PDA

View Full Version : AT-5 teams in Hidden Valley Attack



jdeluise
28 Jan 04, 04:52
I've been working on NTC2:Hidden Valley Attack a bit lately. I was looking forward to a good old "infantry slugfest". Unfortunately, the odds seem heavily stacked against me for the following reasons.
As far as infantry goes, we have fire teams and dragon teams. So far I've come across enemy AT-5 teams. Here is the problem, what good are my fire teams?! Seriously, the range on those M16A2 is only 400m, and I am having the worst time getting anywhere close to those AT-5 teams. Even when I come up upon them from the flanks, they happily fire off an anti-tank missle and take me out, usually on the first shot:(
I've had somewhat better luck with my dragon teams. If I'm lucky enough to spot an AT-5 team and he doesn't spot me (which I haven't been able to do successfully all that often), I can take the time to emplace and fire at him with the M47 Dragon. Usually, it takes 2-3 shots for me to take out an AT-5 team.
It seems odd to me how effective an anti-tank missile is against infantry. Is this how it is on a real battlefield?? If so, I certainly wouldn't want to be a fire team!!
When I've spotted an enemy and have remained concealed, I've tried mortars to try and suppress the AT-5 teams but so far it hasn't helped. As soon as I pop out to try and get within M16A2 range, an AT-5 that I couldn't see down the ridge takes me out:(
Anyone have some good strategy with this scenario and care to give some advice? Those anti-tank missiles are too tough for me:mad:

-jdeluise

Deltapooh
28 Jan 04, 11:12
This has been the source of some debates. It's bad enough dismounts are carrying AT-5 ATGMs, which is not definded as man-portable. They should carry either AT-7 Saxhorn or maybe the AT-14 Kornet E (not really man-portable except in 3-man teams, though two men can manage).

ProSim chose to allow ATGMs to fire on infantry because it would be an option for troops in extreme circumstances (like being on the brink of total destruction). However, it is not a common tactic.

Fortunately, both can be fixed in the Database editor. Kbluck reworked the database eliminating these issues. There are two revisions of Death Valley Attack 1 (Need to rework the second) available in the download section at this site.

If these options are not acceptable, your best bet is to either avoid engaging AT teams or attack them in a coordinated effort. The safest bet is to find a good observation point. Once you know where the AT teams are, you can killed them with artillery. Otherwise, combine artillery, BFVs, armor and infantry to first suppress, then destroy the AT-5 teams. Don't hit them with one or two vehicles. They'll just pick you off.

Dr Zaius
28 Jan 04, 12:06
The only time I've seen missiles used like this is in the "bunker busting mode." Soldiers will fire missiles into a bunker or a building that looks like it could be trouble.

I imagine that this is a tough one for Cap Proctor to pin down. Is it possible for infantry to do so? Yes, but I have serious doubts about how effective it would be against infantry that isn't in a bunker or building. Perhaps the solution here is to allow the tactic, but greatly reduce the effectiveness against infantry under most conditions.

Deltapooh
28 Jan 04, 12:31
On a somewhat off-topic note:

If we were able to use two pk stats, it would be possible to script conditions that might cause infantry to use ATGM's against infantry. Force Percentage and distance could establish the conditions, or triggers, and maybe we could add a response that inacts a new set of pk stats.

Better still would be the use of "Events" to simulate behavior. The editor has an Event feature, but remains locked.

kbluck
28 Jan 04, 13:26
This has been the source of some debates.

DP, the master of understatement. :)

The ubiquitous "magic bullet" AT-5s are one of my biggest pet peeves about the "stock" ATF database, and I have not been silent on the issue, expressing my displeasure in excruciating detail. Here are a couple of threads you may find instructive:

http://www.warfarehq.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2664
http://www.warfarehq.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2977

I think the only real reason the AT-5 is so prevalent in the game is because they like to use them at Irwin NTC, and the game borrows quite a lot of its assumptions from the various CTCs, especially Irwin. I don't believe it is entirely realistic for them to use them to the extent they do, but it certainly offers the "worst-case scenario" to the BLUFOR. Also, the real-life NTC OPFOR is chronically short on dismounts, generally a small fraction of the headcount that a real motor rifle regiment would be able to put on the ground, so what infantry that is encountered tends to be "buffed". Of course, the days of fighting the massed motor rifle attack are largely over now at the CTCs in favor of the new focus on "nonlinear" war, but that development postdates the game.

If you want to try out the "revised" versions of DVA to see how they compare, visit the archive:

http://www.wargames.warfarehq.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6

--- Kevin

CPangracs
28 Jan 04, 18:57
You'll be happy to know that Raging Tiger will NOT have AT-5's at all! :D

The AT-7's and 14's and such are still there,...kinda. I wanted to get "native" and tried to represent a more common scenario of what type of AT missiles North Korea would likely have, and the Chinese HJ-8E 'Red Arrow' is the weapon of choice, and there will be VERY reduced effects on dismounts! I am also reducing the pK of all ATGM's against troops. I suppose that an ATGM team would still be able to take-out another dismount team, but they better have about 100 reloads!;)

Anyway, using ATGM's against troops is definitely NOT approved use of the weapon in any organized military. First, they are way too expensive. Second, what happens when a tank crests the ridgeline after you just wasted your last missile on a dismount?

The game has SMAW's and LAW's and other rockets that are more suited to "bunker-busting" and such. I knew a Bradley Gunner who got busted from SGT to SPC for firing-up a surrendering Iraqi on Day-2 of the first Gulf War. Gave the poor guy a TOW right through the stomach. That's what you get for surprising a gunner at 0400 after 36 hours of combat!!:cheeky:

kbluck
28 Jan 04, 19:14
I wanted to get "native" and tried to represent a more common scenario of what type of AT missiles North Korea would likely have, and the Chinese HJ-8E 'Red Arrow' is the weapon of choice, and there will be VERY reduced effects on dismounts!

But... barring some significant change in the game mechanics, which you would know better than I for your new game, you're going to suffer the "wasted shot" phenomenon if you give your ATGMs any non-zero pK against dismounts. In ATF, if you give an AT-5 even a puny 1% pK against dismounts, the AT-5 team will still cheerfully exhaust their entire supply against the first fire team they spot, even though they have almost no chance of doing any damage.

Will Raging Tiger address that problem somehow?

--- Kevin

Pat Proctor
28 Jan 04, 21:10
For those who prefer a more infantry-centric model, I heartily recommend KBluck's database.

To import his database into existing scenarios, use the "Copy Scenario" selection from the ATF Scenario Builder. Then, select the scenario you want to modify. Next, select "Database" from the "Import" sub-menu of the "File" menu. Then just save the scenario and you are done. That's it?

KBluck. Do you have a copy of the database that JUST modifies the stats and PK's of the original database, without deleting any vehicles? If so, I encourage you to upload it to the archive. It will certainly be the most useful to those wishing to change the focus of old ATF scenarios.

CPangracs
29 Jan 04, 10:04
But... barring some significant change in the game mechanics, which you would know better than I for your new game, you're going to suffer the "wasted shot" phenomenon if you give your ATGMs any non-zero pK against dismounts. In ATF, if you give an AT-5 even a puny 1% pK against dismounts, the AT-5 team will still cheerfully exhaust their entire supply against the first fire team they spot, even though they have almost no chance of doing any damage.

Will Raging Tiger address that problem somehow?

