scouts might be carrying is irrelevant.

In my DB, I chose not to observe that nicety because I thought it would not improve player recognition, but Curt is actually being more technically correct in his observance of FM 101-5-1 details.

Another item I took some liberty on is my incorrect use of the "wheeled" modifiers to signify motorized as well as wheeled armor elements in my DB, because I thought they were easier to recognize and less likely to "muddy" the icon than the proper device of a centered vertical line.

Of course, historical precedent for wargames in general may differ from the "blessed" US Army conventions.

--- Kevin

Understood. I guess I like it better having the dismounts segregated from what they showed up in...