Your Tanksim Moderator...

[Sledgehammer427]

Just took the next step in his tanksimming experience.
Just a few minutes ago, my order went through for the purchase of none other than...

Steel Beasts Pro PE! :up:

SKYBIRD!!!!

Hilfe :dead:
What should I know getting in? What should I do first other than die...a lot?

[Skybird]

Congrats. 't was about time, wasn't it? :)

Check the version you get, but it probably is up to date.

Check the dongle software version as well.

Both info in the stickied resources (unlock them again, please, btw, I cannot update them right now!).

Follow the advice I have given on several occasions. After examining and satisfying your initial curiosity, chose one tank, and stay with that one for a while. The Leopard-2s are easier to shoot and command with than the Abrams. The Leo-2E is the toughest bug of all the playables with 3D interior, followed by the Strv-122 (or maybe the other way around), if you want some additional protection in the beginning. Challenger-2 is even slightly stronger, but weaker gun and ammo, and no virtual interior. Learn the editor/planner interface from early on. Change scenarios so that they feature that tank you have chosen for the beginning. Do the tutorials for that tank. Start with small units first. Start with small scenarios first. Build from basement to roof - not the other way around. "Platoon Recon" is a great thing to start with, it teaches you so many lessons, is randomised, and can easily be edited in the editor, for using other tanks for example, or change light conditions. Play it repeatedly to correct your mistakes. the "Battle for Byto 1-3" series is also nice, it is not difficult, but outs you into a bigger force to give you the taste of batallion sized assault -but beware, the playable tnak for you is a Leopard-1: agile, but thin-skinned, consider to switch that to the Leo-2A4 in the very early stage of your familiarisation with SBP. Use the AAR, the after action report feature. It's here where you learn the lessons afterwards - during mission, you will often die without knowing why, at least in the beginning. Use the gunner'S auxiliary sight for manual aiming, get used to it. Get used to run firing procedures manually. Once laser and thermals, stabilisation and dynmaic lead are gone, you need to trust in your skills handling these emergency procedures. It will happen - soon enough. ;)


Implement tactical behavior the way you would do it as a real tanker: stay low, overwatch, leave psoitions always in reverse, get mkoving within 90 seconds after you gave away your psition so that arty does not catch you, and so on.

Use the gunnery range you will find in the menu. The score you get influences the performance of your side in general. You need to hit ten moving targets. For a 100% (its definitely possible, don'T become nervous). You must lose not one shot, and must shoot within some seconds after sighting, to acchieve that score. yoi can repeat the test in an attempt to improve your score, or to practice after having had a break. When I had a break form SBP, and return, first thing I do is using the gunnery range to get back into the swing of gunning.

Compare aiming by joystick with aiming by mouse. I use both. If you use a HOTAS, give the command layout some thought, its worth it.

Newcomers tend to focus a lot on two exotic specialities: bridging, and minefield breaching. However, many people ignore that in reality the military tends tpo avoid both, if possible, since it is both very risky and time consuming. SBP is a bit tricky in having bridgelayers work autonomously, one need to spend a lot of care to find the right spot b the river, it is not easy to find them. Minefield brwsching techncially works reliably if the enmy does not interfere. I changed one of their scenarios a bit to illustrate how it idealistically works all by itself, the whole orchestra. I could send that one to you via email attachement. Its no masterpiece of a mission, I did it more as an excercise for myself in how to program that kind of stuff correctly in the edtior. The default demonstration for breaching minefields I found to mess up too often.

And in all modesty I take the freedom to refer again to my Tank Museum scenario, which gives you nice and fast overview of the looks and interiors of all included vehicles per season set.

P.S. Keep your distance from small lakes and rivers, the AI is not reliable in tracking these and tends to drown itself, espeically when setting up battle psoitions near water - keep your distance.

When crossing bridges, keep units separated, do not rush it, make clear, lienar aproaches in column, put waypoints at sufficient distances. You will see what I am about once you have had your first stokcpile of own tanks at a bridge. If you cannot fiddle it out, ask again. Bridges can be corssed by AI formations, and very reliably so, but the AI needs to be supported by - well, some competent waypoint placing. Same for passing through minefields.

The threat of artilley should always be on your mind. Plan ahead accordingly. ICM can - and often will - kill you.

Ignore air units for the beginning. They are a compromise currently.

SPA vehicles are there, but so far behave like tanks a bit, not like artillery, they are "under constuction".Consider them to be placeholders currently.

Infantry needs to get nannied a bit, too. Which can be a bit os a pain. expect to lose them by the high numbers. I personally hate to rely on infantry, and prefer armour-heavy scenarios.

Be advised that while night is there now, dark phases of the day-night-cycle are dealt a bit different with than one would expect from reality, the current handling is making an effect, but not one that is truly realistic, for realistic night vision is also under construction currently. The system currently bases on reduced frequency of detection checks at night, so it is more statistically handled than basing on realistic visual conditions. Anyhow, stay away from night engagements in the beginning. they make it very difficult - especially if you have no thermals. :)

The T-72M1 - must I say it? "Crew it at your own risk".

And finally: if you take fire and see that you survive it, do not feel tempted to think "Oh, they cannot hurt me" and continue sitting there like a duck asking to get roasted - if you swallow more and more shots, sooner or later there comes that one Mr. Shot that is gonna hurt you. When you take fire, it's time to break his visual! Better, do not even give him the opportunity. Expose yourself, shoot, shoot twice maybe, and get into cover again. There is no invulnerability in the SBP world. Even the Challenger, it may be hard to crack it - but it can get cracked. ;) Due to this and the threat of artillery, do not consider static defence an option in most cases - especially not against artillery. Plan ahead in the mission plannign pohase, attach evasive routes to battle positions so that the tansk will autonomously rush out when getting caught by arty. They can be told to autonomously return, or change their positions randomly. That planner/editor interfac eis great. I love it. Easy, and flexible.

[Skybird]

P.S. You need to wait for the dongle for playing, but you can already download and install the sim and then have access to the pdf with the manual.

[frinik]

Skybird raked in another sale...:D

In fact I just mentioned your name this morning on the SF Graviteam.com forum.:yeah:

[Skybird]

Why? I never had any business over there!?

[Sledgehammer427]

Thanks for the pointers, and, apologies Sky, I don't have a constant internet connection to my pc so I usually browse the forum through my cellphone, unfortunately, some of the drop down moderator menus don't work so I will have to tether into my pc for a second to unlock the resources thread.

I'm thinking about trying to become proficient in the Leo-2s and the T-72, even if I'm crewing the latter at my own risk, if its too much I will probably move into either the Challenger or the Abrams instead.

EDIT: Thread Unlocked. Sky, if you want anything deleted out of there let me know in PM

[Skybird]

The T-72 is the most difficult vehicle to play, imo. I would avoid it in the beginning. The fire control is more according to WWII than to even the Leopard-1.

The Challenger is... well, the FCS is very - British, with a Playstation controller as gunner's grip. :D . Tough armour, though, but weaker gun/ammo than the L44 or L55. Note that eSim claims to have modelled that correctly according to the publicly available numbers - its just that people expected it to be a tougher gunner. But so far, with the debate on that going on and on, nobody was able to come up with data supporting that expectation.

The two crewable Abrams either have a 105mm, or the L44 but still no periscope for the TC. Gunner must manually confirm ammo loading, a step that is skipped in the Leos. GPS works slightly different with the optics shifting when adding lead - the Leos do not do that, instead confirm lead by a simple red light. Best uran SABOT for Abrams, third generation is rated with 850 mm RAH , versus 840 mm RAH for latest tungsten sabot for the Leo-2s. i think this summarises the major differences in the sim. Of course, the vehicles have different armour layouts as well, with small advantages for the Leopards. The tougher armoured Abrams A2SEP is not yet crewable.

Currently the only Russian MBT with thermals is the Czechs' upgraded T-72M4 - not the T80.

[Skybird]

EDIT: Thread Unlocked. Sky, if you want anything deleted out of there let me know in PM
Maybe just separating the first posting with the essential info from the following postings with pics, dialogues, and the angry ending. So that the information resources just become again what they should have been, and once indeed were - information resources.

[frinik]

Why? I never had any business over there!?

I know.It's just that we started an off topic thread about Steel Beasts as a guy was asking whether it's worth the price and 2 of us finally convinced him to buy it and I made a comment about inviting you over to make a sales pitch for SB!

[Skybird]

:)
.
.
.

[Sledgehammer427]

so I went through some of the literature after downloading and installing and I'm blown away. I'm going to staples tonight to visit my girlfriend and print the Tacsop manual. seems like something id want on hand. makes good bedtime reading

[Skybird]

Last time I checked they had FM field manuals and more tactical documents in their download section. Asking in the forum also can link you to guys being in the knowledge and owning such material. I remember that several of them posted digital copies of this and that.

Edit:
http://www.steelbeasts.com/Downloads/p13_sectionid/19
18 Army FMs, 8 Marines FMs, 39 Russian manuals. Sleep well. ;)

[Sledgehammer427]

I got the dongle in the mail last Thursday , been playing the game every chance I got since then.
Sky, I have a gunnery score of 90, which I got in the Leo 2A5, in the T-72, which I naturally gravitated towards, I score in the mid-high 60s. working on my lead a little bit more. the Challenger and I perform well, but other than that I haven't touched the APC's really.

I have trouble with the M1A1 simply because the way the sight kicks when you lase. I can perform a lase and blaze pretty well because its difficult for me to track with that sight setup. I tend to bump and if you mix a faraway PC with a heat round and that PC is going as fast as it can, I rarely score a first shot hit.

[Skybird]

I got the dongle in the mail last Thursday , been playing the game every chance I got since then.
Sky, I have a gunnery score of 90, which I got in the Leo 2A5, in the T-72, which I naturally gravitated towards, I score in the mid-high 60s. working on my lead a little bit more. the Challenger and I perform well, but other than that I haven't touched the APC's really.

I have trouble with the M1A1 simply because the way the sight kicks when you lase. I can perform a lase and blaze pretty well because its difficult for me to track with that sight setup. I tend to bump and if you mix a faraway PC with a heat round and that PC is going as fast as it can, I rarely score a first shot hit.
Yes, the M1's sight behaves a bit weired to indicate that lead is added. I always wondered why they did it this way, it almopst provokes the gunner by reflex to move the gun to compensate although it is not necessary. It is very contra-intuitive.

If I recall correctly, the LAV also has some strangeness attached. When target is lased , the whole sight jumps upward and the crosshairs drop to the very bottom of the monitor, reducing your vision to the target significantly.

I never understood the reasoning behind these designs, both the M1 and LAV. But okay, I prefer the Leos and CVs anyway. There things are nicely straight and linear - point, lase, boom, next. That's how it should be, me thinks. Keep it simple, you egineers!

[Lieste]

You are supposed to laze-n-blaze, track the centre of mass with the stationary reticle and then lase pausing only long enough to confirm good range input and correct indexing of round and then fire. A clean lase is one without the bar over the returned range, and it must also be at a range that reasonably matches your expected combat range from map locations and apparent target size (which is something you get a feel for after a few weeks).

Once you have made the first shot you are supposed to release the palm switch, and then re-apply it to engage the next target, or to re-engage the current one.

Done like this the behaviour is really very close to the Leopard, except the sight background is offset with the gun tube, rather than fixed to the central reticle - problems with chasing the reticle are only an issue while it is floating, which should be rarely/never when scanning.

While firing keep a steady tracking rate and don't flinch - unless the target motion is changing extremely small errors in tracking rate won't hurt the shot, but large changes in rate to correct small errors in position will be problematic at all except very close ranges. The same applies to the Leopard type FCS input.

The main advantage of the M1/M1A1 method is that you have experience of the offset the FCS is actually applying to various situations - this is important to perform well with a failed stabilisation or FCS, and with the 'hidden' solutions of the Leopard or M1A2 this is a task that must be learnt/taught separately.

[Sledgehammer427]

lieste, I found that if I don't even give the gun a chance as in "lase-fire" instead of 'lase-track-fire" I get hits more often. right after the TC calls target I palm switch, low mag and scan.
when the TC or I spot a target I switch to high mag, track, lase-fire. if I miss, palm switch, repeat.

as for tracking while the reticule is floating, I need to work on the settings for my joystick, for most of the time I'm tracking too fast or too slow. I end up "bumping " which causes a lot of my HEAT shots to go astray. me and sabot rounds are like peas and carrots.

[Skybird]

It is good practice to set the combat sight/GAS before battle begins to the distance to be expected by the map, or to set it at 1200-1800m. SABOTs have not that steep a flightpath than HEAT, and when I preset mostly 1500m, I use to fire at targets heading at me without lasing and leading at all. I may set the laser at that distance, too, before battle begins, and maybe will not ladse again any target as long as sights tell me (by experience) that they are rpoughly in the "envelope range" of 1500-2000 m. I often lase only at targets at greater distances, or if they are not staitonary or move not directly at my position or away from it. I also tend to prefer SABOT-heavy loadouts in my tanks, too, like the Germans prefer for their Leopards in reality as well.

Getting off one's own shot first definitely is an advantage. :)

In defensive position, I also often use the GAS as default, too, it gives me a more reliable visual estimation of whether the gun really can clear any terrain - like the rim of my own cover. The doghouse on top of the turret may clear an obstacle that the lower positioned gun does not. Plus it keeps you in training regarding using GAS. :D

Heck, I am, for some reason, do not play it that often anymore currently, but Yessir, I still love it.

[Sledgehammer427]

I believe the Russians go mostly HE. been that way since WWII . the 125mm is a pretty wicked gun, I can usually take out an Abrams in 2-3 shots. the first shot typically gets the engine because of my terrible leading. but after that its simply pounding away until the TC calls cease fire.

[Skybird]

Refleks shots? Those little buggars are a PITA and can kill on first bite, yes.

Otherwise, I think below a certain criticle range ANY tank gun and Sabot becomes an overkiller at any tank and aspect. I hate to engage at ranges below 2000m. I have not made a statistic on it, but I think I try to manouver that way that most of my firefights are at a distance of 2500-3500m. That gives me a superiority in punch, and maximises their disadvantage in tank guns' punch and precision. At 3000m or so they also do not use Refleks, I would assume. Or only rarely. So: try to fight them at greater range, and try to let the range not become so great that they start switching to Refleks.

Try flanking them. Exchanging greetings with a T-72M4 or T-80 frontally on simply is no good idea. They may not be as strong as your Western tank, but they are still no weak bugs head on.

Do not rely on your supposed better armour. When they start getting hits on you - at this time at the latest its time to shift position, I would do it, if situation permits, already when their rounds start digging up the dirt in front of me, for it means they have a lock on me. Stay out of sight, or get back into cover. Break their visual.

Simply: Do not get hit. :DL There is always the chance of that lucky strike, that single round that by chance finds the soft spot in your armour.

Engage with numerical superiority in firepower, where possible. Do not overstretch. Stay in compact formations. I try to avoid thin lines even at the price of allowing gaps in them. I counter that, when possible, by aggressive manouvering, and holding back a tactical reserve as fire brigade. Thin lines is what I rweally hate, and engaging them on a 1:1 basis. It means for every shot of mine they get off a sdhot fo theirs. But having more visuals on one and the same target means that for every shot he lets off, I land two or three or four on him.