--- Kevin
I should have been more clear in my post. The only weapons in an AT team that will be effective against other dismounts will be the non-ATGM weapons. I was kidding about the 100 reloads. Wouldn't THAT be fun to watch though?! ;)

This means that the best way to take-out dismounted AT teams will be with other dismounts, arty, and machine gun. Oh, and of course the Hydra 2.75" rockets should work quite well too!:devious:

jdeluise
30 Jan 04, 01:17
Thanks for all the responses. I plan on reimplementing NTC2:Hidden Valley Attack with KBluck's database as was suggested. I don't think those AT-5 teams will stand much of a chance anymore though without some other infantry support. I'll let you know!

kbluck
30 Jan 04, 01:43
To import his database into existing scenarios, use the "Copy Scenario" selection from the ATF Scenario Builder. Then, select the scenario you want to modify. Next, select "Database" from the "Import" sub-menu of the "File" menu. Then just save the scenario and you are done. That's it?

Unfortunately, this won't work with kbDataModern in its present state. I began it before I had a thorough understanding of how the DB works, and due to the ordinal offset indexing scheme, importing it into a database1 scenario will scramble all the units; assuming it even works, I've found any sizeable scenario generally GPFs during the import.

However, I think I will do the necessary surgery to align kbDataModern with database1, so that it will be "drop-in" capable. (If nothing else, to correct those silly "Enemy M9 ACE" and "Enemy M728 CEV" units.)

I'll even respin the stock scenarios once I get that done. Unfortunately this will, in turn, break any scenario that uses the current kbDataModern. DP, yours should be OK if you were using renamed copies, as I think you might have been. If not, you should do so and reimport.

--- Kevin

jdeluise
30 Jan 04, 02:06
Ahh, I was wondering if that would be the case...oh well, plenty of other scenarios to play:)

Redwolf
30 Jan 04, 10:07
I can do automatic conversion, realignment and merging of text databases.

If you can use assistence please email redwolf@cons.org

kbluck
30 Jan 04, 13:40
I can do automatic conversion, realignment and merging of text databases.
If you can use assistence please email redwolf@cons.org

Sadly, ATF databases are far from being "text". I've discussed direct hex editor manipulation with Pat in the past, but he wasn't encouraging; the binary storage format is, shall we say, less than robust. In other words, flip one bit incorrectly and the whole mess is useless. I've urged him to consider a human-readable XML or Prolog-style text storage format, but I imagine such a thing is very low among his priorities.

That said, I *have* figured out how to hack a few things directly, but it is painstaking and complicated work. Not recommended unless you're comfortable thinking in hexadecimal.

--- Kevin

CPangracs
30 Jan 04, 14:00
The nice thing about creating a completely new database is creating packages from scratch that work only with your database.

The thing EVERYONE should understand is that a scenario file is directly linked to the database used to create it. Pat hinted at that when he said you have to create a new scenario and import the database. Also, use of a new database will nullify any packages made with any other database.

My first foray into DB manipulation was the FM-101 set. The only thing I did there was change each piece's graphics,...I did nothing whatsoever to the number/type of units. The DB I am making now is a completely new database with all units not used in the game removed. This was necessary because of the uniqueness of the graphics and the future unit types. I must create all new packages of units.

Needless to say, it can all be very daunting, but very satisfying as well! When something you are trying for the very first time works, it's an awesome feeling.

kbluck
30 Jan 04, 16:59
The DB I am making now is a completely new database with all units not used in the game removed.

Do I correctly note from your preview page that you've borrowed a few records from kbDataModern? They do say "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery", after all...

;)

--- Kevin

CPangracs
30 Jan 04, 18:16
Do I correctly note from your preview page that you've borrowed a few records from kbDataModern? They do say "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery", after all...

;)

--- Kevin
Yes and no. I did use some vehicles as "models" and such. It would be wrong to take what you made and add to something I would call my own! I have altered quite a bit on each vehicle. We ARE talking about combat in the year 2010! ;)

As for flattery, you should be very proud of what you did with your database. I'm sure it took a great deal of your time. As for what I'm doing, I have been keeping pretty detailed track of the time I have spent on the maps and units and such. It has, so far, taken me almost 450 hours to get where I am right now.

Adds up quick...:cry: