Gunboats and airborne (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Armored Brigade



Message


woos1981 -> Gunboats and airborne (11/1/2019 12:46:15 AM)

Hello Development team ,thank you for making this great game! if in the future can add surface units, such as landing boats, small gunboats or fire support boats will greatly increase the game fun.Another suggest feature is if the helicopter can airborne infantry units will be very great.Thank you very much!




nikolas93TS -> RE: Gunboats and airborne (11/2/2019 9:22:07 PM)

Naval component is highly unlikely to see implementation in standard Armored Brigade anytime soon, but we are planning expanded heliborne operations including air mobile infantry.




Policefreak55 -> RE: Gunboats and airborne (11/2/2019 11:33:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: nikolas93TS

but we are planning expanded heliborne operations including air mobile infantry.

Annnnnnnd I'm aroused.

I read that the next DLC is venturing out of Europe. We wouldn't happen to be visiting SE Asia, would we?




CCIP-subsim -> RE: Gunboats and airborne (11/3/2019 12:54:59 AM)

Oh wow, that was honestly a top wishlist thing for me (I'd alluded before to an "Airmobile Brigade" as a next step), and I'm pretty stoked to hear that's being worked on!




exsonic01 -> RE: Gunboats and airborne (11/3/2019 2:44:22 AM)

Time to play CCR songs for 1965 scenarios!!




woos1981 -> RE: Gunboats and airborne (11/3/2019 7:08:26 AM)

Wow!That's great!air mobile infantry will be great really Look forward to it!Thanks!




DoubleDeuce -> RE: Gunboats and airborne (11/3/2019 11:10:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: nikolas93TS

Naval component is highly unlikely to see implementation in standard Armored Brigade anytime soon, but we are planning expanded heliborne operations including air mobile infantry.

Helicopter transport of troops would certainly be a welcome addition to the game.




nikolas93TS -> RE: Gunboats and airborne (11/4/2019 12:53:21 AM)

South-East Asia and Korea are often asked for, although I am not exactly sure why is there such a large interest.

I do have several considerations regarding the choice of that particular theatre. First of all, terrain is not well suited for armoured and mechanized combat. Yes, Armored Brigade engine is exceptionally flexible, but I still do feel we need to work a lot to implement some of the peculiar intricacies of COIN conflicts like Vietnam. Secondly, Cold War Asian armies (PLA is the most striking example) were technologically fairly obsolete and of limited variety in vehicles. It would make far more sense expanding into Asia once Armored Brigade ventures out to post 1991 period.

Third thing is that we have limited to null access to local sources and basicaly no knowledge on Asian military structure. When I do research on new factions, I rally heavily on primary sources like technical manuals, papers, studies and similar archival material, as well trying to optain input from actual servicemen where possible. For any Asian country, I wouldn't be even sure where to start searching, to be very honest...




nikolas93TS -> RE: Gunboats and airborne (11/4/2019 1:09:38 AM)

Regarding transport helicopters, don't get too enthusiastic if you plan to use them individually as some sort of air APC.

What we were able to collect until now from documentation and provided input is that transport helicopters should be used in this mode:

1) plot the flight route, together with flight mode
2) designate landing and pick-up zones
3) select formation type and loading/unloading SOP
4) let them execute when ready

Now, nothing is yet set in stone and might be significantly altered in future. There is a lot of manuals and books to be read first still.




LTTannik -> RE: Gunboats and airborne (11/6/2019 11:40:41 AM)

Hi!!
First of all I want to say that I love this game and have the utmost respecr for the development team and all the effort they have puted into this endeavor, it is a really great game and an excellent tool for learning.

Regarding the Army Aviation operations that have been discussed here I think that an helicopter formation (be it an attack/recon unit or an assault/heavy lift unit) should be able to maneuver as any other unit, rather than move through a predefined route (which you can do with the "advance" command) you should be able to use them as a normal unit with some different SOP (for example the terrain flight you will use NOE/countour/low level or what will you do if fired upon from the air or the earth). This is valid for all kinds of helicopter units, another thing is that helicopters should be able to roam around as long as it fuel capacity allows, which normally won't surpass 2 hours without any ki d of refueling.

For example, to conduct a proper air assault you have to coordinate the movement of the recoinassance elements (air/ground), fire support gunships, artillery support (if available) and the movement of the assault lifts. If you just plan your routes and BP for the gunship support it will lack flexibility to react to contingency that is usually planned for. Normally helicopters will exploit their capabilitys, specially mobility, to gain advantages over superior enemies.

This is the main reason why I think that you should allow helicopters the flexibilty that ground units have, in the end, they act as maneuver elements and deploy as such.

Abother interesting idea is to allow helicopters to arrive as support (through the traditional BP/TRP method) or as a maneuver element (moving just like a normal ground unit with the exeptions I explained above). For assault/heavy lift it could go through the same sistem, a simolified support system or a thorought full flexible control.

