Models by Jorzi (AR)

[CinC]

Erm, CinC, you realize that both the Fennek and the HCR45 are RECONNAISSANCE vehicles, not command vehicles, right? They are not designed to lead other forces but to gather information on terrain and enemy movement. In this respect, they resemble the WZ sensor vehicles more than commanders. Plus, as you probably have noticed, the two are turretless and therefore don't help us as they won't fit any better into the vehicle design system as an M113 Gavin.

With all due respect, in this case i see there no problem. How does the commander work?
*Serves as a delivery point for production
* No separate attack
* Denotes target in assigned units of maintain a front line
* Serves as a sensor for artillery
* Accuracy of the allocated units will be increased by mark
= Laser designates target, commander sends the data to the assigned vehicles and they kill, right?

The fennek works the same principle. The sensors in the periscope (laser designator, range finder and so on...) send the gathered datas to the HQ and from there to the other vehicles. Result : faster and more exact shots. Its the same system how the commander works. The only difference in information gathering between a commander and a sensor tower is how they do it. The sensor does it more indirect, and the commander does it direct.

I do agree with you, however, that UAVs are the option of choice with modern day armies to laser-designate targets, but only for air stikes, preferably cruise missile air strikes, as they have no means of collating and dispensing tactical data like a commander vehicle AND can't designate an infinite number of targets in a line, they have to make several approaches to do so simply because of their speed. They'll never replace the battalion commander on the ground

I never said it should replace the commander in the field. but it could send datas to the command relay and from there to vehicles. With that solution the command relay became useful too.

[Jorzi]

Finished the repair turret, 104 tris...
Please crit

[MetalWarrior95]

Ahhh,its cool but i think that it needs redesing...I never liked the repair turret model.

[macuser]

hmm perhaps make the boom a metal frame (like it's implied in your design)

[JDW]

Just one question Jorzi, I'm not a modeller, so I was curious to know what exactly you are working on here and how is it helping the WZ2100 project? I saw almost all of your work, and I admit that you've made some pretty awesome 3D models, which look more like the original models but more detailed, and not redesigns. I'm just curious to know as to what exactly you are aiming for here.

[macuser]

Maybe this will answer your question josh
http://artrev2100.sourceforge.net/faq.html

[JDW]

Maybe this will answer your question josh
http://artrev2100.sourceforge.net/faq.html

Thanks macuser. I'm really impressed, keep up the awesome work guys

[Corporal Punishment]

With all due respect, in this case i see there no problem. How does the commander work?
*Serves as a delivery point for production
* No separate attack
* Denotes target in assigned units of maintain a front line
* Serves as a sensor for artillery
* Accuracy of the allocated units will be increased by mark
= Laser designates target, commander sends the data to the assigned vehicles and they kill, right?

The fennek works the same principle. The sensors in the periscope (laser designator, range finder and so on...) send the gathered datas to the HQ and from there to the other vehicles. Result : faster and more exact shots. Its the same system how the commander works. The only difference in information gathering between a commander and a sensor tower is how they do it. The sensor does it more indirect, and the commander does it direct.

No, a reconnaissance unit works a little bit different. First off, the Fennek and HCR45 have no capabilities of designating an individual target, left alone a target on the move. They don't need this as their purpose is to ascertain what the terrain ahead looks like and what forces the enemy has at his disposal. After gathering such data, they retreat to a save location. That means, when the ground pounders show up, these vehicles are long gone. Their mast carries high-definition and night vision cameras and at best a laser range finder. They use these to map enemy infrastructure, idle units and terrain. But if the risk of being detected rises above a more than minimal level, they go full speed astern. Hot combat zones they don't even enter.
That's the fundamental difference between a reconnaissance unit and a combat unit. The recon team avoids enemy contact at all costs, rather abandoning their assignment then face a firefight (they would loose) while the combat unit seeks to confront the enemy (at an unfair advantage whenever possible). Vehicles like Fennek or HCR45 don't operate in conjunction with, say, armored battalions or infantry. They're organized in what the military calls "independent operational groups." This basically means they are directly lead by high command and don't directly communicate with combat units and certainly not with an individual vehicle or infantry platoon. They even lack the communications equipment to coordinate any kind of attack. Trust me on this one, I have plenty of first-hand experience with this.

[Corporal Punishment]

Hey Jorzi, maybe you could elongate the first articular of the repair arm by about 50%. I always figured it was significantly too short to reach anything.

[JDW]

Hey Jorzi, maybe you could elongate the first articular of the repair arm by about 50%. I always figured it was significantly too short to reach anything.

Second that.

[Rman Virgil]

.

@ CP: Would you see any correlation / extrapolation from DARPA's "Deep Green" to the WZ Commander Unit ?

Was in the back of my mind when I refered to added "booms & masts" & the pics of the Turkish Units.

- RV

.

[Corporal Punishment]

Not really. The WZ commander is pretty much what a real life armored battalion commander vehicle is, with the artistically problematic exception that is is not a converted MBT. The Deep Green Project, from what little information is available on the net, appears to me like a typical american attempt at compensating the deficits of their military training by techno-gadgets. And, if you ask me for my humble opinion, they'll spent a big heap of money for nothing. A software like Blitzkrieg would have to take into account factors that are beyond the operators control, ranging from enemy morale to complete battlefield information (can you be sure that this bridge crucial to your plan is not going to be demolished?) and enemy strategic resources (like air strikes). It may help you to come to a conclusion based on the data you have, but can not account for the circumstances you must anticipate. It would, at best, help an incompetent individual make a decision, but it can never guarantee a successful operation. Really, it won't give commanders any capabilities better training would not give them. But that's the most advanced military force in the world, desperately trying to maintain supremacy in the 21st century with training and tactics from the 19th century plus a touch of star trek. Appears like "College-football standard moves on steroids". Just war doesn't work like that. In an artistic respect, all the graphics depict a rifleman with a tablet PC, so I guess it won't be of much use. Could, although, be a source of inspiration if there ever was to be a cyborg commander.

[MaNGusT]

Finished the repair turret, 104 tris...
Please crit

hmm. hmmmmm.... put some textures and it will look great!

[Rman Virgil]

.

I see. Curious your PoV on this, CP.

WZ is a futaristic SciFi military RTS game fiction absent any digital battlespace (DBS) command component which seems somewhat anachronistic to me (if not lame considering the backstory context predicated on scarcity). But then again it could be viewed as a rather impoverished Steam Punk SF vision harkening mostly to WW2.

Far as I know DARPA'S track record of successful projects is pretty impressive & extensive - including the existence of this very medium we are communicating in (& take for granted), UAVs like the Predator, & for what all intents is the 1st synaptic link (though called by another name) to name but mere 3 such out of plethora. Then there is the DBS doctrine behind "DG" which is articulated & supported by battlefield tested commanders, including Generals. But, O heck what can they all possible know when measured against the disparagement weighing in within the context of an entertainment creation.

(Btw, I have led in mission critical situations where lives were at risk based on my decision making. I lost no one. I merely state that to convey that I know firsthand & exactly how it goes on the ground.

Plus "DG" as part of a deployed C-4 network of surveillance is not about having decisions pre-packaged but rather in the main providing more RT Intel which a commander on the ground can incorporate, at his discretion, in his RT decision-making process. That such Tech could be a boondogle at the very outset, premptively, without a shred of evidence, is hard to imagine but I guess it can fall within the realm of possibile outcomes. Though it hardly seems fair & unbiased. Not to mention dismissing it as the basis of a fictional extrapolation.)

As for the art in all this - I'm from the Kandinsky school of aesthetic muse in that I believe firmly that an artist is only answerable to himself so that I am not at all inclined to tell others how they should do their art. My comments are merely suggestive as in food for thought & nothing more.

- RV
.

[Corporal Punishment]

The Idea behind Deep Green is not that bad, giving commanders on the ground more info and advanced options definitely is a good thing. It's rather the Blitzkrieg and Crystal ball components I'm having trouble with. My current job involves software somewhat similar to it and I learned the hard way how f*****g stupid such code is. It runs mathematical models on the data you feed it and gives a damn about if that data or the desired calculations are appropriate. What else should it do? At the end of the day, it's a tool just like any screw driver. A screw driver can't decide if the screw is placed in a rational position. This decision it leaves to the operator but does not say so. I know from first-hand experience how tempting it is to rely on predictive modeling by such software but almost all of the time you find it doesn't match reality. Plus such software can only produce a valid result if the data fed to it is correct and comprehensive, something tactical data is notoriously not. That's why I on my part would not feel comfy with being led by a commander using such software. Especially on a force like the US army which I, on those occasions our Brigade was working with them, found to exhibit a strong tendency towards standardized solutions and decisions made too far up the chain of command. Deep Green is not going to change that, as it's intended to be used by battalion commanders. It appears merely as an attempt to tighten the Colonels control over his ground pounders even further to improve his performance. That is logical as the US forces rely on the old and proven way of ordering units and soldiers exactly what to do and when to do it. At least, that was their way back when I was in active service, but I doubt they changed something they honored for over 100 years. This is pretty much the opposite end of a scale from my military experience, as Bundeswehr units and even soldiers are issued tasks and it is left up to them how they accomplish it. This makes for greater tactical versatility than, from my military and civil experience, any software assistant can achieve. That's what I mean by poor training. Not that the individual solder or officer is poorly trained in what they are supposed to to, but that the command structure is completely outdated and growing ever more inefficient in asymmetrical warfare. And armchair strategists try to compensate by something they believe to be smart technology instead of solving the underlying problem. But, as is the case with most difficulties we as soldiers experience, it's a political decision by politicians with little knowledge about the matter.
DARPA has an impressive record of successful innovation, I will not argue on that, but on the other hand they sure as hell have at least as many abandoned projects that didn't turn out as desired.
Just thinking about it, the deterministic approach to military operations Deep Green gives testimony of does match the depiction of war by any RTS quite well. This should have something to do with that the tactical data the game engine has at it's disposal is correct and comprehensive and units are not influenced by emotions whatsoever.