Page 4 of 5

Re: Realistic transport capacity and per soldier prices

Posted: Fri 29 Mar 2013 05:43
by D-M
The best way to go with would be to let the whole squad murder each other until it can fit inside. You know like you are in the middle of the ocean with you pal and there is only one piece of wood to hang on.

Yep.

Oh and btw, I 've never heard WEE and WAB being anythings but games, unlike what many pretends, the dev never implied or said that their piece of software were anything else but a game. :/

Re: Realistic transport capacity and per soldier prices

Posted: Fri 29 Mar 2013 09:50
by [EUG]MadMat
artao wrote:Problems with my ideas? Fine. Point them out and discuss them.

The way I read it, that's what I did, but you dismissed them as "We're doing it our way".
So yes, from then I pretty much stop debating.

What I said was just that, given time (and money), everything is possible. But changing that game mechanic, which works fine presently, will affect much more connected rules than people saying "it shouldn't be hard usually think". I mentionned some, I won't make an extensive list here. Besides, it would generate interface and ergonics problems to be solved as well.

Any such change must be considered in terms of production efficiency (yes, we're a company): would that be worth investing time and money into making transport have a realistic capacity? Or do we invest the same time/money into developing smoke rounds?
We are the one developing the game, we're making the choices.

artao wrote:But apparently my usage of the word "ridiculous" was too much for some people, and that led to attacks against ME and not my idea.

Abusive usage of caps too.
Constant implying that we are either completely dumb or plain dishonnest don't help either.

Re: Realistic transport capacity and per soldier prices

Posted: Fri 29 Mar 2013 10:20
by rhylsadar
i was one of the first to ask some changes to carrying capacity of heavy transport.




i assume that wargame are STRATEGIC and not tactical game BUT...

more realism and interest in those transport... combine this with the gameplay of calling chopper transport

we/i do not asking for inside squad splitting (THAT would be really overhardcoding and some uselessness gameplay)

Just keep the 10/5 men squads

would it be really difficult to allow some transport to hold 2-4 squad of same type/or not

sure not for WEE but i would really like to see these in WAB TOO.

MI-8/17 ===>2 squads
PUMAS===> 2 squads
Chinook====>4 squads


those chopper would be really usefull = i need to redeploy this 4 squads of rifflemen at the new frontline : i call a chinook or 2 pumas.

i really can' see the difficulty in hardcoding here from where you can split/unsplit the carriers APC. just give the same gameplay mechanic here just change the carring capacity or take account that new chinook are a squad of 4 chinook (just make it unsplitable) (for the game)

Re: Realistic transport capacity and per soldier prices

Posted: Fri 29 Mar 2013 16:27
by Para911
Aikmofobi wrote:I'm thinking cargo slots, one squad = one slot as currently implemented but different amounts of cargo slots for different vehicles.
It's still simplified but rewards taking a transport with bigger capacity if thats your play style.
For example, most APCs with one slot and Chinooks with four slots.
A transport helicopter might come with 20 riflemen, 2 grouped sections.


+1

I mean, why else would you choose a chinook over any other helo? (Yes, I'm leaving out price, fuel consumption, armor, speed etc out, but I think you should get what i mean...)

Re: Realistic transport capacity and per soldier prices

Posted: Fri 29 Mar 2013 17:41
by untilted
Para911 wrote:
Aikmofobi wrote:I'm thinking cargo slots, one squad = one slot as currently implemented but different amounts of cargo slots for different vehicles.
It's still simplified but rewards taking a transport with bigger capacity if thats your play style.
For example, most APCs with one slot and Chinooks with four slots.
A transport helicopter might come with 20 riflemen, 2 grouped sections.


+1

I mean, why else would you choose a chinook over any other helo? (Yes, I'm leaving out price, fuel consumption, armor, speed etc out, but I think you should get what i mean...)

i've never run into the situation where i wanted ANY transport vehicle (be it transport helicopter, APC or IFV) for their transport capacity.

there are pretty much three scenarios why you call in a transport vehicle:
#1 the transport is associated with a specific infantry type ... you evaluate the whole package - infantry + vehicle - based on price, availability, combat characteristics and logistical aspects.
#2 the transport vehicle is called in for it's combat power. sometimes it overlaps with #1 (bradley, BMP-1/2/3 series) sometimes it's done through the vehicle/helo slot (marder 1/hind being prime examples).
#3 the transport vehicle is called in for it's transport capability. sure, you could add transport helos to your deck so some sort of airborne operation is possible, but that's imho a waste of slots.

for spec ops behind enemy line you want the redundancy that is provided by "one squad, one vehicle" - with a point-pinata like "4 squad deltas in a chinook" one mistake and a non-marginal amount of your special forces are dead. the only situation where you want as much infantry as possible in one go would be an airborne op with cheap infantry (think chasseurs in pumas) ... and even then you'd likely would prefer the increased resilience against AA fire by having more transports to soak up damage.

so which roles could be fulfilled by transports with increased transport capability? shifting troops behind your lines that lost their own transport - which is a marginal problem at best, after all most of the time you either have some spare transports nearby and/or you're leapfrogging by calling in fresh units to push forward leaving atleast some of the old troops behind in defensive position.

over all the practical purpose of transports being able to transport more than 1 squad of infantry is marginal at best.