My two cents!!!

Thanks again for a great game

A special salute from an army aviator down here!!!

PS: Logistics is an interesting topic that has been discussed in the forum, for helicopters is interesting and almost inheremt to the operations to have Foward Arming and refuelling points to "keep'em on the fight"!!




exsonic01 -> RE: Gunboats and airborne (11/6/2019 1:43:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: nikolas93TS
South-East Asia and Korea are often asked for, although I am not exactly sure why is there such a large interest.

I thought the same when I first heard about WRD, but it turns out that far east nations received good amount of recognition from players for some reason. Plus, Korea was (and still is) the one of the likely-to-happen place for WW3 during cold war.

quote:


I do have several considerations regarding the choice of that particular theatre. First of all, terrain is not well suited for armoured and mechanized combat. Yes, Armored Brigade engine is exceptionally flexible, but I still do feel we need to work a lot to implement some of the peculiar intricacies of COIN conflicts like Vietnam. Secondly, Cold War Asian armies (PLA is the most striking example) were technologically fairly obsolete and of limited variety in vehicles. It would make far more sense expanding into Asia once Armored Brigade ventures out to post 1991 period.

I agree with you. For that reason, I was thinking 1980 ~ 2000 (or 1985 ~ 1995) might be the best time frame for AB to depict the war in far east. China begun modernization campaign for their army from 1980, and I think AB engine can depict weapons up to 2000. For far east Asia, I think it doesn't need to depict 1965~1980 era because of lack of mobility, modernization, and etc. Might be fun if we have it, but it doesn't worth to put that much investment. That is why I think 1980 ~ 2000 (or 1985 ~ 1995) would be OK.
For Vietnam (and also Korea) we really need paddy field tile. Opposite from conventional idea, tracked vehicle can operate on the paddy field (but of course with some penalty), I wrote about this long ago in this forum... Also, we need more fortification tile for trench, bunker (not pillbox but more like enhanced building), and fox hole. Paddy, trench, bunker, and fox hole tiles would help vanilla AB as well IMO. But things like tunnel structure might be a difficult one to depict in this game.

quote:


Third thing is that we have limited to null access to local sources and basicaly no knowledge on Asian military structure. When I do research on new factions, I rally heavily on primary sources like technical manuals, papers, studies and similar archival material, as well trying to optain input from actual servicemen where possible. For any Asian country, I wouldn't be even sure where to start searching, to be very honest...

I understand about that. So... as a beginning, if you create a place for modding for far east Asia, and encourage players / moders to share some idea and data, then who knows? Maybe you could build some good database for AB's far east module. And I was actual servicemen in that region long time ago. I'm working for map too (though it is very slow [:(] )




CCIP-subsim -> RE: Gunboats and airborne (11/7/2019 8:31:52 PM)

Two things I wanted to bring up on related points:

1) As far as Vietnam: I totally agree about counter-insurgency - that's not really an AB thing, and even with the Chechnya mod it's a bit of a) creative license (i.e. using some pretty unrealistic mechanics to get reasonably realistic outcomes); and b) the fact that there was a semi-conventional phase to that conflict.

But while it's true that Vietnam was mostly an asymmetric, counter-insurgency war - not all of it was. There were conventional, armor-heavy phases to it. For example, in the area around An Loc (north of Saigon) there were at least 3 separate campaigns (1968, 1972, 1975) that involved a large number of North Vietnamese tanks as the main fighting force. I’ve actually toyed around with the idea of making a Vietnam Mod for AB focusing on this area, but figured I’ll hold on and see how things like rice paddy tiles and future air mobility features might develop. Other battles that involved a lot of fairly conventional armor vs. armor forces were Operation Lam Son 719 into Laos in 1971, and the Battle of Quang Tri in the spring of 1972 (where the North Vietnamese even brought in some close air support) - though these were mostly ought by the South Vietnamese army, with US mainly providing air support. And there was another campaign with a major commitment of North Vietnamese armor in 1971, which was asymmetric but in the opposite direction - Campaign Z, fought in the Plain of Jars and culminating in the Battle of Skyline Ridge in 1971, where the irregulars were US-backed Hmong guerrillas who had to face a substantial number of T-34s.

Anyway, point being - while AB is probably not well suited to the Vietnam war as a whole, there are some portions of the war where it may actually work very well indeed.

2) In terms of sources: I agree that it’s always best to have primary sources, but the situation is not always as bad as it seems. With China, North Korea, and particularly North Vietnam - for one thing, there is a lot that can be adapted directly from Soviet doctrine, especially in terms of armor. In all my research on Vietnam, I can pretty comfortably say for example that at least as far as the Vietnam war itself went - there’s no such thing as a North Vietnamese armor/combined arms doctrine separate from the Soviet one, because the North Vietnamese were fully supplied, trained and advised by the Soviets in this respect. So it is possible to transfer over a lot of the basic armaments and OOBs, with some tweaks to reflect the theater and quality - asking “What Would Ivan Do?” is often not the worst approach in that regard.