At least that is the theory. :D :know:

Static defence is a monument for the stupidity of man -> Patton, I think. So: stay mobile.

[Sledgehammer427]

I believe a famous general said something along the line of
"Klotzen, Nicht Kleckern!"
:D

[Skybird]

You said you have special interest in the Chally, yes?! Check eSim'S screenshot thread in the main forum there, on the last two pages (currently), they have some shots of a separate British desert skin for it which makes it look very good, and there is a partner-skin for the Pizarro IFV making it look like a brohter-in-skin to the C2, you can use the Pizarro as replacement for the (not included) Warrior.

Nice teamup. even more when considering that the brits are using this ASCOD Ulan as heir basis for their own version, the ASCOD SV, too. That'S what makes this IFV the natural companion of the Challenger 2

http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p97/daskal_SB/4-19.jpg

http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p97/daskal_SB/3-32.jpg

Shots by Daskal

[Oberon]

Very nice indeed. I'm mulling over this one, I keep rewatching the Brave Warriors series, I think this is as close to a Cold War Fulda Gap tank-sim that is available and will be available for the near future.

I've tooled around in M1 Tank Platoon II a bit, and usually wound up with my hull in one field and my turret in the other. Artillery is a swine, that much I have had ingrained into me.

How good are the tutorials? I would probably slot into the M1A1 as I'm used to Abrams (Hope they do a 3D interior of the Challie one day though).

[Skybird]

Very nice indeed. I'm mulling over this one, I keep rewatching the Brave Warriors series, I think this is as close to a Cold War Fulda Gap tank-sim that is available and will be available for the near future.

I've tooled around in M1 Tank Platoon II a bit, and usually wound up with my hull in one field and my turret in the other. Artillery is a swine, that much I have had ingrained into me.

How good are the tutorials? I would probably slot into the M1A1 as I'm used to Abrams (Hope they do a 3D interior of the Challie one day though).
Ah, another one of the big old names of Subsim moving over! :salute:

Do not compare this to M1TP2. It does not compare, they are lightyears apart.

Good that you already learned that artillery is a swine. In SBP, if you do not respect it, it will brutalise you. What did Patton say? "Static defences are monuments to the stupidity of man." Good advise is to always get moving again after some shots fired. The enemy artillery's reaction time can be as low as I think 80 seconds. Lieste maybe has the precise value.

Most of the major vehicles - including the M1 - have tutorials that focus on several key aspects of each station. For the gunner, not only normal operations but also emergency operation are covered (using the secondary sights). The TC introduces sight override, TC fire, and unit command. Plus lessons on how to use artillery, move with overwatch tactics and so forth. Basically you get spoken through all things needed, since originally many vehicles had no written manuals (meanwhile, the major players in the car park have).

Handling and operating the tanks is not that difficult, at best gunnery needs practice, especially if EMES and the other hightech gizzmos went to bed early. Gunnery without auto-lead, laser range finders and thermal imagers can be a sweat-pumping, hair-raising affair. If you tend to curse, send out the wife before start playing.

The system-depth is not such a complex issue as with Falcon 4 or DCS A-10, for example. The avionics of fighters and tanks just do not compare. You get rolling sooner in a tank, than you get flying in a plane. The challenge of SBP comes from tactics, using the terrain, and timing.

If you have questions, ask. I'll be happy to be your obedient servant. :D SBP has seen some nice additions in recent two releases, playable forward observers (both vehicles with long range optics and crawling infantrymen) to use to sneak on the enemy and call artillery down on him. Playable infantry missile launchers. Playable infantry MGs. Playable UAVs and UGVs. It'S a good time to join.

Just for the record: no airplanes currently, and helicopters are a compromise. Infantry is a construction site currently, it sometimes is useful, sometimes not. Improved infantry AI is annoiucned for next upgrade end of this year. The focus of SBP is mechanised forces, tanks, IFVs, this is where its full competence lies.

[Oberon]

What I think I will do is take up the very kind offer of Seans to try a demo, I've got (at the moment) five days off coming up next week so that seems a good as time as any to give it a bash.

How streamlined is the GUI for commanding the rest of your platoon/company?

[Skybird]

What I think I will do is take up the very kind offer of Seans to try a demo, I've got (at the moment) five days off coming up next week so that seems a good as time as any to give it a bash.

How streamlined is the GUI for commanding the rest of your platoon/company?

I could not imagine how to do it any better.

If oyu have a HOTAS form lfightsimmng, use it to map commands to the many buttons. But you can perfectly play with just keyboard and mouse as well. I use mouse and stick for gunnery, parallel to each other.

On your own platoon, you have commands for formation controls, movement and speed controls, finding battle positions, hold and open fire. Have them on your HOTAS, and you can control your unit blindly.

The map screen allows route-planning while being in mission. The itnerfce is very much the same like the mission editor, and the pre-mission planning screen. Embarkment on routes, moving to and from positions, typical reaciton to spotting enemies, is triggered via Boolean variables. The operator screen is always the same, and once you understood the principle behind
it you will see why I think this missions editor is one of the vewry best out there. It is simple, ergonomic, but allows very flexible, elegant, complex orchestration of forces.

I always recommend to take care for the editor from the first day on. It adds to your mission planning, you learn to pout your head into the terrain, and finally you can quickly chnage all scenarios that for example feature Leopards, into ones with Abrams, if that is what you prefer.

Also, like in reality, a good mission sees you spending good ammount of time in planning before you jump into the mission. A tip: if you preset any battleposition beforee mission play, don'T leave it to just these BPs alone, but already now attach withdraw routes to them, linked to a condition of "artillery fire" or "enemy unit fire" = true. That way your buddies will try to evade at high speed if they get caught by surprises.

You can also set advance orutes from these BPs (or withdraw routes), that get activated after a time limit you set. "If this unit sees enemy, embark on route 50 seconds later". That way, artillery will not catch you.

Start small, platoon only. When you get to the stage of company command, other platoons are copmmanded by either jumping into their vehicles and play them (if mission allows that), or directing them via the map.

It is possible to play the sim like a map-centgred wargame. Forces can be very huge, if you want. I tested it in 2006, with two forces of brigade+ - size firing at each other. That was a very extreme example, and no plan attached, I just wanted to see frames any playability. The sim handled it. On a Pentium-4.

But it is tough to handle forces bigger than company yourself. Consider platoon-level the major focus of interest, and company very well managable. But you will soon suffer from work overload, for example regarding ammo-management and rearming.

If you ever run big scenarios, consider some easing of realism actually helping to increase realism. On rare occaisons, the AI gets somewhat locked at firing at a well-dug-in enemy, and it empties its complete loadout of shells into the ground covering the enemy. That is unrealistic, and it also is unrealsiric that a company commander in the midst of battle asks every single vehicle every 90 seconds if he should pull them out so that they cold rearm. In rlaity, I assume vehicle commanders make themselves heared by themselves if they run low on ammo, and they certainloy do not fire their load of 40 SAVBOT and HEAT onto one single foxhole within just 3 minutes, and then stay emty where they are. Ease the realism: if playing big formations, use infinite ammo loadouts. Such events like described then can no longer ruin your battleplan. You can order the vehicles to reload positions nevertheless, if you want that.

In small-scale battles (small units, only 1 platoon) it is worthwhile to stay with finite ammo loadouts. The Leopards need to turn their gun to 5-o'clock position in order to reload the ready-rack from the hull-storage. Since that exposed the turret'S neck to the front, it needs some consideration when to reload, and where. You also need to stay aware of how many shots you have left in the ready rack. Some tanks and IFVs are very low on rounds ready to fire.

Check the many pdfs in the manuals folder once the sim is installed. Several vehicles have their own dedicated manuals, the CV-9040s for example.