Re: Realistic transport capacity and per soldier prices

Posted: Fri 29 Mar 2013 18:08
by theBLUBinYou
untilted wrote:over all the practical purpose of transports being able to transport more than 1 squad of infantry is marginal at best.

+1 to all you said. I like the system as it is in EE, you dont have to worry about unit sizes or something else. If the enemy has hidden AA and shoots your CH-47 with 150pt spec ops down you have drawed the short straw. In EE you'll loose just one chopper (when youre fast enough to evac the other)...

Re: Realistic transport capacity and per soldier prices

Posted: Fri 29 Mar 2013 20:35
by artao
[EUG]MadMat wrote:
artao wrote:Problems with my ideas? Fine. Point them out and discuss them.

The way I read it, that's what I did, but you dismissed them as "We're doing it our way".
So yes, from then I pretty much stop debating.

Except you didn't address my idea. you went off about splitting units and the difference between 5 man, 8 man, 8.5 man squads, etc.

[EUG]MadMat wrote: But changing that game mechanic, which works fine presently ...

I beg to disagree.

[EUG]MadMat wrote:Any such change must be considered in terms of production efficiency (yes, we're a company): would that be worth investing time and money into making transport have a realistic capacity? Or do we invest the same time/money into developing smoke rounds?

Finances are that tight? Even tho you made more money from EE than expected? By your own statement in another thread. So developing smoke is some "treat" for us, even tho by any measure it should absolutely be in any game depicting battles such as those in EE and ALB? Some massively complex undertaking that makes other game functions unfeasable?
[EUG]MadMat wrote:We are the one developing the game, we're making the choices.

== "We're doing it our way."

[EUG]MadMat wrote:
artao wrote:But apparently my usage of the word "ridiculous" was too much for some people, and that led to attacks against ME and not my idea.

Abusive usage of caps too.
Constant implying that we are either completely dumb or plain dishonnest don't help either.

Abusive usage of caps? LOL. okay man. Whatever you say :roll: I "caps" specific words, not entire sentences. That is for word emphasis. If that's abusive ... wow. just wow.
And if you're seeing implications of y'all being dumb and/or dishonest, I can't help that. As you say, "implications". I'm not saying that, tho I guess I can see where you're getting it from. How you read it is up to you, not me.

Anyhow, I'm outta this one.
CLEARLY no one is interested in hearing my reasoned out ideas, or even discussing them rationally. The fact that it's not actually my idea, but I get it from past games seems to fall on deaf ears. Other players apparently think it would add too much complexity, and is an unimportant consideration.
I mean, gee .. The military themselves must consider such transports pretty important, or they wouldn't have developed them in the first place.
..
This forum is the most contentious and opinionated forum I've ever been on. I give up -- to your amusement and relief I'm sure.

Re: Realistic transport capacity and per soldier prices

Posted: Fri 29 Mar 2013 21:30
by untilted
artao wrote:
[EUG]MadMat wrote:
artao wrote:Problems with my ideas? Fine. Point them out and discuss them.

The way I read it, that's what I did, but you dismissed them as "We're doing it our way".
So yes, from then I pretty much stop debating.

Except you didn't address my idea. you went off about splitting units and the difference between 5 man, 8 man, 8.5 man squads, etc.

wait what? i didn't realize that ericdude88 was madmat's alt account ... but then again you seem to know your stuff ...

[EUG]MadMat wrote: But changing that game mechanic, which works fine presently ...

I beg to disagree.

your argument boils down pretty much to "because of realism!!!" ... while realism is a nice aspect of a game, W:EE (and W:ALB) ARE NOT simulations. there's a lot of abstraction going on (supply system, pretty much every unit stat). W:EE is in this regard the computerized version of a table-top game - more complex rules than your usual strategy game, but still keeping in mind that a certain degree of abstraction is needed to make it an enjoyable game. realism just for realisms sake is hardly a good argument.
[EUG]MadMat wrote:Any such change must be considered in terms of production efficiency (yes, we're a company): would that be worth investing time and money into making transport have a realistic capacity? Or do we invest the same time/money into developing smoke rounds?

Finances are that tight? Even tho you made more money from EE than expected? By your own statement in another thread. So developing smoke is some "treat" for us, even tho by any measure it should absolutely be in any game depicting battles such as those in EE and ALB? Some massively complex undertaking that makes other game functions unfeasable?

the operative word is "efficiency".
the practical effect on gameplay by "more than one squad per transport" is marginal at best (see my post above), while the effort needed to seamlessly implement it in the already existing system/engine is considerable.

Re: Realistic transport capacity and per soldier prices

Posted: Fri 29 Mar 2013 23:01
by guynumber7
i do think the Chinook should be able to carry 2 squads. Or maybe one of those new 15 man squads.

Re: Realistic transport capacity and per soldier prices

Posted: Fri 29 Mar 2013 23:58
by BTR
How many squads should Mi-26 be? It can carry 85 people IRL.