More importantly though, there are sources out there which are excellent even if the nation’s own military archives are closed (as is the case with North Vietnam, China, and Korea). The best of these are declassified military intel and historical analyses - which, the further back you go, the better their availability is. Most of the material from the 60s and 70s is easily available. My specialty on Vietnam has been more the air war than the ground war - so in my case, US Air Force CHECO reports are often my first go-to when it comes to information about the enemy; I’m pretty certain there are equivalent documents in other branches of service. Better yet, there are also Soviet reports - assuming you have access to Russian readers or translations - on the same subjects. For me, for example, in terms of the air war - one of the best sources had been a manuscript by Gen. Khyupenen, head Soviet air defense advisor in Hanoi, on North Vietnamese defense against Linebacker II. Not only was it a really useful source on tactics of the North Vietnamese side (which by the way once again underscored the Soviet doctrinal influences) - but it also proved to be exceptionally reliable on the other side. For example, it very correctly identified US electronic countermeasures and described different methods of their employment by different US services. This information would not be publicly available in the West for decades, but now that it’s been decades - I’ve looked at it and it turns out that the Soviet report was close to 100% accurate. Which to me is just a case in point that adversary intel, while a secondary source by definition, is often not much worse than primary sources like manuals. You won’t get this kind of documents for anything current or recent, but if you go back far enough historically - there’s a wealth of published stuff out there.

----

Otherwise, for what it’s worth - I think it’d be fantastic if AB could go into the “far (east) side” of the Cold War. Not Vietnam, of which there can only be a narrow slice - but really as part of the same type of scenario as AB is now, just on the other side of the world.
Firstly, because there’s some equally good “playgrounds” where the same nations currently in game could still be used in different terrain. Secondly, because there’s 4 nations that would compliment the current mix well - China and North Korea on one side, and South Korea and Japan on the other. Thirdly, because it would also open up another dimension of the Cold War - namely, the clashes between China and the USSR, who in fact came much closer than the Pact and NATO ever did to a full-on war between each other during that period.

That said, if the official stance is still to be on the fence about China and Korea due to sourcing issues, how about an interesting way to work around that:

A DLC based on an imagined Soviet invasion of Japan?
Among other things, it'd allow for a) an interesting (and well-sourced) real-world force in the form of the JSDF, fighting a form of war it was actually designed for (since Japan's pacifist constitution would've prevented them from sending expeditionary forces anywhere during that time); and b) an excuse to implement more Asian terrain types, as well as things like, say… amphibious operations, with additional Soviet units and capabilities, and USMC units making up a good use case for them!


Just some food for thought, in any case
[:)]





exsonic01 -> RE: Gunboats and airborne (11/8/2019 7:02:19 PM)

Very good ideas about particular battle during Vietnam war for AB's game engine. I also thought battle of An Loc might be good enough for AB game engine, since it was more close to conventional battle between combined arms than counter insurgency type.

Very interesting writing about Linebacker 2. While I don't have manuscript of General Khyupenen, and I can't even read or write Russian, but I read some journal papers citing Gen Khyupenen's works like following:
http://www.faculty.virginia.edu/jnmoore/pdf/patterns-predictability-operation-linebacker.pdf
https://www.lsus.edu/Documents/Offices%20and%20Services/SAC/Linebacker%207.pdf
I couldn't finish full detail of them but those documents also view Soviet analysis well pointed out weakness of American air campaign. However, it seems that there are some serious discrepancies between American and Soviet/PAVN estimations.

Anyway, I think some part of Korean peninsula is very good for armored battle, including the zone I'm modding. I still think this will be very interesting to see far east Asian conflict in AB game engine.




DoubleDeuce -> RE: Gunboats and airborne (11/8/2019 8:07:10 PM)

I'm no coder but I'm thinking that having the equipment available for designers to use for the side with that equipment being only able to be played from the player side and setting it so that the AI cannot purchase those it's (if possible) would be, IMHO, the way to go. Coding the AI to use that equipment/tactics effectively would be a nightmare.




CCIP-subsim -> RE: Gunboats and airborne (11/8/2019 8:59:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DoubleDeuce

I'm no coder but I'm thinking that having the equipment available for designers to use for the side with that equipment being only able to be played from the player side and setting it so that the AI cannot purchase those it's (if possible) would be, IMHO, the way to go. Coding the AI to use that equipment/tactics effectively would be a nightmare.


Yeah, that's been exactly my solution in making the Chechnya mod - there's a number of relatively "off the wall" systems in it, with autopurchase set to 0, meaning they'll never show up unless the player or the scenario designer puts them in by hand. It works perfectly well, provided the player isn't trying to make the game anything that it isn't actually able to do [:)]




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.03125