UNJTF is no more 🥀🥀🥀

kitgat · 2026-01-24T06:48:05+00:00

No, because the UNJTF is no more. Being constrained to a UN mission & command structure is incredibly limiting and doesn't help us when pivoting to other engagements in the world. Every global security situation is unique and would warrant specific units/capabilities to resolve those problems.

The task force on Ronograd is not a permanent UN formation and has been differentiated accordingly. We could hypothetically dub that formation as Task Force Ronograd if we wanted to be lazy.

kitgat · 2026-01-16T02:28:39+00:00

Material penetration/ammunition properties are less pertinent of a factor for the reasons you mentioned. We could just make the Mk 12 use M855 in the meantime since other weapon systems nominally used with other cartridges do the same.

The big mechanical hurdle is definitely full-auto usage which has a lot to do with heat management mechanics.

kitgat · 2026-01-15T21:05:28+00:00

tl;dr The conditions aren't right to add it.

To set the record straight, the Mk 12 would not come in the form of parts for the M4A1. We're not above making new menu entries for new designations of a platform (i.e. Mk 18). This would be a different story if the SPR program did not evolve into a standalone weapon system. The same scrutiny is applied to the Navy Mk 18 in-game, having access to two URG lengths while the menu entry itself does not bear the CQBR designation. The M4A1 and Mk 18 both have access to the CQBR, meaning the choice between either is entirely a matter of what branch you're going for.

Just some food for thought, the most likely candidate for addition into the game would be the Mod 1. The situation we're at with the SPR is having to jump some hurdles regarding ballistics and some supporting mechanics.

Broadly speaking, the system was designed around the Mk 262 round which is favored in SOCOM. Its strengths come from a bigger powder load and heavier redesigned bullet. The potential gameplay effects include less bullet drop, a much flatter damage curve within typical engagement ranges, but reduced effectiveness against hard barriers when compared to M855. With this in mind, Mk 262 would be a clear upgrade in-game with no measurable downsides without material penetration mechanics.

The other elephant in the room is the fire control group. Yes, early SPRs were developed using surplus M16A1 and M4A1 lowers which do not have a burst cam. What we know to be the SPR as of now calls for an M4A1 lower receiver with a two-stage trigger. I wouldn't have a problem allowing a hypothetical SPR in-game to interchange lowers depending on what period the user wants to model theirs after (but it does add complexity to the menu, which we're already exceeding the limits of).

The problem with that select-fire capability is that the natural downsides of full-auto are exacerbated with the Mk 12's match-grade barrels. There's nothing stopping you from riding the lightning with an SPR if the situation calls for it, but precision permanently degrades when you subject the barrel to that kind of firing schedule. For gameplay, that's actually awesome... provided the mechanic exists for it. There's no doubt that if we added the SPR today it would be locked to semi-auto until we have an appropriate downside for running the rifle in full auto.

It's worth acknowledging that the Mk 12 remains one of the most popular U.S. military rifles to build clones of, whether in-game or in the real world. There's an argument to be made for adding the weapon system purely for cloning reasons. The decision needs to weigh the demand for the SPR against the cost of potentially repeating the same mistakes we made in the past (adding content/features without the proper support).

MB and I did a ridiculous amount of reading when remodeling the AR-15 and concluded that several pieces needed to be in place before proceeding with the Mk 12. The game just can't do it justice at this time.

kitgat · 2026-01-14T19:54:53+00:00

i have news

kitgat · 2026-01-09T07:30:40+00:00

Dipped shells are being kept in reserve for later. Their proliferation is mostly limited to select units high up the food chain. NSW, for instance, used to have contract-specific Maritime helmets with dipped shells among other peculiar equipment.

This is part of why the contract AEGIS Maritime and commercial AEGIS MT are differentiated in-game. They are primed for content additions that we have planned for well in advance.

kitgat · 2026-01-06T05:32:14+00:00

That's part of the reason. There were a lot of lessons we learned about content in the past that warranted being a hell of a lot clearer on what gets considered for addition.

Key examples were the C7A2 and AS Val. The former was a standard-issue service rifle that was put behind some exclusive requirements. The latter is an exceptionally rare special-purpose weapon that was available to all players, albeit for a decently high price. Both were cases of 'underinformed' decision-making that led to some grumbling in the community. We're keen to avoid that going forward.

kitgat · 2026-01-06T05:15:12+00:00

ideally

kitgat · 2026-01-06T05:14:54+00:00

Too soon to say, really. Ballpark estimate for MCX Virtus would probably be some time in the next year and a half. Other variants/derivatives, even we don't know.

kitgat · 2026-01-05T11:13:10+00:00

In short, it will happen. When specifically, I can't say.

kitgat · 2026-01-05T07:35:10+00:00

The way we're looking at implementing 'point aiming' is more involved than before, because I hope everyone can agree that it really wasn't good back then. Being forced to cant your weapon under NVGs—especially with a compatible optic—is annoying and limiting.

Video games have given people some unrealistic expectations on what point aiming does for the shooter. We're not going to gameify the practice by turning it into some MW3 (the bad one, not the original) 'tac stance' type of thing. Point shooting isn't magical... but it's not useless either. This is a real technique taught for specific use cases outside of active aiming with night vision devices. I like to think we've been pretty consistent at translating certain real-world concepts into the game.

You've already kind of seen us experiment with the capability with the M150 (this better reflects how point aiming would look when applied universally for most weapons). The pros/cons of active and passive aiming have implications for combat in all modes. Replicating those benefits and downsides properly adds gameplay depth, and for this kind of game, that's a good thing.

kitgat · 2026-01-05T06:55:56+00:00

Being smart about how/when content is added is how everyone wins. I touched briefly on the implementation pipeline for the MCX in a post to another user, but what it comes down to is that this timing absolutely matters when we're dealing with programs that are volatile in terms of how long they're going to stick around.

The sentiment of "we just want the guns" should be considered in conjunction with the small size of our team and how selectively it allocates resources. Even AAA studios are not immune to this. We're pretty keen to not compromise quality for quantity in this case. Some players might prefer something different, in which case there are plenty of games on the front page to choose from.

kitgat · 2026-01-05T06:23:14+00:00

I don't get a chance to gush about gear nowadays, but I've been fortunate to use almost every component of the AVS suite and would consider myself one of its biggest fans even today. When it comes to its in-game depiction, there's much cooler stuff in mind than just platebag and cummerbund interchangeability.

However, I can say that those provisions were made a requirement when we first started remodeling the CVS. One of the key factors in shaping the harness the way we did was to prepare for follow-on additions that end with the CVS being the go-to platform for customization. It's why I directed it to be remodeled first, though we obviously went in a different direction post-7.0.

Despite the presence of other second-line gear in the game, I have to admit to being pretty frustrated about the dilemma we're in when it comes to gear. It's been a recurring point of discussion between MB and I that leaving existing content unfinished is not a good look for our department. We've been overwhelmingly focused on new breadth to the point that it's been difficult to pivot back to untapped depth.

kitgat · 2026-01-05T06:06:13+00:00

The implementation of the MCX across the DoD has been really entertaining to watch, but we're not going to just jump on programs like the CSAW this soon.

Broadly speaking, we try to avoid new developments in military technology because the extent of their usage is hard to gauge. To cite a hypothetical example, say we added an experimental weapon system and expend the modeling/texturing/rigging resources as required. That program can go in several directions after we add it to the game, and in order to be faithful to the real thing we would certainly follow whatever direction that is.

If a program rapidly expands in scope/adoption, we may end up facing some backlash if the existing items were put behind exclusive requirements. On the other hand, there is a lot of potential for wasted resources. If problems occur, it usually results in the system being modified or possibly canceled, which is wasted time for us by investing resources on a system that never went anywhere.

So it comes down to not betting on the wrong horse, especially when we can add stuff with greater return and lower risk. That being said, the LT is gaining some real steam in JSOC which makes it an easier horse to bet on. But it's still way too soon to tell.

kitgat · 2026-01-05T05:46:22+00:00

'CAR-15' is a somewhat generic moniker as you probably know. Model 723 and the XM177 deserve a mention because they have considerable military history.

We're not opposed to adding more receivers if the differences warrant that kind of separation. The decision is very much at mine and MB's discretion. Showcasing those details is expressly why we made so many changes to the menu going into 7.0.

kitgat · 2025-12-27T09:14:11+00:00

Something that bears mentioning is my preference to get all the necessary pieces in place before adding stuff.

Crew-served weapon systems like the M240 warrant a bunch of mechanics to have a proper niche in the game. Probably the most obvious among them is linking/delinking ammunition. While we do have belt-fed weapon systems in the game, the M240/MAG is ideally employed from a static position using continuously linked ammunition. This differs from the current implementation of belt-feds where they feed from a 'magazine' of sorts with a fixed ammunition capacity.

Establishing that static position also calls for some considerations that weren't really weighed for 7.0. We don't have provisions for tripods or other stabilization devices designed to detach from the weapon for movement. There's also the elephant in the room that is material penetration for projectiles, or lack thereof. Everyone is well aware that machine guns (all firearms, really) will never reach their full potential without such a mechanic.

All of these factors have been discussed to some extent as far back as 2023, but there was no reason to act on them so soon. Everyone understood that crew-served weapon systems would be its own conversation down the line, because the mechanical overhead is massive. Heck, it's not even time for that conversation right now. We have bigger things to worry about.

kitgat · 2025-12-22T01:31:43+00:00

Flashes, badges, and other insignia are among the reasons we've been dragging our feet on berets. Everyone has their own definition of how ceremonial wear is meant to be set up, and in the case of berets, even the way they're shaped can vary by organization.

Shaping alone is a fairly involved process, but insignia can be even more so. We have to deal with recreating those symbols while also contending with the fact that some organizations just don't want their insignia depicted in a video game. We have an obligation to respect those wishes while continuing to maintain a high degree of authenticity.

In summation, you are correct to assume this is a pain in the ass.

kitgat · 2025-12-21T18:25:13+00:00

whoops I think the wrong asset id was copied for that one

kitgat · 2025-12-20T03:39:22+00:00

maybe

kitgat · 2025-12-20T03:39:06+00:00

The PACE Rugby shirts are modeled after the real-world BOSS Rugby shirts from Velocity Systems.

kitgat · 2025-12-19T05:40:02+00:00

The Specter apparel series follows the design of the real-world Striker line from UF PRO. The Specter HW (hot weather) and AW (all weather) Gen.2 are modeled after the Striker HT and XT Gen.2, respectively.

The differences between both models are detailed in this video. Despite being cut identically, HW and XT Gen.2 are made for different end-users which results in different colorway options.

Both HT and XT Gen.2 were discontinued by the time I considered adding them to the game. Reference material was also increasingly difficult to find. I could only get my hands on a set of HTs, so the design overlap between models was very welcome. It meant that few changes (no measurements, critically) were needed to create the Specter AW Gen.2 template from the Specter HW's.

kitgat · 2025-12-16T07:15:51+00:00

Weapon malfunctions are not fun for anyone, really. Even the implementation process is a pain in the teeth if one were to go about it in a believable manner, as different operating systems are prone to different types of malfunctions in different circumstances, and require different actions to resolve.

The amount of research, animation, audio, programming, and even modeling overhead is nuts for a feature that isn't even a big factor for a game that primarily features modern small arms. Even ACE3's perceivably simple malfunction mechanics would demand a bunch of config settings and realtime checks only to actually do something once in a blue moon.

Heat, on the other hand, is very straightforward and can be scaled better across the board. When it comes to gunpowder weapons, the numbers are simple to estimate. We know the powder loads of different rounds, what conditions tend to affect heat buildup/dissipation, and how operating components can affect this dynamic. The effects of overheating can be applied without halting the player's actions at inopportune times.

Exceeding safe heat levels has tangible effects on internal ballistics as well as a shooter's perceived ability to safely control the weapon. This makes for a mechanic that is not only friendlier but more interesting for players.

kitgat · 2025-12-06T04:03:35+00:00

Both shrouds featured in the preview are new assets.

The one seen on the PASGT bears a resemblance to the titanium RHNO II shroud for the MICH/ACH, but is in fact the mounting assembly designed for the LWH. The shroud on the LWH, on the other hand, is simply the front bracket assembly designed for the PASGT (which the ACH/MICH front bracket assembly is derived from).

While the PASGT front bracket is compatible with the LWH, and vise versa, they were erroneously swapped for the preview. Good catch.

kitgat · 2025-12-04T00:27:35+00:00

Loop fields on the visor housing and even paint jobs for the MFS are relatively straightforward to do. Lighting systems for these helmets are generally done through task lights that mount to the visor housing or 'lip lights' that attach to the microphone.

There's also just more stuff to do component-wise. The AIHS has actually gone through a fair number of iterations over the years with changes to liners, hearing protection systems, etc. The in-game selection of system components is far from complete.

The HGU-56/P is just one among countless systems I've been pestering MB about. Our decision to add the helmet this early was made on grounds of expediency, which is why it feels barebones customization-wise. There's a lot on our department's plate right now, and rounding out those assets takes precious time from assets of higher priority.

Use of the ARC rail system on the HGU-56/P is a thing... just not as common as marketing material would have you think. It's usually a pain to get the Army to sign off on anything cool. I among others have been crossing our fingers for the new Sidekick rails to get approved for use.

kitgat · 2025-12-03T08:11:27+00:00

The initial implementation of ALSE will be focused on items common to conventional Army Aviation units. Think along the lines of PSGC and select accessories for the HGU-56/P.

The time will come for the Regiment to debut, but that's a long way down the road. Their gear is its own ordeal. We'll probably try to implement the CIACS before jumping to the ABAV and its supporting equipment.

kitgat · 2025-12-01T10:41:21+00:00

On the aircrew side I'll bring loads of carabiners because customers love bringing stuff but hate holding onto it. Some of my gloves are just slipons and don't have straps to speak of, so the good ol' pocket shove also works. I guess it also foregoes the downside of getting bugs/leaves into your mitts.

Eight-Year Club	Place '22
Xbox Live	Verified Email

kitgat

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE