Page 2 of 20 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 192

Thread: Improved unit editor

  1. #11
    First Sergeant
    Join Date
    Oct 14 2002
    Location
    Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Posts
    914
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ 25 April 2003,03:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">offtopic : but i&#39;d also like some randomness in the unit&#39;s morphology , the people&#39;s height should vary from one to another for exemple[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Midgets?

    Imagine midgets carring an M60 machinegun
    Jihad Joe&#33;&#33;&#33; The Real Al Qaeda Hero&#33;

  2. #12
    Master Sergeant
    Join Date
    Nov 14 2001
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    703
    Author of the Thread
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ 25 April 2003,18:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I also don&#39;t like the idea of having slots. I think we&#39;ve all been frustrated by the current system, where you can&#39;t assign a soldier a correct peacetime, let alone wartime loadout. As I know some of you guys have been in combat units before, you must remember that there was virtually no limit to the amout of stuff we had to carry into the field. I myself routinely had 13 magazines for my M-16, plus a 100-round belt of 7.62mm and, on occasion, an AT weapon as well. And that&#39;s not including the additional stuff I had in my rucksack or stowed on the Humvee.

    I think a weight-based system, like you may see in some RPG-type games would be better.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    I like the idea about making a weighted load out selection instead, and as you said yourself the current system can be pretty frustrating especially around grenades for the m203. But it well take a lot of testing to make a system that wont make a lot of rambo&#39;s runing around loaded like a small apc. If a weighted system could be done a nice feature would be to have a backpack system introduced as well. You could have it so there where as a example 4 kind of backpacks to choose from.
    1. Small patrol pack that would give X extra weight.
    2. Small Backpack that would give Y extra weight.
    3. Big Backpack that would give Z extra weight.
    4. AT ammo backpack that would give X extra AT shots.
    These backpacks would increase how much you could hold but should also affect your movement and speed. Also it should be so you would have to take the ammo from the packs to your webbing before being able to use it. That way you wont be able to run around with 30 mags or something like that. So it could be something like this in the [ENTER] menu.
    Open Backpack
    You would then get a pop-up inventory list of the backpack. You could then choose between the items with your mouse and mark/select the things you wish to pick up/move to your webbing or drop them to ground if you dont need them anymore.
    A nice features that could be added, that also would add realism, would be the abbillity to take off the backpack, so you could leave it at a gather point before a attack.

    PS: Hellfish 6
    How did you manage to carry 13 mags, 100 round 7.62belt and AT shots at the same time?? How many ammo bags did you have in your webbing?? That&#39;s 390 5.56 shots plus the other stuff. Standard for me in the danish army where 5 mags with 30 5.56, where one mag was on the rifle and others 2 mags in 2 ammo bags on the webbing. Depending of function i could have 2-4 AT shots, where 2 where in backpack other two in a handheld cannister which really removes some agility and movement. Or i could have 100-200 7.62 in belts or in belts loaded in ammobags that could be mounted on the MG. I would then have ammo in boxes with 5.56 and 7.62 that needed to be loaded to the mags or belts in my backpack or on the vehicle. But 13 mags plus the other seems a lot to carry. If then add webbing, fragmentation vest, helmet, rifle and backpack its a lot of weight, very limited speed and movement which is the exact opposite that all armies want today.

  3. #13
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (dkraver @ 28 April 2003,04:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ 25 April 2003,18:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I also don&#39;t like the idea of having slots. I think we&#39;ve all been frustrated by the current system, where you can&#39;t assign a soldier a correct peacetime, let alone wartime loadout. As I know some of you guys have been in combat units before, you must remember that there was virtually no limit to the amout of stuff we had to carry into the field. I myself routinely had 13 magazines for my M-16, plus a 100-round belt of 7.62mm and, on occasion, an AT weapon as well. And that&#39;s not including the additional stuff I had in my rucksack or stowed on the Humvee.

    I think a weight-based system, like you may see in some RPG-type games would be better.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    I like the idea about making a weighted load out selection instead, and as you said yourself the current system can be pretty frustrating especially around grenades for the m203. But it well take a lot of testing to make a system that wont make a lot of rambo&#39;s runing around loaded like a small apc. If a weighted system could be done a nice feature would be to have a backpack system introduced as well. You could have it so there where as a example 4 kind of backpacks to choose from.
    1. Small patrol pack that would give X extra weight.
    2. Small Backpack that would give Y extra weight.
    3. Big Backpack that would give Z extra weight.
    4. AT ammo backpack that would give X extra AT shots.
    These backpacks would increase how much you could hold but should also affect your movement and speed. Also it should be so you would have to take the ammo from the packs to your webbing before being able to use it. That way you wont be able to run around with 30 mags or something like that. So it could be something like this in the [ENTER] menu.
    Open Backpack
    You would then get a pop-up inventory list of the backpack. You could then choose between the items with your mouse and mark/select the things you wish to pick up/move to your webbing or drop them to ground if you dont need them anymore.
    A nice features that could be added, that also would add realism, would be the abbillity to take off the backpack, so you could leave it at a gather point before a attack.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Here are the comments I posted earlier about weight and backpacks:

