MW Mod 5! What do you want to see added? Thread - WIC: Modern Warfare Mod for World in Conflict

As we approach the 10 year anniversary of World in Conflict in September, we are planning to do a new release of MW Mod to coincide with the anniversary date. The items in the poll question are projects that were either once planned for MW Mod or are within the mod's roadmap. There is no guarantee that any of these would make it to mod version 5, it's possible that only a few may end up going in there, so we make no promises!

Feel free to use the thread here to make your own wish-list -- note that request for new units are unlikely to be fulfilled -- we're very short handed on art/3d modeling department, and if we have to make a new model that's not readily available for licensing, we probably won't bother bringing it into the game.

Edited by: blahdy

I really would like to see S-300VM TA call-in maybe even with the current S-300 model as a placeholder just to give Redfor a response to the Atacms (as it essentially is an invincible strike currently); plus, it could also target fixed wing aircraft, to supplement Redfor's AA (and it is in line with Russian doctrine), and to help balance out Bluefor's air superiority (which should remain that way).

1. On another note, would it be possible to allow bots to use a larger variety of units( maybe even just on the hard difficulty)? Especially the Pantsir and Tor as it is a little too easy to use the Longbow to destroy everything haha.

2. Is there any chance of the BMP-2 and Bradley getting a price buff? Also, any possibility of the Bradly getting newer ATGMs, such as the TOW-2B?

3. Also, please consider putting the Sprut back in the TA call-ins. I know it was done for balancing reasons, but just increase the price. What I love about this game is how asymmetrically balanced it is with each side having distinct strengths.

4. I'd also take a KA-52, Khrizantema-S, or BMP-3 over the T-14 Armata any day, but whatever the community wants. :3

5. Additionally, please consider giving all tanks both AP and HE rounds, particularly the Leo2A6 and T-80UM. I think that their abilities alone differentiate them from the M1A2 Abrams and T-90A respectively, without needing to cripple their versatility (unrealistically).

6. Maybe also adding the thermal optic ability to more vehicles that have them, such as the Bradley (and allow it to ATGMs automatically) and the T-72B3 (maybe the ability can have a shorter range and FOG reveal area to simulate poorer quality optics)

7. I also hope the F-35 gets added, but that it does not replace the F-18 completely, rather that the F-35 has a lower chance of spawning relative to the F-18.

8. Also, why not designate the S-300 to a newer variant, such as the S-300PMU? It would basically be just a small upgrade to the in-game S-300 and would not require any new code (I think) just a modification of existing variables.

9. Lastly, is there any possibility of a Pantsir TA call in or even some stationary variant to defend against SEAD missiles? The Tor just seems to be so unreliable compared to a SPAAG like the C-RAM (I think it may have something to do with missile limit, causing some launched by the Tor to not work).

Regardless, thank you for the continued support of this great game you and the rest of the development team created ( and sorry for the long post)!

Edited by: ConstantinoP.

Nice comments, and thanks!

Regarding the S-300, the current designation in game is S-300PM. Moving to S-400 standard or scrapping S-300 altogether in game and replacing with S-350 Vityaz is something that's been under constant discussion, but we ended up not doing it, due to lack of sufficient game-ready models for both S-350 and S-400's newer radars. Right now, ATACMS in game hasn't really been much a game destroyer, as its expensive price and lack of nuclear capability is a huge turn-off for lot of BLUEFOR players in pvp multiplayer sessions as far as I know.. Most people I see play would rather prefer to spam lot of Tomahawks and throw in a nuclear Tomahawk in the middle of the raid, which S-300 and Medium SAMs are perfectly capable of fighting off.

That being said, the IADS code is extremely complex (Patriot code is now over 10,000 lines long now), so it's been going through some development hells . When we get the WCC 8.5 code released for Patriot system in MW Mod 5, we will be in a good position to do some backporting of the newer IADS features back to S-300 code, to make REDFOR SAMs function better.

For defending against HARMs with Tor's, I would recommend that you place the Tor SAM somewhat behind the S-300 radar being protected, not in front of it. This would reduce the likelihood that Tor would be wasting missiles on other targets, and HARM will be at its slowest velocity as it dives near the S-300 radar, making it lot easier for Tor's missile to make the intercept.

Edited by: blahdy

Thanks for the response! Regarding the Tor, I observe it launching missiles (it's not out of ammunition), but it's missiles hit the HARM missile it explodes without destroying the HARM missile, when then proceeds to destroy a radar. I noticed that the likelihood of this occurrence increases with the number of Tors I field, which is why I was wondering if it had something to do with a missile limit (engine limitation) or if it is some kind of bug? It would be nice if you could have multiple Tors guarding a radar which can launch a missile each to ensure a kill, as currently, you can have 2 or 3 Tors deployed by a radar and have only 1 launch a missile that fails to intercept the SEAD missile anyway.

I know I went a little overboard with my list, but the one thing I hope you consider is increasing the variety of units the AI can field, as it would certainly improve the gameplay,as well as the balance. I don't know if there is some hardcoded limitation for the AI though.

