9 replies to this topic

[Rich19]

So I've recently got into playing Defcon again, and was pleasantly suprised to find that there are a number of modifications you can mix and match which alter the graphics while still being able to play against people without such mods. I think I've put together a nice collection (suitable altering them to suit my own style of course ).

One such mod I'm particularly pleased I found was one which claims to replace all the unit symbols with their real life NATO counterpart (get it here). However, I'm not convinced that the creator has got it quite right, especially with the naval units (he openly admits the battleship is wrong, for example). I was wondering if any of you people could direct me to the correct versions of the wrong ones, as I was thinking of fixing them (Defcon is incredibly easy to mod).

Here's what I have so far (screenshot is taken over Alaska):



The land installations from left to right are radar, missile silo ICBM mode (top) and air defense mode (bottom), airfield. The aircraft are fighter on the left and bomber on the right. The naval units, clockwise from top left, are battleship, carrier, surfaced submarine, submurged submarine.

The internet is quite bad for finding this sort of information, so does anyone here know how correct these are and has an alternative?

Edited by Rich19, 07 May 2009 - 22:04.

[Razven]

I reckon 4chan's /k/ could be helpful in this, too bad 4chan is down at the moment.

[Waris]

4chan is not technically down, img.4chan.org does (which contains the boards /b/ and /r9k/) so every other boards have a little /b/ going on in it...

[CommanderJB]

We can see using this graph:

That his aviation icons are incorrect (and, having viewed the thread on the Defcon forums where he posts them, he evidently just left them the same) so if you want authentic ones, there they are, and submarines too. The naval ones are trickier but the battleship symbol, as far as I can determine, is shown here (along with everything else, but it's more difficult to display conveniently - just use the built-in search bar when you're using it to get to what you're after):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9211277/BGL33100...Operations-2000
It seems, rather boringly, to be designated by a simple 'BB' rather than any actual symbol. Perhaps you could combine it with the 'surface warship' icon shown in the above graph?
I would imagine that NATO map symbols for naval units are not as complicated because the formation strength and type can generally be reported and tracked individually, unlike with ground units. Why that latter resource doesn't mention aircraft carriers or submarines I really don't know - perhaps because they're not meant to be relevant to NATO maps of the ground-oriented sort that the rest of the symbols apparently are?

Edited by CommanderJB, 08 May 2009 - 12:02.

[Dutchygamer]

Interesting picture JB. I'm saving that for future use...

[Rich19]

CommanderJB, on 8 May 2009, 12:59, said:

We can see using this graph:

That his aviation icons are incorrect (and, having viewed the thread on the Defcon forums where he posts them, he evidently just left them the same) so if you want authentic ones, there they are, and submarines too. The naval ones are trickier but the battleship symbol, as far as I can determine, is shown here (along with everything else, but it's more difficult to display conveniently - just use the built-in search bar when you're using it to get to what you're after):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9211277/BGL33100...Operations-2000
It seems, rather boringly, to be designated by a simple 'BB' rather than any actual symbol. Perhaps you could combine it with the 'surface warship' icon shown in the above graph?
I would imagine that NATO map symbols for naval units are not as complicated because the formation strength and type can generally be reported and tracked individually, unlike with ground units. Why that latter resource doesn't mention aircraft carriers or submarines I really don't know - perhaps because they're not meant to be relevant to NATO maps of the ground-oriented sort that the rest of the symbols apparently are?

Although the ones in the picture seem to show that the aviation icons are incorrect, the link you posted shows "fixed wing fighter" and "fixed wing bomber" to be precisely the same as those used in the mod. I think I'll leave those.

I've subsequently found this document: http://www.mapsymbs....5b_ch1_full.pdf

This confirms all the symbols and must have been the source of the information. Thanks for all the help all the same though, everyone.

[Waris]

Medium tank? WW2 much?

[TehKiller]

Not really...Medium tanks exist these days (T-72 for example)

[Waris]

I'm not sure, I'd rather call them MBTs. I really think the definitions of medium and heavy tanks are obsolete.

[CommanderJB]

Rich19, on 9 May 2009, 1:29, said:

Although the ones in the picture seem to show that the aviation icons are incorrect, the link you posted shows "fixed wing fighter" and "fixed wing bomber" to be precisely the same as those used in the mod. I think I'll leave those.

I've subsequently found this document: http://www.mapsymbs....5b_ch1_full.pdf

This confirms all the symbols and must have been the source of the information. Thanks for all the help all the same though, everyone.

Having dug a bit deeper, the propeller-type symbol from above actually appears straight afterwards in that monstrous document; it indicates a fixed-wing aircraft as established by a ground track, and not an air track, which is why they appear to have separate sets. It's really up to you which one you use; certainly the propeller symbol does look a bit odd. Technically speaking his 'battleship' symbol is also that of a generic (unidentified) surface combatant, but it's certainly rather more aesthetically pleasing than a 'BB' in the naval surface dimension brackets!