Add separate SPG emplacement

[B2P1]

Could it be possible to just create a separate SPG emplacement that has sandbags under it's back legs so that it has more depression?

This would make the SPG so much more usable because in the current situation it's useless to place one on any elevated position or building.

Also it's advantageous of using anti tank weapons like the SPG from elevated positions because that way you have more chance of striking the top armor of vehicles.

In my honest opinion even a small addition like this can have a nice fresh and welcome influence to the insurgency game mode.

[GAJAN]

Also it's advantageous of using anti tank weapons like the SPG from elevated positions because that way you have more chance of striking a top armour of armored vehicles

I must say that that is way how it has to be used. In Syria there is few videos which they show rebels on top of the building hitting tanks on the ground. And it will be nice if there is 2 spgs per fob.

[B2P1]

I'm not saying you should be able to place both tho. Just one or the other.

[parch]

I would very much like better angles with SPG and this sounds like okay idea.
Of course it would be best if elevation could be controlled in similar way as turning, but I think animating it would cause problems.
I also strongly believe that the turning rate with A & D should be increased. It's only around 60kg with tripod, so irl it should be possible to pick it up and turn around relatively fast. Right now stationary SPGs are near useless.

[Rhino]

Of course it would be best if elevation could be controlled in similar way as turning, but I think animating it would cause problems.

That might be possible, but would be tricky if it is. Would require modifying the export scene at the very least which is quite a bit of rework.

I also strongly believe that the turning rate with A & D should be increased. It's only around 60kg with tripod, so irl it should be possible to pick it up and turn around relatively fast. Right now stationary SPGs are near useless.

In r/l it is manned by multiple people who would help pick it up, carry and also reload it etc. We have toyed with the idea of adding a second seat to the SPG-9, where the second seat would have full control over rotating it (not the basic aiming with the mouse), but at a much faster speed than it is currently.

This wouldn't mean you would have to have a second person in order to turn it, you could switch seats and turn it yourself, but at the cost of having the delay before firing after you switch back again. But with two crew you could quickly turn it and fire soon after, but unlikely that anyone else would want to sit in just to turn it for long unless there was a high threat level for it to be used in.

Small issue with this is people could troll the gunner by jumping in the second seat and just turn the launcher just to piss off the gunner. Luckily there aren't many people in the community that would do this but still something to consider.

[mectus11]

Luckily there aren't many people in the community that would do this but still something to consider.

Unfortunately, there are.

[parch]

In r/l it is manned by multiple people who would help pick it up, carry and also reload it etc. We have toyed with the idea of adding a second seat to the SPG-9, where the second seat would have full control over rotating it (not the basic aiming with the mouse), but at a much faster speed than it is currently.

Thank you for your comment, Rhino. I understand your reasoning with SPG being manned by two people, but I believe this is one of those instances where gameplay should take priority over realism. Right now we have a potentially really cool emplacement that is being rarely used. If we were able to fetch data about number of kills with stationary SPG-9 across all servers, I am convinced that we would come to conclusion that it should be improved in some way.
Adding second person to improve turning rate is a potential solution, but without improved vertical angles it doesn't justify involving additional person that could have way more fun doing basically anything else. Also, sadly, mectus is right.

[Rhino]

Thank you for your comment, Rhino. I understand your reasoning with SPG being manned by two people, but I believe this is one of those instances where gameplay should take priority over realism. Right now we have a potentially really cool emplacement that is being rarely used. If we were able to fetch data about number of kills with stationary SPG-9 across all servers, I am convinced that we would come to conclusion that it should be improved in some way.

Well if we were going for mirror balance we would give the insurgents etc an ATGM like other factions (some can even argue insurgents do use them) but the point of the SPG-9 is to not be as good as an ATGM as insurgents are asymmetrically balanced.


I'm also not sure you have understood me totally.

You would not necessarily need a second person to turn the mounting, you can switch seats and quickly turn it yourself, but then have to suffer the "warmup" penalty of switching back to the main seat before you can fire the weapon again, but overall would be much quicker to turn and fire on the target than it is now since the turn rate would be pretty quick. The current turn rate takes into account the fact the guy would have to get off the weapon, pick it up, turn it, adjust the legs etc and then hop back into a firing position, where having it as a second seat would simulate that more accurately.
Just you also have the option of crewing up with someone to more quickly turn the weapon and fire, although since it wouldn't account for having to get back up and sit down again etc it would be faster than in r/l but that's not a big issue.

[waldov]

That might be possible, but would be tricky if it is. Would require modifying the export scene at the very least which is quite a bit of rework.



In r/l it is manned by multiple people who would help pick it up, carry and also reload it etc. We have toyed with the idea of adding a second seat to the SPG-9, where the second seat would have full control over rotating it (not the basic aiming with the mouse), but at a much faster speed than it is currently.

This wouldn't mean you would have to have a second person in order to turn it, you could switch seats and turn it yourself, but at the cost of having the delay before firing after you switch back again. But with two crew you could quickly turn it and fire soon after, but unlikely that anyone else would want to sit in just to turn it for long unless there was a high threat level for it to be used in.