Edited by: ConstantinoP.

It's not an engine limitation, but rather a guidance issue with current lead-pursuit homing used on Tor. You probably have Tors spread out in various places to cover a wider area (which is the right way, this is not a problem with your play). The problem is caused by seeker settling issues on current mod version's Tor code -- when fired from at an angle where SAM is forced to beam against high speed targets (such as HARM), missile can't deal with the LOS rate changes in time to place the warhead detonation in the right angle.

The next version improves the PN guidance used on Tor so it should improve the probability of kill against HARMs -- it adds target's acceleration term into the homing math, improving the lead angle against crossing targets.

As for AI fielding more units -- that's something we'll look into but is unlikely for now. The most unstable part of the game is the CAI (CommanderAI) engine that governs the AI players. AI bots require units to be dumb and simple -- the moment you give them sophisticated systems like Medium SAM and such, game freezes every often in middle of the game due to CAI going into endless logic loop. We used to have Tor fielded by AI units back in older mod versions (3.x, etc), but had to remove it due to excessive game freezes and crashes.

Heavy SAMs and aircraft fielded by AI are not an issue -- because those units are not charging to the frontline to escort the tanks. In fact, Heavy SAM isn't even controlled by CAI, but rather mod's script spawns them and the units belong to the game server (player 0) when a support AI player spawns an artillery. Since Heavy SAM units don't belong to any AI player, they don't crash the game. Tor and Pantsir however, do need to belong to a player, because they need to charge to the frontline to be any useful.

Edited by: blahdy

Would be nice to remove Allahu Akbar from mod5

Thanks for the responses blahdy, I figured the the AI would be able to use the Tor and Pantsir just as it currently uses the Strela to escort tanks to the frontline, though I am admittedly ignorant on the matter.

Do you think we will ever see intercontinental ballistic missiles, such as the Topol-M or Yars? I know it would be a little out of scale, but it would be fun (and challenging) to try to intercept them with THAAD's and PAC-3 MSE's someday!

Edited by: ConstantinoP.

ConstantinoP. wrote:

Thanks for the responses blahdy, I figured the the AI would be able to use the Tor and Pantsir just as it currently uses the Strela to escort tanks to the frontline, though I am admittedly ignorant on the matter.

Do you think we will ever see intercontinental ballistic missiles, such as the Topol-M or Yars? I know it would be a little out of scale, but it would be fun (and challenging) to try to intercept them with THAAD's and PAC-3 MSE's someday!

The ICBMs wouldn't be realistic under the game environment. :-( The mod tries to focus on tactical and regional battlefield defenses and offenses, but not on strategic weapons. If we were to simulate an ICBM, some issues: firstly, it's probably going to look very weird to see ICBM firing regionally in the same tactical battle space, when its meant to go 5500km+, so we may already be in the missile's minimum range envelope to even fire; second, it will take roughly around 15 to 20 minutes for ICBM to impact, as ICBM such as Topol M is multi staged and has to burn thru every stage. The game will be over long before missile would impact.

Alternatively however, a middle ground focus is to use IRBMs and MRBMs. Currently, we have the NoDong/Shahab II MRBM in game, which it is now getting a nuclear warhead for the next mod version, making it much more useful and a threatening weapon (hence, the need for PAC-3 MSE introduction). Since IRBMs and MRBMs can be fired as battlefield weapons regionally , and can have flight times as short as 5-10 minutes depending on the flight profile and # of stages required, it would be within the scope of what we could simulate without looking too weird in the game.

figured the the AI would be able to use the Tor and Pantsir just as it currently uses the Strela to escort tanks to the frontline, though I am admittedly ignorant on the matter.

That's correct -- the reason why AI could use Strela (even though Strela SAM uses FLINT) is because we use SecondaryShooter to launch the FLINT missiles. AI has no knowledge of SecondaryShooter (it only cares about PrimaryShooter and thats what crashes the game if it's not what it expects), so you can have FLINT missiles launching out of secondary shooters no problem.

The problem with Pantsir and Tor is that these systems need very high speed reaction when there is an enemy PGM on the way. SecondaryShooters only acquire new targets once every 10 seconds or so -- this means Pantsir & Tor driven by AI will not engage most threats other than may be aircraft. For Strela, it's not a problem, as in real life, Strela SAM will have slow reaction time anyway as it's meant for anti-aircraft role only.

One potential solution we're thinking about is perhaps introducing SA-8 Gecko (9K33 Osa) to REDFOR side, which can be used by AI. It has slow reaction and is for anti-aircraft, but has even longer range and altitude capability than Tor, making it ideal to return fire or keep human players at bay. Given that it has no anti-PGM capability, it's simple enough for AI to use via secondary shooters.

Edited by: blahdy

I still think F-22 is imbalanced. If you don't have plan to add PAKFA to redfor, bluefor should have F-15 instead of F-22.

Edited by: cym104