OH NO! Not the railgun discussion AGAIN!

[atacms]

Ok guys bare with me, you're probably thinking I'm trying to re-open a can of worms, well I'm not, well maybe sort of.

A few of you came back with a counter argument that there should be no mention of railguns, if we wanted that, we should play C&C 3 or the other argument that John Chi made which was more substantial was that the designs seem to be based on Boeing's FCS - the Army's Future Combat Systems. It's the Army's attempt to create networked set of units (ie tanks, helos, artillery, combat support, grunts, even loitering munitions, etc) to all know what's going on, to tell each other where they are and where the enemy is. Anyway for the vehicles they would all use a similar chassis to reduce logistics and maintenance problems.

OK, well John has a sharp eye since Michael DePlater himself in an IGN interview seems to mention the Boeing FCS program.

That being said, railguns. The reason why I mention it, is that prior to this networked version of FCS, it was in the mid to late 90's an attempt to create an Abrams replacement and to use the chassis to replace Bradleys too. They would be ULTRA survivable and lethal.

Anyway, I knew I read this years ago and I was able luckily to find that Armor magazine put out by the US Armor Assoc. at Ft. Know had a 3 part series on the ORIGINAL FCS, which in my OPINION (and wish...guys I'm not saying I'm right, b4 you rail on me, it's just a comment), would be a better tank to have than the one they've shown in the game.

This tank if you guys read the articles has:
1- active protection systems
2. railguns
3. a small defensive laser (*this isn't as preposterous as you think, Northrop Grumman has recently has some success w/SSL's - solid state lasers - not the chemical based ones.
4. stealthy shaping
5. in my opinion, it looks cooler.

Anyway, here are the links, and as I said b4, there's no reason games shouldn't stimulate curiousity to learn more. Yes it's a game, but your counter arguments would be better if you read these links.

CHeers!


This is Pt. 1
http://www.knox.army.mil/armormag/ja97/4fcs97.pdf

Pt. 2: http://www.knox.army.mil/armormag/so97/5fcs97.pdf

Pt. 3 - this one might be the hardest to believe, but it also fits in with the US not wanting to depend on fossil fuels - a solar powered tank

http://www.knox.army.mil/armormag/jf98/1fcs98.pdf

[LordTenacious]

One word in that post sums it all up for me, "was". It WAS the original FCS, but it was scrapped. Why? Probably due to the fact of current technolgical limits. Keep in mind, 13 years from now is not that far away. Another reason why is cost. Why build one tank that can get blown up as the three tanks you couldve built instead? Just a thought.

[atacms]

Originally posted by LordTenacious:
One word in that post sums it all up for me, "was". It WAS the original FCS, but it was scrapped. Why? Probably due to the fact of current technolgical limits. Keep in mind, 13 years from now is not that far away. Another reason why is cost. Why build one tank that can get blown up as the three tanks you couldve built instead? Just a thought.

You're right, I won't argue with "was", however I think alot of times the Pentagon tempers their wishlist due to budgetary issues and the reason I think budget WOULDN"T be a factor in this case for going with the more ambitious FCS, is that in times of war (and in this case a looming WW3, Congress would pour money like it's water since they realize the implications of losing not just any conflict but the big one. Remember the military industrial complex and Congress too, seems to gravitate for those kind of scenarios. They're easier to conceptualize than insurgencies.

On your other point abt. 3 tanks to one, it's true that "quantity has a quality" like few others.

[PrinceCaspian5]

Originally posted by LordTenacious:
Why build one tank that can get blown up as the three tanks you couldve built instead? Just a thought.
Maybe because that one tank can kill more enemy tanks before getting killed then those other three thanks could have, it isn't quantity over quality (although as Stalin said "quantity has a quality all it's own"), I am sure that you could build a lot of Sherman tanks for the price of one Abrams, and when your survival is at stake, I am sure that money will not be an issue

[atacms]

Originally posted by LordTenacious:
It WAS the original FCS, but it was scrapped. Why? Probably due to the fact of current technolgical limits. Keep in mind, 13 years from now is not that far away. Another reason why is cost.

Here's some good background info although a few years old on the progress of EM railguns, I will keep looking for others since I know that is dated and we've exceeded the goals stated here already. This is plausible! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif It's a secret so don't tell others of our progress. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004armaments/DayII/SessionI/01_Cilli_EM_Gun.pdf

[atacms]

Originally posted by PrinceCaspian5:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LordTenacious:
Why build one tank that can get blown up as the three tanks you couldve built instead? Just a thought.
Maybe because that one tank can kill more enemy tanks before getting killed then those other three thanks could have, it isn't quantity over quality (although as Stalin said "quantity has a quality all it's own"), I am sure that you could build a lot of Sherman tanks for the price of one Abrams, and when your survival is at stake, I am sure that money will not be an issue </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's true I'd bet my money on a single M1A2 going up against the enemy rather than having to use 3 M60 tanks!

[pettyofficerj]

good analogy...

surely an abrams costs more than a m60, but it was such an improved upgrade over it that it caused the us to phase out the cheaper m60.

if there was a tank that could so vastly outperform the abrams on a variety of scales, i'm sure we would try to replace our current fleet or at least supplement it with that new tank system...

we should have the ability to upgrade tanks with different weapons or get new tanks period, in Endwar. That would be a good feature. But since all units cost the same, I don't see the financial impact playing any factor whatsoever in chosing an older, main cannon abrams instead of a more futuristic tank model.

Unless the future design had some flaws to balance the gameplay, don't expect anything like that.

[atacms]

Originally posted by pettyofficerj:
good analogy...

surely an abrams costs more than a m60, but it was such an improved upgrade over it that it caused the us to phase out the cheaper m60.

if there was a tank that could so vastly outperform the abrams on a variety of scales, i'm sure we would try to replace our current fleet or at least supplement it with that new tank system...

we should have the ability to upgrade tanks with different weapons or get new tanks period, in Endwar. That would be a good feature. But since all units cost the same, I don't see the financial impact playing any factor whatsoever in chosing an older, main cannon abrams instead of a more futuristic tank model.

Unless the future design had some flaws to balance the gameplay, don't expect anything like that.

You're right maybe money won't be a factor, but it will be your skill so like an RPG (not the Rocket propelled grenade) game, you can increase the powers depending on your veteran status. Guess that can make sense as Spec Ops for example tend to get the cutting edge.

[PrinceCaspian5]

Maybe a railgun could be an upgrade for the tank, you pay one whatever you pay for stuff with and a tank group is upgraded, but you would have to make a decision of weather or not you want to pay to upgrade that one tank group, or buy another one, just an idea.

[pettyofficerj]

Originally posted by PrinceCaspian5:
Maybe a railgun could be an upgrade for the tank, you pay one whatever you pay for stuff with and a tank group is upgraded, but you would have to make a decision of weather or not you want to pay to upgrade that one tank group, or buy another one, just an idea.


I have yet to read specific information regarding the various types of "upgrades" veteran units will get...

something like a railgun may not be too far off in ubi-land...

....i'm really interested now in seeing what types of upgrades we can give our units period

[PrinceCaspian5]

All I know is that in one of the interviews I saw they said that there were over 500 upgrades available for the different units in the game.

[pettyofficerj]

Originally posted by PrinceCaspian5:
All I know is that in one of the interviews I saw they said that there were over 500 upgrades available for the different units in the game.

as soon as the yuengling wears off...i'll post a more intelligible response..


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

[atacms]

Originally posted by pettyofficerj:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PrinceCaspian5:
All I know is that in one of the interviews I saw they said that there were over 500 upgrades available for the different units in the game.

as soon as the yuengling wears off...i'll post a more intelligible response..


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh? What's yuengling?

[Bmer2020]

I believe it's some sort of alcoholic beverage. Google for the win!

[atacms]

Originally posted by Bmer2020:
I believe it's some sort of alcoholic beverage. Google for the win!

Bmer2020, what's your opinion on the FCS tank and what I originally posted?

[Bmer2020]

Haha, atacms, I like your polite way of saying "Shut up and get back on topic!".

Anyways, I personally believe that it's hard for an army to replace their MBTs with a completely novel idea in 13 years.

However, this could happen once they are into a serious war. A serious war has this marvellous way of kickstarting innovation. WWII and WWI are perfect example of this.

So, I think it would be realistic to include futuristic tanks, with railguns, stealth, etc. as UPGRADES, as it would reflect the effect I mentioned in the previous paragraph.

I'm all for it!

[snapkracklepop]

I don't want unrealistic upgrades. Flying tanks for example.

[pettyofficerj]

Flying tanks..may be a stretch...lol

even for the near future...

[pettyofficerj]

one infantry upgrade....will probably be something along the "lone wolf" category..

this would give your units an accuracy bonus when it appears they are firing blind...

for instance, a regular soldier pinned down, with his gun over his cover firing off shots will be way less accurate than a guy with a gun camera, in the same situation, still accurately picking off guys even tho he is in a position where, traditionaly, he would not be able to see his target..

AT upgrades as well...

you could outfit at soldiers with a regular, non-locking type of dumbfire rocket, and then have an available upgrade to something along the lines of a javelin system, which locks onto targets, then fires...

by the year this war takes place, javelins may become something of an at standard, but for the sake of this game and upgrades, it could be something that veteran units would get, to make them more effective versus fresh units out of basic.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

[snapkracklepop]

For tanks it should only be things like better armor more accuracy and other things like that. You are"nt going to all of a sudden give a line unit new railguns for their tanks.

[Bmer2020]

You know what else would be cool? As an infantry unit fights on...and reaches a certain level of veterancy, you could have the option to make it a "special forces" unit. That would make the unit gain certain benefits, and lose others.

Not sure what benefits they would gain or lose though. Something to think about eh?

[pettyofficerj]

Originally posted by Bmer2020:
You know what else would be cool? As an infantry unit fights on...and reaches a certain level of veterancy, you could have the option to make it a "special forces" unit. That would make the unit gain certain benefits, and lose others.

Not sure what benefits they would gain or lose though. Something to think about eh?

if they have side missions for special forces units to complete for additional bonuses, that would be cool as well..

for instance...during the gameplay, you see something on your cross-com, or as plain text on your screen, that says something along the lines of "hostages have been located at Hotel Six Stars. Dispatch special forces units to liberate."

then, if you had some special forces capable units, you would be able to send them to the hotel, and have them rappel onto the top of the building, and clear it out, while freeing trapped hostages. This would be an automated event, and based on the stats of your units, may or may not fail.

This mission would only be accessible by SF qualified units, and would add some unknown bonuses to your side, not just your men.

I think C and C generals had something along this line, where you could drop Rangers onto buildings and have them clear out enemy troops.

In our case, we would have side benefits and maybe others for killing the AI enemy, along with freeing the hostages...

little side missions like this, that pop up during the main gameplay would spice things up abit, and make both sides hustle for those bonuses.

[snapkracklepop]

I would think the advantages would be along the lines of speed and stealth and the disadvantages would be a lack of heavy support and equipment.

[atacms]

Originally posted by pettyofficerj:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bmer2020:
You know what else would be cool? As an infantry unit fights on...and reaches a certain level of veterancy, you could have the option to make it a "special forces" unit. That would make the unit gain certain benefits, and lose others.

Not sure what benefits they would gain or lose though. Something to think about eh?

if they have side missions for special forces units to complete for additional bonuses, that would be cool as well..

for instance...during the gameplay, you see something on your cross-com, or as plain text on your screen, that says something along the lines of "hostages have been located at Hotel Six Stars. Dispatch special forces units to liberate."

then, if you had some special forces capable units, you would be able to send them to the hotel, and have them rappel onto the top of the building, and clear it out, while freeing trapped hostages. This would be an automated event, and based on the stats of your units, may or may not fail.

This mission would only be accessible by SF qualified units, and would add some unknown bonuses to your side, not just your men.

I think C and C generals had something along this line, where you could drop Rangers onto buildings and have them clear out enemy troops.

In our case, we would have side benefits and maybe others for killing the AI enemy, along with freeing the hostages...

little side missions like this, that pop up during the main gameplay would spice things up abit, and make both sides hustle for those bonuses. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like it especially the use of the Cross com, hopefully Endwar will capture some of those neat technolgies that were in the original games and update them for the future.

One of the video interviews, it was said that there are Spec op missions

[Bmer2020]

Nice!! So it is gonna be there!

Snap, I like your suggestions for the benefits and disadvantages of making a unit SF. Speed and Stealth (and perhaps more attack power against soft targets and light vehicles), while not being able to carry heavy weapons...although...I think SF units do call in heavy support all the time.

I know that in Iraq and Afghanistan, SF units communicate a lot with their air support, and often coordinate airstrikes or supply drops.

Perhaps the other disadvantage should be that you cannot replace your men very easily, since after all they are elite troops and there are few of them.

[snapkracklepop]

Yeah I think they would get air support. But not as much heavy equipment that is organic to their unit.

[Bmer2020]

Heavy equipment like what? Tanks? I think that's the only weapon SF squads don't use in battle. They have almost every weapon available to them.

They have tanks too many times, but most of the time, they are not used as they are not the stealthiest things around.

[snapkracklepop]

Mortars,Armored vehicles, engineer equipment.