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe we could also see a "weight" carrying capacity instead of the current "slot" carry capacity. You soldier can carry X number of kilograms, and X+Y kilograms with a rucksack. However, the number of kilos over X+Z would affect your soldier&#39;s performance. An overloaded soldier can&#39;t run fast or far and becomes fatigued quickly (like current system of fatigue). An action menu command to drop the rucksack will solve this problem in combat situations. This lets us, should we chose as players and mission designers, to give our machinegunners lots and lots of ammo, but we just shouldn&#39;t expect these guys to be very mobile on the battlefield. Same with a soldier we choose to load up with LAWs or AT4s - they carry a lot of firepower, but they&#39;re not very effective in a fluid battlefield situation. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    It&#39;s much like you said.. I think we&#39;re thinking along the same lines here. Basically, carrying a dropping a backpack will allow players to create a mobile Assembly Area or Patrol Base (in American terminology, anyway) where the player can drop his gear for an assault.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PS: Hellfish 6
    How did you manage to carry 13 mags, 100 round 7.62belt and AT shots at the same time?? How many ammo bags did you have in your webbing?? That&#39;s 390 5.56 shots plus the other stuff. Standard for me in the danish army where 5 mags with 30 5.56, where one mag was on the rifle and others 2 mags in 2 ammo bags on the webbing. Depending of function i could have 2-4 AT shots, where 2 where in backpack other two in a handheld cannister which really removes some agility and movement. Or i could have 100-200 7.62 in belts or in belts loaded in ammobags that could be mounted on the MG. I would then have ammo in boxes with 5.56 and 7.62 that needed to be loaded to the mags or belts in my backpack or on the vehicle. But 13 mags plus the other seems a lot to carry. If then add webbing, fragmentation vest, helmet, rifle and backpack its a lot of weight, very limited speed and movement which is the exact opposite that all armies want today.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Well, I was a light infantryman, so we carried everything. I had thirteen magazines, 1 in my rifle, and the remaining 12 in ammo pouches. Normally, an American soldier is only issued 2 ammunition pouches, which carry 3 magazines each. I went out and bought an additional two pouches, allowing me to carry 12 magazines total. Yeah, it weighed a bit more, but it was worth it, especially when I was in a combat situation. Nobody wants to run out of ammo. And we ALL either carried a box of 100 7.62mm round or 2-3 60mm mortar shells. You had to, because the MG and mortar teams could hardly carry enough ammo by themselves.

    However, I&#39;d only get the AT weapon on top of this if I pissed someone off. But a LAW is pretty small and light, so it wasn&#39;t really a problem, but an AT4 was a big bigger and heavier, so that kind of sucked.

  4. #14
    Master Sergeant
    Join Date
    Nov 14 2001
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    703
    Author of the Thread
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It&#39;s much like you said.. I think we&#39;re thinking along the same lines here. Basically, carrying a dropping a backpack will allow players to create a mobile Assembly Area or Patrol Base (in American terminology, anyway) where the player can drop his gear for an assault.
    [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Yeah i had forgot your earlier post so we are pretty much saying the same with one big diffence.
    You see it ass a total loadout where i see it as a storage area you need to open to get things which is a bit more realistic. Question is if the AI can learn to take things from the backpack.

  5. #15
    I agree to that points about customized soldiers. I think it is much better if you have one model, but different camo patterns to choose from.

    I think that this would make old addons rather incompatible with OFP2, but I think I would pay this price.

    I would go further with that idea, and make modifications possible to any units/vehicles/weapons

    Soldiers: Helmet/beret/a.s.o., rucksack, gasmask
    Weapons: scope, suppressor, grenade launcher a.s.o.

    I&#39;m tired of the many versions of weapons; I would rather prefer if I could choose i.e. M4A1, then attach a suppressor, a M203 a.s.o. to it. And this modifications could make it more difficult to handle that weapon. I guess a M4A1 with M203 is heavier than one without M203.

  6. #16
    Major DM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 6 2002
    Location
    Somewhere in the world
    Posts
    7,876
    How about something like this:



    This way, you would have:

    Side - Sides like NATO, Al Quaeda, UN (For a modern theatre of Operations)
    Or
    US, Australia, VC, NVA for a Vietnam Theatre of Operations.

    Class - this remains, so we can choose from soldier/infantry or Tanks/Armoured units or Helicopters/Air units.

    Country - allows the "Side" to be broken down into sub sections, as each countries equipment differs greatly, thus allowing for the easy customisation of the models, without clogging the "man" list.

    Rank - this could change dynamically with the side (or country), for example, the Army does not have "Admirals", yet the navy does... Or it could change with the country, such as having the equivalent or the actual name of that countries ranks.

    Camo - Allows the one model to be "skinned" with various versions of the camo, without the need for (Desert) or (Arctic) at the end of each soldiers name.

    Loadout - Allows you to choose from a set of pre-defined loadouts, such as Rifleman, Grenadier, AT, Machinegunner, and effects the model accordingly (adds extra MG ammo size pouches for the MGunner etc) The "Custom (Select)" feature could open a second window, that allows you to choose and save custom loadouts.

    Model - Again, this alters the model, but on features such as the Helmet/Beret/Cap/Boonie hat etc.

    The rest of the features can remain how they are now.

    *Important - all features in the list must be customisable, so we can add our own sides, ou own countries etc...
    Quote Originally Posted by ***LeGeNDK1LLER*** View Post
    well you are 1 of the greatest examples that pressing the reply button doesn't mean necessarily answering.

  7. #17
    DeadMeat - you read my mind. I was just using PSP to do the same thing.

    I like what you&#39;ve done, but I would switch "Side" from NATO/UN/etc. to "Side" Red/Blue/Green etc. I think it would benefit from being more generic in that respect so that US forces could be "RedFor" or "BluFor" instead of NATO or UN. This is what most militaries use anyway. The way I interpret what you said, NATO "Side" will only emcompass those countries that are members of NATO. Whereas, if Side was simply a generic assignment, you could have UK forces assigned to Blue, Red, Green, Pink, whatever. See my ROE paragraph below.

    I imagine it would also benefit the player while on the map, as Red team&#39;s icons would be red, blue team&#39;s icons would be blue, etc.

    Also, this would allow for more flexibility - especially in that we won&#39;t be restricted to Vietnam-era (and, consequently having to pick VC, NVA, ROK, etc.) side choices.

    Another nice feature would be a rules of engagement menu, where you can set the ROE for all forces. For example, you could make Red force hostile to Blue force, allied with Green force and neutral to Black force. Or Blue force can be allied with Red, and neutral to everyone else. The mission maker could change these on the fly to be customized to his mission.

  8. #18
    Major DM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 6 2002
    Location
    Somewhere in the world
    Posts
    7,876
    Yeah, great idea Hellfish, I like it, keeps the game much more generic, and allows for plauseable combat situations as would be common today - i.e. Russians fighting side by side with Americans.

    lets hope BIS like it too...

  9. #19
    Master Sergeant
    Join Date
    Nov 14 2001
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    703
    Author of the Thread
    Based on the ideas i have and with surgestions from others like hellfish i could see the unit menu look like this.
    Unit menu

    Then when going to equipment menu from the button under the unit selction you would get something like this.
    Equipment menu

    I dont like the idea about only having premade load outs since you wont be able to make a load out with equipment/weapons from different addons makers on the same soldier. But you should still have the opportunity to choose one if you dont want to take the time to select all items.

    Under weapons selection you would only be able to choose one main weapon, one support weapon and one side arm so you wouldnt have a guy with 5 rifles.

    Also under weapons selection both in main and backpack menu. When you choose a weapon the ammo types for that weapon will pop up in the ammo menu so you wont have to look through a big list with all ammo types both only for that weapon.
    Also in backpack menu you wont be able to add a weapon to the backpack but only to choose the weapon to show ammo for that weapon to select for the backpack.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Another nice feature would be a rules of engagement menu, where you can set the ROE for all forces. For example, you could make Red force hostile to Blue force, allied with Green force and neutral to Black force. Or Blue force can be allied with Red, and neutral to everyone else. The mission maker could change these on the fly to be customized to his mission. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    As i surgested earlier this shouldnt really be under the unit menu but at the same place as it already is for resistance side.
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There should still be the menu showing side friendly towards but it should have it for all sides instead of only resistance in OFP. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>




  10. #20
    Staff Sergeant
    Join Date
    Nov 22 2002
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    341
    Fantastic idea, although I mentioned something similar in a thread a while back

    Replacing as many init line commands with drop-down editor options is the way to go.

Page 2 of 20 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •