Steel Beasts Pro 2.6x upgrade

[Skybird]

IMPACT!

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/...570#post203570

Price for upgrading from earlier versions 25 $US/18.68 Euros.

[Skybird]

The codemeter runtime environment that gets installed by 2.640, is the older version 4.30c. It will not hurt to go to their website and download the latest version 4.30d. 32- and 64-Bit versions available.

[Skybird]

I have just tested the new T-72M1, which now is playable and has a virtual 3D interior.

A nightmare! Compared to a Leopard-1A5DK (now coming with 3D interior and a new 3D HiRes vehicle model), almost primitive. The aiming procedure is time-consuming and primitive, the firing range is bad, the precision lacks, and poor handling. No secondary sights. Shooting at moving targets is - an aventure. A rolling coffin, I understand, and at eSim somebody said it was build with a life expectancy of firing ten shots before getting killed on mind, so what use to invest more into it... The IR (not to mix with thermal sights which the T-72 does not have...), only usable at night, has a usable range of maybe 300 meters or so. And it is so slow in reverse. It crawls.

I have argued in another thread that the Leopard-1 were totally superior. I now got an impression from handling, to what degree that superiority really made itself felt. Compared to the T-72, it apparently was rolling luxury, with fire control being superior in handling, and more precise fire over much greater range. Not to mention night battle.

Also had a first look at the other stuff that is in there. Very impressive upgrade this is, and some nice stuff for sure.

And then there is the firing procedure and sight separation in the Chally-2. At eSim they introduced the joke that the Challenger has a "distinctively British" fire control system. I now see the humour in that!

Good upgrade, very good package!

[Deamon]

It's getting harder and harder for me to resist. Sky were there any improvements to the scripting system ?

What the old SB missed in particular was the ability to use events/triggers of the opfor side to trigger stuff on your own side.

[Skybird]

Its the same logic in the background. However, some said at eSim that they think the AI acts even better now, but I cannot comment this pro or contra.

What kind of scripts do you need, as an example? I would say you can do an awful lot with the editor of SBP. It has time variables, area- and unit-condition variables.

I know the editors from Flashpoint and Sub Commd as well. Compared to these, SBP is as potent (at least), but more comfortable to handle I would say.

You can already trigger actions of own force depending on actions by red force. If red units (specified or unspecified) enter defined area Y, then blue unit Z starts moving towards position Omega, for example.

[Skybird]

The stickied SBP resources thread has been updated with the new vehicle list, and updates to general instructions.

[Deamon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Its the same logic in the background. However, some said at eSim that they think the AI acts even better now, but I cannot comment this pro or contra.

What kind of scripts do you need, as an example? I would say you can do an awful lot with the editor of SBP. It has time variables, area- and unit-condition variables.

I know the editors from Flashpoint and Sub Commd as well. Compared to these, SBP is as potent (at least), but more comfortable to handle I would say.

You can already trigger actions of own force depending on actions by red force. If red units (specified or unspecified) enter defined area Y, then blue unit Z starts moving towards position Omega, for example.

The SB editor is certainly the best out there but it lacks scripting options. I tried to do a mission myself once but had to realize that it cannot be implemented the way i wanted it due to limitations in scripting options. I can trigger enemy reactions based on how many units are in a designated area but i cannot trigger the same action based on how many units have actually been detected in the designated area. This basically rules out the surprize and stealth factors that i badly need for my mission ideas.

What the scripting also misses is the ability to interlock bluefor and redfor triggers and events with each other. F.e. i cannot say "if redfor trigger SEND_BACK_UP = true and blue for unit xy is alife, print message "ELINT REPORT: Be adviced enemy radio traffic increased! Signal strength mostly weak.""

I also cannot make something like: "If redfor detects n bluefor units in area Obj1 and bluefor trigger JAM_REDFOR_RADIO = false set trigger SEND_BACK_UP = true" and i can't do something like: "If redfor trigger WE_ARE_COMMING = true, print message "ELINT REPORT: Enemey radio signal strengh increasing, be adviced enemy units are closing in on our position""

I also cannot make something like: "If bluefor trigger JAM_ENEMY_RADIO = true, expose bluefor unit xy position to redfor" and then do something like "If bluefor trigger JAM_ENEMY_RADIO = true, and unit xy is known to redfor, charge with redfor gunships to the last known position of bluefor unit xy and blow it up(for that matter i would like to have an option of prioritizing targets)" or alternatively create an artillary mission over the last know position of the blue for xy unit.

I think adding thouse options wouldn't be a big deal. Man i just wish SB would have a proper scripting language that you can write into text files so that you could make truly dynamic and complex AI behavior and hillarious missions(on a little side note, for my own sim i developed a scripting language that SB, flshpoint and sub command can only dream about).

Besides that SB should have an option to have neutral parties that eventually could become hostile if the player for example enters a penalty zone. This way you could define a territory of a neutral party that would become passively or actively hostile when you would cross its territory, perhaps SBP has this option already ?

BTW does SBP features civilian traffic ?

EDITOR
Eventhough the SB editor is the best out there i still feel it takes way to many clicks to get what i want. I feel setting all the waypoints is way to combersome and time consuming. Can't we get an option where we can define a template of settings and assign a key to it and then instead of setting the way points with the mouse button just press that key and the settings of the waypoint are set according to that template ? I am tired to click maself through all the same menus and options time and again for each and every waypoint.

Also, while at it, after the waypoint have been created, the waypoint should face the mouse cursor(that is if a tactic for it is assigned) so that you can quickely set its direction by simple moving the cursor a bit into the direction you want the position to face to without the need to click on the damn thing again and turn it around, this way you would also avoid to click on the wrong waypoint accidentally when you have several waypoints overlaping in a small area(which annois the crap out of me). With this improvements the time required to set complex paths would shrink to a fraction of what it is now.

Also does the editor have the capeability already to zoom in on the mouse cursor ? Is there a thread somewhere where improvement propositions can be submit to ?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Deamon

The SB editor is certainly the best out there but it lacks scripting options. I tried to do a mission myself once but had to realize that it cannot be implemented the way i wanted it due to limitations in scripting options. I can trigger enemy reactions based on how many units are in a designated area but i cannot trigger the same action based on how many units have actually been detected in the designated area. This basically rules out the surprize and stealth factors that i badly need for my mission ideas.

Define zone.
Make event: if any unit/this unit/unit XYZ sees x vehicles/tanks/APC/any enemy unit in zone, then set event to "valid"
Have conditioned route or conditioned respawns witrh a condition of "if event true then execute".

What the scripting also misses is the ability to interlock bluefor and redfor triggers and events with each other. F.e. i cannot say "if redfor trigger SEND_BACK_UP = true and blue for unit xy is alife, print message "ELINT REPORT: Be adviced enemy radio traffic increased! Signal strength mostly weak.""

Define RedFor Trigger.
Define BlueFor Trigger by "if Redfor Trigger true, than this trigger true".
Define action for Blue basing on BlueFor trigger true or not.

I also cannot make something like: "If redfor detects n bluefor units in area Obj1 and bluefor trigger JAM_REDFOR_RADIO = false set trigger SEND_BACK_UP = true" and i can't do something like: "If redfor trigger WE_ARE_COMMING = true, print message "ELINT REPORT: Enemey radio signal strengh increasing, be adviced enemy units are closing in on our position""

Why not?
Define Bluefor condition JAM_REDFOR_RADIO.
Define trigger Send_BackUP.
If redfor detects x blue forces in zone x, make them move into a defined zone.
Have a condition on the just above being true. Link it to the radio message you want to send.

I also cannot make something like: "If bluefor trigger JAM_ENEMY_RADIO = true, expose bluefor unit xy position to redfor" and then do something like "If bluefor trigger JAM_ENEMY_RADIO = true, and unit xy is known to redfor, charge with redfor gunships to the last known position of bluefor unit xy and blow it up(for that matter i would like to have an option of prioritizing targets)" or alternatively create an artillary mission over the last know position of the blue for xy unit.

Now it becomes quite detailed and specialsied, but by interlinkling blue and red conditions, I see not a principle problem there. It just turns things into a veryx complex scripting - and the question is if that is really what makes a mission that special. I have played too many missions that acchieved elements of surprise and randomisation by simpler constructs,. giving me a different expreience every time, than than I would think it is such specialisation likie you noutline here that makes SBP that different.

Keep it simplier. Maybe you just think it too complex. Too much effort for too little gain.

I think adding thouse options wouldn't be a big deal. Man i just wish SB would have a proper scripting language that you can write into text files so that you could make truly dynamic and complex AI behavior and hillarious missions(on a little side note, for my own sim i developed a scripting language that SB, flshpoint and sub command can only dream about).

They depend on having an ergonomic, easy-accessible and still capable, potent editor interface that does not draw too many resources in the background. For their military customers, doing all this in networks, but on not really gaming PCs, that might be a factor. I also think that maybe you just do not know how to workaround the limitations you believe to see.

Besides that SB should have an option to have neutral parties that eventually could become hostile if the player for example enters a penalty zone. This way you could define a territory of a neutral party that would become passively or actively hostile when you would cross its territory, perhaps SBP has this option already ?

There is demand for insurgency operations, and so some of the things you may thijunk about are on their list for the next or any of the next releases. The turn towards 3D infantry now is the first step in that evolution, also the ability to play infantry ATGMs now. There are also workaround via conditions to make civilian traffic a bit unpredictable in its inention, I seem to remember. There was a thread on that some weeks ago, but I forgot the details, since I was not overly interested in these things.

BTW does SBP features civilian traffic ?

Traffic? Well, there are vehicles, civilian ones, even a civilian bus and civilian ambulance now. Ten types all in all, I think. Haven'T played around with them. There are also armed civilian pickups.

EDITOR
Eventhough the SB editor is the best out there i still feel it takes way to many clicks to get what i want. I feel setting all the waypoints is way to combersome and time consuming. Can't we get an option where we can define a template of settings and assign a key to it and then instead of setting the way points with the mouse button just press that key and the settings of the waypoint are set according to that template ? I am tired to click maself through all the same menus and options time and again for each and every waypoint.

Each of the tatcical settings for a route define the default layout for speeds and behaviour on that route when adding WPs. But you can - but miust not - manually chnage these settings, both for routes and WPs. Factors to be in fluenced are speeds, behaviour when contact is made, formation.

Also, while at it, after the waypoint have been created, the waypoint should face the mouse cursor(that is if a tactic for it is assigned) so that you can quickely set its direction by simple moving the cursor a bit into the direction you want the position to face to without the need to click on the damn thing again and turn it around, this way you would also avoid to click on the wrong waypoint accidentally when you have several waypoints overlaping in a small area(which annois the crap out of me). With this improvements the time required to set complex paths would shrink to a fraction of what it is now.

The heading of WPs as a m atter of fact can be chnaged, and very easily. You start to become a bit too taste-dependent, eh? I think so,methign was chnaged there now anyhow, I have not tried it yet, but I think you now need to use a key to place a WP. Well, much to be tried out.

Also does the editor have the capeability already to zoom in on the mouse cursor ? Is there a thread somewhere where improvement propositions can be submit to ?

Mouse wheel support now is implemented, but I found it to be extremnely sensitive and do not use it. Maybe hardware-dependent.

eSim board, general forum, seems to be the place you want to look at to post.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/forumdisplay.php?f=3

Just curious since you first said you have reisted to the sim so far, but then said what you cannot do with it's editor. Do you own it and have you played it?

I mean there are already over 400 missions both SP and MP available, and regular MP events and several virtual units. After all, SBP is not an editor in the first, but a sim that begs to be played. The editor - is just a tool.

P.S.
I realise that you probably meant SB1 when referring to your expereinces with the editor? If yo, do yourself a faqvour, and clean your expectaiton logbook and start new, and get SBP, then see what you get in mission play. It does not compare anymore, it just does not compare.

Note that the price only then is 125 $ when you order the full pack with CD and booklet. You can skip the latter two, just get the software via download and dongle, take the manual as included pdf, and skip the CD option also. That way, it is just 100 dollars (74.88 euros at the time I type this). No shipping costs. While you can download and install immediately, and read the manuals, you need to wait for the delivery of the dongle before you can play, though.

[Lieste]

Just to add to that - if you are interested in playing an existing scenario (rather than delving extensively into the editor) then you can head to the SB team-speak channel and ask if anyone can share a license...

It is possible to then use the downloaded software using (temporarily) another users' main or secondary license. Never tried it myself, but I gather it is reasonably common and there are a number of people who do it regularly for others wanting to try before buying...

[Deamon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Maybe you just think it too complex. Too much effort for too little gain.

No i simple want to simulate the more subtle aspects of the battlefield no one else seem to think about, in order to make a more complete and versatile experience. I prefer more asymetrical and non-linear scenarios than the usual move from a to b and take that hill or defend that pass or something like that, something like commanding an air borne battalion dropped behind enemy lines and mess up the resupply routes and try to divert as many enemy forces as possible from the front line to releave your own forces and stuff like that, missions where you do not have a frontline and have to depend a lot on stealth, maneuvering, deception, surprizes and ambushes and also electronic warfare. I would like to try something different than the usual linear hammering of the enemy.

There is demand for insurgency operations, and so some of the things you may thijunk about are on their list for the next or any of the next releases. The turn towards 3D infantry now is the first step in that evolution, also the ability to play infantry ATGMs now. There are also workaround via conditions to make civilian traffic a bit unpredictable in its inention, I seem to remember. There was a thread on that some weeks ago, but I forgot the details, since I was not overly interested in these things.

I read somewhere that infantry squads can now be split into smaller groups ? Is it possible in the latest release to move only one individual in the squad ?

Oh and btw did the possible theatre size increased in SBP ?

Traffic? Well, there are vehicles, civilian ones, even a civilian bus and civilian ambulance now. Ten types all in all, I think. Haven'T played around with them. There are also armed civilian pickups.

So i take from that that i can have neutral traffic in the game then.

Each of the tatcical settings for a route define the default layout for speeds and behaviour on that route when adding WPs. But you can - but miust not - manually chnage these settings, both for routes and WPs. Factors to be in fluenced are speeds, behaviour when contact is made, formation.

I know all that.

The heading of WPs as a m atter of fact can be chnaged, and very easily.

I know all that but my point was to make it even easier and faster. As fast and easy as possible, what is wrong with that ?

You start to become a bit too taste-dependent, eh?

No i just hate bureaucracy, Why should i spend 30 minutes with setting all the waypoints and options if it can be done in 5 minutes instead through simple editor improvements ? Editor ergonomy should fit like a glove, period!

I think so,methign was chnaged there now anyhow, I have not tried it yet, but I think you now need to use a key to place a WP. Well, much to be tried out.

Btw is the manual downloadable somewhere before i order that thing ? I would like to see first what's in there.

Just curious since you first said you have reisted to the sim so far, but then said what you cannot do with it's editor. Do you own it and have you played it?

No i haven't, that is why i am asking you.

I mean there are already over 400 missions both SP and MP available, and regular MP events and several virtual units. After all, SBP is not an editor in the first, but a sim that begs to be played. The editor - is just a tool.

What 400 ? I have to try each of them. Man i can't wait to cross rivers with bridge layers and clear minefields and stuff. I have been waiting for this. Oh btw is it actually possible for the crew of a vehicle to actually disembark and move on foot ? I am tired of loosing my BRDM's just because i took a peek over the hill.

P.S.
I realise that you probably meant SB1 when referring to your expereinces with the editor? If yo, do yourself a faqvour, and clean your expectaiton logbook and start new, and get SBP, then see what you get in mission play. It does not compare anymore, it just does not compare.

So you can guarantee me that red and blufor triggers/events are interlockable in SBP ? Have you actually tried the stuff out that you proposed above in response to my complaints ?

Note that the price only then is 125 $ when you order the full pack with CD and booklet. You can skip the latter two, just get the software via download and dongle, take the manual as included pdf, and skip the CD option also. That way, it is just 100 dollars (74.88 euros at the time I type this). No shipping costs. While you can download and install immediately, and read the manuals, you need to wait for the delivery of the dongle before you can play, though.

I see that i actually confused dollars with euros that eases the shock a littlebit. Thank's for the clarification.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Deamon

No i simple want to simulate the more subtle aspects of the battlefield no one else seem to think about, in order to make a more complete and versatile experience. I prefer more asymetrical and non-linear scenarios than the usual move from a to b and take that hill or defend that pass or something like that

Such scenarios exist - in huge numbers.

something like commanding an air borne battalion

Do you have an idea of the work overload you would suffer as a commander of such a force? SBP can handle batallion, even brigade sized forces, I tried and tested that for sure in 2006, but there is a reason why scenariodesigners do not design scenarios that set a blue batallion against a red brigade. SBP focusses on training the experience on platoon and company level. And competently handling a company already will have you busy. Several companies under your command - not too good an idea.

dropped behind enemy lines and mess up the resupply routes and try to divert as many enemy forces as possible from the front line to releave your own forces and stuff like that, missions where you do not have a frontline and have to depend a lot on stealth, maneuvering, deception, surprizes and ambushes and also electronic warfare. I would like to try something different than the usual linear hammering of the enemy.

SBP focusses on the tactical scale for sure, you talk about the strategic level. Which means you are completely in the wrong department and maybe should focus on something like Conquest of the Aegean, or Battles for the Bulge. SBP is a tactical simulator, no operational or strategic.

I read somewhere that infantry squads can now be split into smaller groups ? Is it possible in the latest release to move only one individual in the squad ?

If he is the only survivor, yes.
Squads can now be loaded by just any transport unit, they are no longer attached to their own PC. Their weapon loadout can be altered, and since longer time they are split into heavy and light sections. There can also be HMG, ATGM and MMG sections of three fighters independet from any squad. I think helicopter transport also is possible now, I am not sure. But I warn you, it is no infantry simulator, the behaviour of infantry still leaves a lot to be desired. They improve it, they have turned to 3D, they want toi improve for the next release in one year - but infantry is not where SBP shines. For infantry, go to ArmA. For mechanised warfare, go to SBP.

Oh and btw did the possible theatre size increased in SBP ?

I think 22x22 km is still the maximum. Which is more than you need for a tactical simulation of tanks.

I know all that but my point was to make it even easier and faster. As fast and easy as possible, what is wrong with that ?

Nothing. Just messes up the ergonmomy of the interface if for every rare detail a separate option gets implemented. It is like a TV remote control with 50 buttons, and one with 20 buttons working via menues - I (and SBP) prefer the latter, for 95% of the time it is more comfortable. It seems nobody misses the options you lined out - I read no comments about these things anywhere in the past 5 years. I think you get lost in too specialised microdetails. Have a taste of what you already have with the sim right now. Play it. You will be surprised how fast you probably forget the things you described. Like I have completely forgotten that there still are no shadows in the world, and that suspension still is not implemented, and maybe never will be. It simply does not matter.

No i just hate bureaucracy, Why should i spend 30 minutes with setting all the waypoints and options if it can be done in 5 minutes instead through simple editor improvements ? Editor ergonomy should fit like a glove, period!

See above. I think you get lost in too many exceptions and sub-specialisations. Try the editor that is there, do a company assaulting a batallion in defence, or defend against a brigade attacking from randomised directions, needing you to shift around your numerically inferior forces to the shifting hotspots of action. You will be busy with many of the scenarios that already are there. You will already be busy with just 1-platoon scenarios. And the specialised effects you demand - can already be acchieved for the most. Just needs a little routine and practice.

Btw is the manual downloadable somewhere before i order that thing ? I would like to see first what's in there.

Try here:
http://www.steelbeasts.com/Downloads/p13_sectionid/257

And the SBP wikipedia:
http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/in...ge#Playtesting

Oh btw is it actually possible for the crew of a vehicle to actually disembark and move on foot ?

Squads yes, crews no. There is also the UGV of the squad, a remote-controlled ground robot that can steer away up to 200 or 300 m.

So you can guarantee me that red and blufor triggers/events are interlockable in SBP ? Have you actually tried the stuff out that you proposed above in response to my complaints ?

I guarantee you nothing, I am only human. Longer time ago I have done missions for my own enjoyment where I defined blue condition, maybe a force entering a zone, I then linked them to a blue I think "event" it is called, and these events can be the variable for events of the other side: red-event true when blueevent true. And then on the red side of things: red action go if red-event true. Timing variables, randomisations per mission and randomisations per call also are possible.

There is a SBP resources thread amongst the stickies at the top of the forum list. There also is a video thread, recommended is escpecially the Brave Rifles Series, and in general the MP-videos by Zipuli. And then there is eSims own youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/eSimGamesDtl#

[Deamon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Such scenarios exist - in huge numbers.

Good! I guess i gotta try it then.

Do you have an idea of the work overload you would suffer as a commander of such a force? SBP can handle batallion, even brigade sized forces, I tried and tested that for sure in 2006, but there is a reason why scenariodesigners do not design scenarios that set a blue batallion against a red brigade. SBP focusses on training the experience on platoon and company level. And competently handling a company already will have you busy. Several companies under your command - not too good an idea.

That totally depends on how you set up a scenario. I made a scenario once where you command a regiment very comfortable. Besides that if i am saying battalion i don't automatically mean micromanaging a battalion simultaniously but rather micromanaging a company while the rest is kept in reserve.

SBP focusses on the tactical scale for sure, you talk about the strategic level. Which means you are completely in the wrong department and maybe should focus on something like Conquest of the Aegean, or Battles for the Bulge. SBP is a tactical simulator, no operational or strategic.

No i am talking about tactical level perhaps with one or two minor strategical elements.

For infantry, go to ArmA. For mechanised warfare, go to SBP.

I want both. This was perhaps one of the reasons why i have resisted for so long cause SBP really lacks in this area, although i could rectify some of the flaws with a creative combination of vehicles and infantry. But there are so many improvements on the tank side of things that i am beginning to considering it anyway.

I think 22x22 km is still the maximum. Which is more than you need for a tactical simulation of tanks.

Is 22 the max per dimension or can i also have 44*11, f.e. ?

Nothing. Just messes up the ergonmomy of the interface if for every rare detail a separate option gets implemented. It is like a TV remote control with 50 buttons, and one with 20 buttons working via menues - I (and SBP) prefer the latter, for 95% of the time it is more comfortable. It seems nobody misses the options you lined out - I read no comments about these things anywhere in the past 5 years. I think you get lost in too specialised microdetails. Have a taste of what you already have with the sim right now. Play it. You will be surprised how fast you probably forget the things you described. Like I have completely forgotten that there still are no shadows in the world, and that suspension still is not implemented, and maybe never will be. It simply does not matter.

You don't seem to be able to comprehend what i am talking about. I haven't said to add 30 more buttons but remove 15 of them. So that you have a remote control with 5 buttons that can do the same trick, much easier and much faster. It is meant to optimize away totally superfluouse overhead of editing waypoints.

See above. I think you get lost in too many exceptions and sub-specialisations. Try the editor that is there, do a company assaulting a batallion in defence, or defend against a brigade attacking from randomised directions, needing you to shift around your numerically inferior forces to the shifting hotspots of action. You will be busy with many of the scenarios that already are there. You will already be busy with just 1-platoon scenarios. And the specialised effects you demand - can already be acchieved for the most. Just needs a little routine and practice.

Well apparently i haven't tried SBP yet, perhaps partially i am beating a dead horse here if there are such improvements already. So we have to see first but besides that i have my own agenda, i have my own reasons why i want to play this game, they are certainly different from yours. You don't need to try to convince me to change my expectations cause they won't change. I am merely checking out how close the latest release got to my expectations, nothing more nothing less.

I guarantee you nothing, I am only human.

Oh, you mean you are actually not sure what you are talking about ?

Longer time ago I have done missions for my own enjoyment where I defined blue condition, maybe a force entering a zone, I then linked them to a blue I think "event" it is called, and these events can be the variable for events of the other side: red-event true when blueevent true. And then on the red side of things: red action go if red-event true. Timing variables, randomisations per mission and randomisations per call also are possible.

Alright, that's what i wanted to know.

There is a SBP resources thread amongst the stickies at the top of the forum list. There also is a video thread, recommended is escpecially the Brave Rifles Series, and in general the MP-videos by Zipuli. And then there is eSims own youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/eSimGamesDtl#

Thanks i know that and as a matter of fact i have like 3,5+GB on videos about SBP and watch them time and again. I watched the brave rifles a dozen times, i know zipuli and all that.

@Lieste:
Thanks but i think the manual would be good enough already.

[Skybird]

The new vehicle park 2.640 (without helicopters shown).





The new infantry models.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Deamon

That totally depends on how you set up a scenario. I made a scenario once where you command a regiment very comfortable. Besides that if i am saying battalion i don't automatically mean micromanaging a battalion simultaniously but rather micromanaging a company while the rest is kept in reserve.

Understand that SBP focusses on gunning and commanding from a TC's place, and commanding that single vehicle, or a platoon. That is where it's major competence lies. Everything else, for example that you can also control a whole batallion or more, is luxury and bonus and not the core of what the key customer - the military - wants.

I want both.

No way. Not with ArmA, not with VBS, not with SBP.

Is 22 the max per dimension or can i also have 44*11, f.e. ?

22 km is the max per dimension. Which by doctrinal ideal provides the front width of more than a division, if I am not mistaken.

You don't seem to be able to comprehend what i am talking about. I haven't said to add 30 more buttons but remove 15 of them. So that you have a remote control with 5 buttons that can do the same trick, much easier and much faster. It is meant to optimize away totally superfluouse overhead of editing waypoints.

It seems both the community and the designers are in disagreement with you there. The first does noit demand what you talk about, the latter does not have it on mind by himself.

Well apparently i haven't tried SBP yet, perhaps partially i am beating a dead horse here if there are such improvements already. So we have to see first but besides that i have my own agenda, i have my own reasons why i want to play this game, they are certainly different from yours. You don't need to try to convince me to change my expectations cause they won't change. I am merely checking out how close the latest release got to my expectations, nothing more nothing less.

Your expecations are your expectations. I just try to tell you what it is that you get. I do not get anything for convincing you of anything.

Oh, you mean you are actually not sure what you are talking about ?

I mean that like everybody else I could make mistakes.

[Deamon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The new vehicle park 2.640 (without helicopters shown).

Ja! Ja! Ja!
Lots of new stuff to set on fire

Understand that SBP focusses on gunning and commanding from a TC's place, and commanding that single vehicle, or a platoon. That is where it's major competence lies. Everything else, for example that you can also control a whole batallion or more, is luxury and bonus and not the core of what the key customer - the military - wants.

I perfactly understand that but i also don't care. I merely hope to get what i want one day.

No way. Not with ArmA, not with VBS, not with SBP.

Oh, btw when i said i want both i didn't meant that SBP should become also a tactic shooter but merely a much more leaborated infantry part that can be controled much better.

Now don't tell me that the military is the actual customer of eSim and that they catter only their demands and that this is a tank simulator in the first place and that my other wishes are not going to happen. Well let me tell you this, there are only so and so much vehicles in the real world and they are still fully occupied to feature them(respectively whatever the military customers request) But apparently this stuff is all featured one day and what then ? Are they just going to shut down the company or what ? No of course not, they will of course expend and eventually return to making games again and introduce more elements to the game of which improvements of the infantry and all the other stuff is the obvious way to go and this is where i hope to finally get what i want.

And besides that i have the gut feel that the military itself will demand a more and more elaborated infantry part. No one says that they will keep using it merely as a tank sim. The use could be expendad also to train infantry commanders and stuff. The trend to use PC sims for military training will of course further increase with time. But on the other hand there are of course purpose designed sims for that like VBS and stuff. So i guess we will have to see.

So, so far i have stayed away from it and just looked them over the shoulder from some distance away, reckoning how close the thing got to my ambitions already.

I feel quite tempted to get into it finally but i just discovered the "Steel Armour" project and i am wondering if it could be the better option for me. Perhaps i should wait till it gets out first. But no, wait, there is the habbit now to equip the games with nasty copy protection systems. Hmm, perhaps the dongle solution of SBP may be the only viable option for me.

I am so desquamated by this new trend that i don't even consider to buy new games anymore. I play only the old stuff once in a while and open source games but besides that i have pretty much abandoned gaming because of that.

22 km is the max per dimension. Which by doctrinal ideal provides the front width of more than a division, if I am not mistaken.

That is certainly the peve that i have with SB. There is no way you could ever run out of fuel on this map so that logistics become an issues suddely. I like scenarios where you have to cross large terrains. BTW you do not need to reply to that, i know what you are going to say now, i am merely thinking loud.

It seems both the community and the designers are in disagreement with you there. The first does noit demand what you talk about, the latter does not have it on mind by himself.

The community isn't in disagreement with me cause i am the community. What the designers agree or disagree with you simple don't know. Only when they get confronted with this idea and reply to that we can see what they really think of that.

That the designers haven't thought about that improvement yet is perhaps because they have a million other things on their mind already and simple never had the opportunity to even think about it.

Your expecations are your expectations. I just try to tell you what it is that you get. I do not get anything for convincing you of anything.

I see, i just get the impression sometimes that you kind of try to persuade me to change into the favour of eSims development policy or something.

I mean that like everybody else I could make mistakes.

Sure thing. But if you are not sure then just say so. But thanks anyway.