New models of units currently using placeholder model of different vehicles.

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • New models of units currently using placeholder model of different vehicles.

      Since the first day when first I launched CoN I really enjoy in-game vehicle models. But for some time there is no change to models of vehicles which still use placeholder models. Those are all vehicles of all doctrines of field artillery, MLRS, SAMs, corvettes, frigates, destroyers, cruisers, AWACS, Naval patrol plane, ASW helicopters and both class of submarines. This might also apply for infantry units since motorized infantry have different model for differnt stage but I put infantry aside since it's not that much annoying as with other units. I decided to make this suggestion as I wanna improve current situation or at least to hear some official note from developers. I don't want to post there every single real picture of every single vihecle using placeholder model since there would be dozens of those. But if it's neccessery of course I can post photos of all vehicles which should use vehicle model. There is a list of all vehicles with placeholder models (not counting infantry units):

      European doctrine:

      Griffon VBMR (it has some HALO like vehicle instead of 6x6 MRAP used as a profile picture)
      TRF1 and 155 GH 52 APU (they use FH-70 model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      M270 B1 and LRSVM Morava (they use Teruel model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      Crotale and Stormer HVM (they use Ozelot model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      AB 212 ASW and AW159 Wildcat (they use Panther model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      Nimrod and C295 Persuader (they use CN-235 CASA model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      EC-121 Warning Star and E-8 Joint STARS (they use E-3 Centry model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      Descubierta class and Göteborg class (they use Braunschweig class model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      Duke class and Horizon class (they use Bremen class model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      Hamburg class and Gloucester class (they use Daring class model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      Tiger class and Vittorio Veneto class (they use Absalon class model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      Giuseppe Garibaldi class and Queen Elizabeth class (they use Charles de Gaulle class model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      Swiftsure class and Rubis class (they use Astute class model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      Resolution class and Triomphant class (they use Vanguard class model instead of their based on their profile picture)

      Eastern doctrine:

      BTR-80 (it has BTR-60 model instead of BTR-80 model)
      D-30 and 2A65 Msta-B (they use 2A36 Giatsint-B model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      BM-30 Smerch and 9A52-4 Tornado (they use BM-21 Grad model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      BUK M1 and Pantsir S1 (they use 9K35 Strela-10 model instead of their based on their profile picture - btw picture of Pantsir S1 is also wrong because it shows 9K22 Tunguska, Pantsir S1 is mounted on KAMAZ-6560 and it has 6 SAM missile instead of 4 SAM on Tunguska)
      Mi-14 Haze and Ka-27 Helix (they use Ka-25 model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      Tu-142 Bear and A-40 Albatros (they use Il-38 Dolphin model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      Tu-126 and A-50 Mainstay (they use A-100 model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      Albatros class and Gremyashchiy class (they use Steregushchiy class model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      Krivak class and Admiral Gorshkov class (they use Neustrashimy class model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      Kashin class and Lider class (they use Sovremenny class model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      Kresta II class and Kara class (they use Slava class model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      Kuznetsov class and Ulyanovsk class (they use Kiev class model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      Victor class and Yasen class (they use Akula class model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      Delta class and Typhoon class (they use Borey class model instead of their based on their profile picture)

      Western doctrine:

      M198 Howitzer and M119 Howitzer (they use M777 Howitzer model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      M270A1 MLRS and M142 HIMARS (they use M270 MLRS model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      MIM-23 Hawk and AN/TWQ-1 Avenger (they use MIM-72 Chaparral model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      AH-1G use AH-1W Super Cobra profile picture instead of AH-1G picture
      SH-3 Sea King and SH-2 Super Seasprite (they use MH-60R Seahawk model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      P-3 Orion and P-8 Poseidon (they use CP-140 Aurora model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      EC-121 Warning Star and E-8 Joint STARS (they use E-3 Centry model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      Hamilton class and Cyclone class (they use Freedom class model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      Garcia class and Knox class (they use Perry class model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      Farragut class and Spruance class (they use Arleigh Burke class model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      California and Virginia class (they use Ticonderoga class model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      Kitty Hawk class and Gerald R. Ford class (they use Nimitz class model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      Seawolf class and Virginia class (they use Los Angeles class model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      Ohio class and Columbia class (they use Benjamin Franklin class model instead of their based on their profile picture)

      If I missed some feel free to add them to the list
    • 737373elj wrote:

      Well yes but the devs are too lazy to do spriting for the rest of the units

      Or maybe the intricacies of running a business may elude simplistic "only the sith deal in absolutes" styles of reasoning.

      They did invest weeks of work in the past to design, 3D model, and integrate new models for units. In comparison, the units that still have the same old models from T1 to T3 seem kinda barebone. Soooo, why did they stopped, what happened, and how may it return ?

      It does need a bit of crawling throughout the old updates, but you learn a bit about the kind of struggles CoN encounters :D
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Capt_Rodgers wrote:

      LRSVM Morava (they use Teruel model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      LRSVM Morava is a Serbian rocket launcher. In this game Serbia never will have this launcher, because Serbia has the eastern doctrin and this unit is implement in the european doctrin.
      If is planned to realize new models, please not this model.
      The latest version of the MARS is MARS II. This version can also shot cruise missles, which is also implement in this game in the tier 3 rocket launcher.
      „Morgen, ihr Luschen!“ --- „Morgen, Chef!“ (Ausbilder Schmidt alias Holger Müller bei der Arbeit)
    • I honestly don't get all the concern for images or even names really of what are basically placemarker game pieces that are mostly interchangeable between doctrines. That's not where the strategy of the game resides, because it's impossible to effect the realism of who has which weapons systems.

      Besides, you only have to be able to tell which marker is which. They could call them SAM1 SAM2 and SAM3 for all the difference it would make on gameplay, and use the same graphic with a 1,2, or 3 overlaid on it.
      *** Warning: This poster is on double secret probation ***

      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Seele07 wrote:

      Capt_Rodgers wrote:

      LRSVM Morava (they use Teruel model instead of their based on their profile picture)
      LRSVM Morava is a Serbian rocket launcher. In this game Serbia never will have this launcher, because Serbia has the eastern doctrin and this unit is implement in the european doctrin.If is planned to realize new models, please not this model.
      The latest version of the MARS is MARS II. This version can also shot cruise missles, which is also implement in this game in the tier 3 rocket launcher.

      Thats pretty much the M270 B1 so it's currently in game but with placeholder model. I would personally remove LRSVM Morava from the game and move the M270 B1 to stage 3. Between Teruel and M270 B1 I would personally place RM-70 Vampire. It's used by Poland, designed in Czech Republic so it would fit the doctrine

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      I honestly don't get all the concern for images or even names really of what are basically placemarker game pieces that are mostly interchangeable between doctrines. That's not where the strategy of the game resides, because it's impossible to effect the realism of who has which weapons systems.

      Besides, you only have to be able to tell which marker is which. They could call them SAM1 SAM2 and SAM3 for all the difference it would make on gameplay, and use the same graphic with a 1,2, or 3 overlaid on it.
      Well, if you don't care about military vehicles then I understand your point but on the other hand there are players who cares about that. Personally I choosed CoN because it has realistic model of real military vehicles. Because of that I would like all vehicles to have their own model without using placeholder models. It really annoys me when for example M142 HIMARS is using model of 70's version of M270 since those vehicles are really different. I don't know why they made models for majority of vehicles and suddenly they left some with placeholder models. They should change it at least for ground units
    • Capt_Rodgers wrote:

      Thats pretty much the M270 B1 so it's currently in game but with placeholder model. I would personally remove LRSVM Morava from the game and move the M270 B1 to stage 3. Between Teruel and M270 B1 I would personally place RM-70 Vampire. It's used by Poland, designed in Czech Republic so it would fit the doctrine

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      I honestly don't get all the concern for images or even names really of what are basically placemarker game pieces that are mostly interchangeable between doctrines. That's not where the strategy of the game resides, because it's impossible to effect the realism of who has which weapons systems.

      Besides, you only have to be able to tell which marker is which. They could call them SAM1 SAM2 and SAM3 for all the difference it would make on gameplay, and use the same graphic with a 1,2, or 3 overlaid on it.
      Well, if you don't care about military vehicles then I understand your point but on the other hand there are players who cares about that. Personally I choosed CoN because it has realistic model of real military vehicles. Because of that I would like all vehicles to have their own model without using placeholder models. It really annoys me when for example M142 HIMARS is using model of 70's version of M270 since those vehicles are really different. I don't know why they made models for majority of vehicles and suddenly they left some with placeholder models. They should change it at least for ground units
      LOL, so you want realistic pictures and names of units that aren't realistically reflected in their performance stats compared to other realistic looking pictured and named units of other doctrines that have basically the same stats, even tho that's not realistic. LOL!

      LOL, can't play pretend war without the right pretty pictures.
      *** Warning: This poster is on double secret probation ***

      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      Capt_Rodgers wrote:

      Thats pretty much the M270 B1 so it's currently in game but with placeholder model. I would personally remove LRSVM Morava from the game and move the M270 B1 to stage 3. Between Teruel and M270 B1 I would personally place RM-70 Vampire. It's used by Poland, designed in Czech Republic so it would fit the doctrine

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      I honestly don't get all the concern for images or even names really of what are basically placemarker game pieces that are mostly interchangeable between doctrines. That's not where the strategy of the game resides, because it's impossible to effect the realism of who has which weapons systems.

      Besides, you only have to be able to tell which marker is which. They could call them SAM1 SAM2 and SAM3 for all the difference it would make on gameplay, and use the same graphic with a 1,2, or 3 overlaid on it.
      Well, if you don't care about military vehicles then I understand your point but on the other hand there are players who cares about that. Personally I choosed CoN because it has realistic model of real military vehicles. Because of that I would like all vehicles to have their own model without using placeholder models. It really annoys me when for example M142 HIMARS is using model of 70's version of M270 since those vehicles are really different. I don't know why they made models for majority of vehicles and suddenly they left some with placeholder models. They should change it at least for ground units
      LOL, so you want realistic pictures and names of units that aren't realistically reflected in their performance stats compared to other realistic looking pictured and named units of other doctrines that have basically the same stats, even tho that's not realistic. LOL!
      LOL, can't play pretend war without the right pretty pictures.
      Like Cpt_Rodgers said, players like him are drawn to CoN by the level of realism that IS ALREADY there. Not like we need to make a full swing to realism that gets suggested every other day, but some things like the unit models just seem a bit loose-ended, or half-done. They have done a great job, but they could use some more work to make it seem like the job is actually done, and there are no placeholders left.
      but, that's just my 2 cents' worth
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      Capt_Rodgers wrote:

      Thats pretty much the M270 B1 so it's currently in game but with placeholder model. I would personally remove LRSVM Morava from the game and move the M270 B1 to stage 3. Between Teruel and M270 B1 I would personally place RM-70 Vampire. It's used by Poland, designed in Czech Republic so it would fit the doctrine

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      I honestly don't get all the concern for images or even names really of what are basically placemarker game pieces that are mostly interchangeable between doctrines. That's not where the strategy of the game resides, because it's impossible to effect the realism of who has which weapons systems.

      Besides, you only have to be able to tell which marker is which. They could call them SAM1 SAM2 and SAM3 for all the difference it would make on gameplay, and use the same graphic with a 1,2, or 3 overlaid on it.
      Well, if you don't care about military vehicles then I understand your point but on the other hand there are players who cares about that. Personally I choosed CoN because it has realistic model of real military vehicles. Because of that I would like all vehicles to have their own model without using placeholder models. It really annoys me when for example M142 HIMARS is using model of 70's version of M270 since those vehicles are really different. I don't know why they made models for majority of vehicles and suddenly they left some with placeholder models. They should change it at least for ground units
      LOL, so you want realistic pictures and names of units that aren't realistically reflected in their performance stats compared to other realistic looking pictured and named units of other doctrines that have basically the same stats, even tho that's not realistic. LOL!
      LOL, can't play pretend war without the right pretty pictures.
      Yes thats it. I know it sounds funny but I like when I can move real units with their real models. If you don't understand me then it's ok but doesn't make your point the only true.
      Also giving them made up stats is the only way how could this game be balanced. Because if they would just add powerful units to nations which have them in service then it would most of the poor countries in Africa and South America unplayable since their army is based on Toyota Land Cruiser technicals
    • MicahWill wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      Capt_Rodgers wrote:

      Thats pretty much the M270 B1 so it's currently in game but with placeholder model. I would personally remove LRSVM Morava from the game and move the M270 B1 to stage 3. Between Teruel and M270 B1 I would personally place RM-70 Vampire. It's used by Poland, designed in Czech Republic so it would fit the doctrine

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      I honestly don't get all the concern for images or even names really of what are basically placemarker game pieces that are mostly interchangeable between doctrines. That's not where the strategy of the game resides, because it's impossible to effect the realism of who has which weapons systems.

      Besides, you only have to be able to tell which marker is which. They could call them SAM1 SAM2 and SAM3 for all the difference it would make on gameplay, and use the same graphic with a 1,2, or 3 overlaid on it.
      Well, if you don't care about military vehicles then I understand your point but on the other hand there are players who cares about that. Personally I choosed CoN because it has realistic model of real military vehicles. Because of that I would like all vehicles to have their own model without using placeholder models. It really annoys me when for example M142 HIMARS is using model of 70's version of M270 since those vehicles are really different. I don't know why they made models for majority of vehicles and suddenly they left some with placeholder models. They should change it at least for ground units
      LOL, so you want realistic pictures and names of units that aren't realistically reflected in their performance stats compared to other realistic looking pictured and named units of other doctrines that have basically the same stats, even tho that's not realistic. LOL!LOL, can't play pretend war without the right pretty pictures.
      Like Cpt_Rodgers said, players like him are drawn to CoN by the level of realism that IS ALREADY there. Not like we need to make a full swing to realism that gets suggested every other day, but some things like the unit models just seem a bit loose-ended, or half-done. They have done a great job, but they could use some more work to make it seem like the job is actually done, and there are no placeholders left.
      Exactly thats my point. I like the game in current state and it's great but I would also like to make realistic models for vehicles that use placeholder models. I don't even mean that they need to remodel all vehicles with 100% accuracy but having same modles for system which are different is just unnesseccary for me. For example if they would add it's own model for M270 B1/M270A1, LRSVM Morava, M142 HIMARS, Smerch and Tornado then I'm happy. I don't want remodel of all models in game but just those with placeholder using different vehicle
    • Capt_Rodgers wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      LOL, so you want realistic pictures and names of units that aren't realistically reflected in their performance stats compared to other realistic looking pictured and named units of other doctrines that have basically the same stats, even tho that's not realistic. LOL!LOL, can't play pretend war without the right pretty pictures.
      Yes thats it. I know it sounds funny but I like when I can move real units with their real models. If you don't understand me then it's ok but doesn't make your point the only true.Also giving them made up stats is the only way how could this game be balanced. Because if they would just add powerful units to nations which have them in service then it would most of the poor countries in Africa and South America unplayable since their army is based on Toyota Land Cruiser technicals
      No, sorry, it's OK, I understand, even if I don't "Get It". To each his own. For me, it's about the actual game play, the strategy. They could have clown heads labelled "plane 1" or Cartoon pig's butts labelled "Tank 2" and the game would be just as much fun for me as with any attempt at realistic pictures (even if they have no correlation to realistic units)
      *** Warning: This poster is on double secret probation ***

      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      Capt_Rodgers wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      LOL, so you want realistic pictures and names of units that aren't realistically reflected in their performance stats compared to other realistic looking pictured and named units of other doctrines that have basically the same stats, even tho that's not realistic. LOL!LOL, can't play pretend war without the right pretty pictures.
      Yes thats it. I know it sounds funny but I like when I can move real units with their real models. If you don't understand me then it's ok but doesn't make your point the only true.Also giving them made up stats is the only way how could this game be balanced. Because if they would just add powerful units to nations which have them in service then it would most of the poor countries in Africa and South America unplayable since their army is based on Toyota Land Cruiser technicals
      No, sorry, it's OK, I understand, even if I don't "Get It". To each his own. For me, it's about the actual game play, the strategy. They could have clown heads labelled "plane 1" or Cartoon pig's butts labelled "Tank 2" and the game would be just as much fun for me as with any attempt at realistic pictures (even if they have no correlation to realistic units)
      I know what you mean and I understand that since this is the thing CoN is about. But as I tried to explain earlier the real military units add some realistic wibe to that. But my main point is "why are they even bother with making single model for every stage formost of the vehicles and some left in the dust"

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Capt_Rodgers ().