[Skybird]

Originally Posted by ReM

You can't be serious Skybird. You say that there is plenty to choose regarding modern tank warfare because SBPPE is available.

I have neither put it that way, nor meant it that way. But i think SBP allows the modelling of many different theatres. the only "real" limitations is the diversity of the vehicle park. However, the fully modelled tanks and IFVs are full packages in themselves. Mind you that the CV9040 came with a manual as thick as that for the rest of the sim.

I know you like it very much (and I do to; awaiting delivery of 2.460 myself), but in all honesty: it is not a game and should not be advertised as being one.

Strange that you accuse me for promoting it as a game when just some time ago I was attacked for comparing it with a game. I am the last to say it is a game developement, it is not. shape and content of the sim is decided by the orders of their military customers. you either like that package and content, or you don't. But a saying in future content you do not really have has a private customer.

I also claim to handle the various titles in this forum neutrally, and equal. For example when setting up the SBP video thread, I also stickied two more for the other tank games, and invited people to contribute to them. If the interest is not there to do so, I cannot help it.

Imagine a tank sim/game like this where you could play the following factions in (dynamic) campaigns.

1) US
2) Iraq
3) Russia
4) UK
5) other NATO/Israel
6) other Warsaw-pact/OPFOR

Nice and well, but are you aware how much of that already can be modelled with what you actually already have? quite some, I would say. Beyond the obvious content, you can make reasonable approximations by using different ammo loadouts. Or my favourite example, repeatedly told now: use Leopard-1s, deactivate laser, lead, turret, thermals, stick to GAS and load older, weaker rounds only. Battles resulting from that beat any WWII tank game there is in realism and hectic. It's a real drama.

And would it make that much a difference for the SBP gameplay if you really would have a Challenger-2 and a Warrior to choose? would it be that terribly different from playing with a Leopard-2 and CV-90 or Pizarro? Differences in detail, but in principle, the mission gameplay would be exactly the same. What would make a difference is comparing a good versus a bad AI, both in micromanagement for the individual unit, and mission handling.

However, although I have sympathy for the concept of dynamic campaigns (ahhhh, Falcon...), you will never have an AI in the forseeable future able to generate a mission plan of as tactical splendour as you get when a human mission designer is developing it. I personally would not want to trade the possible AI surprises I get in SBP for dynamic campaigns anymore. That'S why M1TP2 does not attract me anymore today, no matter how fascinating it was back in it'S time. And you can't get both, you have to emphasize the one or the other: dynmiac mission generating, or better mission AI and better OpFor planning. However, the options for randomising mission setups in SBP can work wonders, if competently used.

Campaigns set in Middle East, hypothetical WWIII in different theaters

There are many (several dozen) digital maps from around the globe which are delivered with the sim. Some of them are so huge that you can play a dozen missions on them without seeing one location twice. More can be created - and are developed by modders right now.

and an easy to use editor/modding tool to keep the game alive for a longer time. Multiplayer gaming as well. Being able to play both sides.....

You can change skins and sounds. That armour models and vehicles cannot be added, I praise them for, for it secures that the armour and weapon values are as close to reality as possible. We do not want the online game being messed up by fantasy uber-tanks. Let'S leave this finetuning to the experts - and many of them are already working for or in close coordination with eSim anyway.

I defended the forbidding of modding core data of a sim already with regard to the soaring simulation of Condor. And I stick to this principle.

Multiplayer is possible. Or more precise: it is said to be a blast! Solid, and intense.

I think they said you can play scenarios from both sides, somehow from the editor, I think. Ask in their main forum, I'm quite confident you can play both sides.

All this to come with state-of-the-art graphics, eye candy and being a little more forgiving than SBPPE.

Haven't you just accused me of saying SBP is a "game", something like that? Although SBP lacks in visual detials any eye candy, it nevertheless creates some of the best visual impressions of a landscape with long viewing distances (4.5 km maximum) on the market today.

That is what I would call a game and that was what i was thinking about while posting. I am sure that new (young) customers would buy it. SBPPE is certainly not a game and should not be mentioned as an option in a discussion like this IMHO. (Sure hope I find the update on my doorstep when I get home after work by the way)

SBP was not planned as a game for game market, nevertheless it can be used like a game, and novices and non-professionals can have (and do have!) as much fun with it as gamers have with any other of their favourite games. the lethality of shot exchanges compares to those to be found in ArmA or Flashpoint (thinking of the infantry exclusively). And there, nobody really complained about that feature, too. As Ssnake ones put it when I asked him: they do not consider the PE version to be a "civil product", it's just that they do not stop the civil public from buying it.

when there was this heavy dispute about Steel Fury, some people very angrily attacked me for making a difference between SF and SBP, saying that I rated SF as a game and SBP as a sim, and that I think SF was a good game but a not convincing sim, for the reasons I listed back then. Now you tell me I see SBP as a game. Makes me feel a bit confused.

I really cannot see your problem here. And I stick to my remark on doubting that M1TP2-equivalents from today necessarily would attract as much attention anymore today than the title did back in it's time. Because the expectations have changed, and much of what caused "Ahhh's!" and "Ohhh's!" back then is seen pretty much as normality today, or general interest, maybe even has shifted in general.

As a conclusion, I still think there is not so much a problem on the tank market. WW2-fans can play the tank game you desire with SF, maybe SF2 in the future, and this wargame the developer is releasing first, check this forum, it is mentioned in one or two threads. Modern tank fans can have gaming fun as well as simulation fun with SBP, and SBP-2 still officially planned for an uncertain time in the distant future. - It could be much worse. For example before Spring 2006 - then there was zero WWII or modern tank sim available that reflected the possibility of modern computergame technology, and people were left stranded with old stuff developed in the 90s.