Small issue with this is people could troll the gunner by jumping in the second seat and just turn the launcher just to piss off the gunner. Luckily there aren't many people in the community that would do this but still something to consider.

A compromise of an extra 5 or 10 degrees de-elevation could be a simple workaround possibly? Deploying SPG-9's from elevated positions IRL is far from rare or impractical and with the far more restricted visual and practical engagement distances of the BF2 engine a limited 10 degree's de-elevation becomes far more restrictive for deploying the SPG-9 then it should be.

[LimitJK]

Well if we were going for mirror balance we would give the insurgents etc an ATGM like other factions (some can even argue insurgents do use them) but the point of the SPG-9 is to not be as good as an ATGM as insurgents are asymmetrically balanced.

the asymmetrical balance is already given by the SPG being unguided and without thermal or good optics.

just about double the speed of the A/D rotation and it is still slower then ATGMs.

[Rhino]

A compromise of an extra 5 or 10 degrees de-elevation could be a simple workaround possibly? Deploying SPG-9's from elevated positions IRL is far from rare or impractical and with the far more restricted visual and practical engagement distances of the BF2 engine a limited 10 degree's de-elevation becomes far more restrictive for deploying the SPG-9 then it should be.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media ... n_1200.jpg

An extra 1deg on its current mouse aim depression and the barrel would clip through its mounting.

And your picture shows it deployed very normally, in fact perfectly level so other than it being deployed on a roof, which you can do ingame too, it really isn't doing anything for your argument.

[waldov]

And your picture shows it deployed very normally, in fact perfectly level so other than it being deployed on a roof, which you can do ingame too, it really isn't doing anything for your argument.

Thats besides the point because a relatively limited de-elevation for a weapon with the drastic trajectory drop of the SPG-9 isn't an issue in real life when you're typically engaging targets out at about 700-1000+ meters. If this was also the case in PR this whole thread would be a total non-issue, but due to game engine limitations I mentioned before its a serious issue, especially when you're typically limited too more then half that range, some maps even less.

The pictures I've posted below show just how flexible the Tripod legs are on the SPG-9 IRL. Im not sure where this idea you'd even need too place sand bags or cider blocks too position an SPG-9 too aim lower then usual comes from, but its definitely possible too do so without such measures (though obviously not typically needed IRL for the aforementioned reasons). Solving the SPG-9 in game might just be a matter of re positioning the rear two legs of the tripod slightly forward to improve lower aiming.

[Rhino]

As I've said before in this thread:

Of course it would be best if elevation could be controlled in similar way as turning, but I think animating it would cause problems.

That might be possible, but would be tricky if it is. Would require modifying the export scene at the very least which is quite a bit of rework.

And that was in relation to the tri-pod legs fyi and if you couldn't tell I also quite like that idea.

And while yes as per the OPs suggestion of having "two separate deployable with one normal and one elevated downwards with sandbags or w/e under the legs" is yes possible with exporting two versions and having them deployed by left and right clicking on the deploy button, with changes to the python code to allow it, it's not really the best solution in my book.

[Mats391]

I dont see two different SPGs solving this issue either. If anything, I could see us adding sandbags or something else below the surface and then allow the whole weapon to pitch using W+S which would show or hide the sandbags. Would look goofy, but not any more goofy then current A+D yawing w/o any animation.
But for that someone needs to update the model and iirc the scope in the export scene is wrong which causes all sorts of trouble with exporting it again.

[Rhino]

That's not such a bad idea Mats but I was thinking more of using the skinned mesh modifier on the legs, similar to how the Mortar leg is done, which is harder to pull off but would probably look and work better.

[Mats391]

That's not such a bad idea Mats but I was thinking more of using the skinned mesh modifier on the legs, similar to how the Mortar leg is done, which is harder to pull off but would probably look and work better.

Actually would not even need that. We could just make the tripod legs move.
Quick POC with 5deg pitch.


However like I said before the scope in the export scene is messy, so would need bit more work to get this in game.

[B2P1]

That's a really beautiful solution Mats. I guess the mechanism of a tripod was still a bit too complicated for me to figure this out.

Also another thing: How come Roadblocks are so easy to place but placing other emplacements like AA or AT or FOB are so difficult to place and often suck you up and kill you (the Officer) ?

[B2P1]

Bump.

Was this suggestion further considered? Still think it would be a very welcome feature for insurgency.

[Niki-Tret]

Actually would not even need that. We could just make the tripod legs move.
Quick POC with 5deg pitch.


However like I said before the scope in the export scene is messy, so would need bit more work to get this in game.

That is good idea, you don't need separate SPG emplacement just make this alredy existed one more flexible so it has good depresion and elevation. It would be fair because mostly factions with SPG emplacements play against factolns with Tow-s whic has ATGM missile, great depression, great elevation and alo you can turn it 360° very fast sk I think increasing of elevatio and depression on SPG would just make it more fair.