confirmed feature list for the next SBP upgrade

[Deamon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Uhh. Does that mean you cannot gun them down then, when they fire from the window ?

You can. Sniper them. Grenade them. Missile them. MG them. Cannon them. Artillerize them. Roll into that house and crush it to flatten pieces. Whatever you pleases. You just need to know they are there without loosing tanks first.

But they stay invisible in the window, just the muzzle flash. So do they hide behind the walls actually or do I simple have to shoot at windows and score a hit every time, when I know there is someone in there ?

Is that true that in SB2 the maps will be smaller again ?

No details on SB2 yet. There were some hot debates in recent days about the price model and delivery model for future upgrades that will no onger differ between patches (=repairing old stuff) and addons (=adding new content). eSim made it clear in words that if they cannot sell that ddon to the community and the latter rjecting to accept the model, they must conclude they will no longer have a civilian market. While I am pretty much sure that SBP-PE will con tinue to be worked on for the next couple of years, I am no longer 100% certain there will ever be an SB2. But this is my personal conclusions, and in no way is backed by eSim. But SB2 is several years away, of this I'm sure. Their developement ressources are very stretched already.

That's how it goes.

You have false expecations here and thus must necessarily become dissappointed, probably.

No, all I want are MUCH bigger maps, leave the rest to me.

Also, take into account there is no save game function. Having people to play 6 or 8 hours in a row is not funny.

You can leave this to me too

Their custimers, which is the military (the civilian version did not really sell as well as expected, I have the impression), wnated helicopters as flying targets for the gunners to train aiming at fast moving targets, and now, since the australians do use SBP on small and medium level wargaming, they also wanted an airborn observation platform. It is there, therefore, but the crew positions are absolutely rudimentary, Esim said. This will never turn into a tank AND flightsim, it will always remain a mechanized warfare sim on vehicle, platoon and company level, being best in tank stuff, with some infantry stuff, and even less helicopter stuff. expect much more, and you're likely to become dissapointed. also, if you add fideltity flight components, there is a rat's tail of additonal demands that need to be implemnted, like SAM units, radar (a whole new abyss of must-be-dones), and thehn think about the complexity of bubbles in Falcon 4. It is too much. They are not as well-staffed like a big game studio.

Not necessarily. Some AA units would do it too. There is always some inballance somewhere and it is up to the mission designer then how many of them he wants to take in to get the ballance he wants to have.

After that, military demands, military demands, and more military demands. Go figure.

Ok I figure they will build in whatever some military want to have in there. So when some of the military would suddenly want to have a copter sim so that their tankers can train together with their gun ship pilots then they would implement a copter sim too ? :hmm:

I wouldn't mind. But yes, it is certainly better to not expect anything.

That's what I would use them for. Some beaten formations that managed to sneak through and no tanks can catch up with them again fast enough, that's where a gang of gunships would come in handy and that is what I would want to have a really big map. Paratroops or air cavalery could be fun too to intercept breaked through formations. :hmm:

All that dropping stuff can be arranged in the editor.

1. Too combersome
2. To inflexible. I want that chenook to pick up squad X at point A and drop them at point B. But let me guess: I have to high expectations

I always have to high expectations. I always was like this. This is what drives my own development.

But I still have one hell of a fun with SB1.

Why not giving SBP a try then. If someone already likes SB1, there is no chance that SBP will be considered as wasted money.

1. Lack money a big time.
2. I still would by it but...
3. I don't want to be tempted to play instead of spend my time with my own development, so i don't get it intentionally.:p At least not now and probably not in the near future. But that I will get it someday is a sure thing.

My skills much improved. This came me very handy even In OFP tank operations too.

I am absolutely unforgiving about comparing SBP with the jumping rubber tanks in OFP!

No, I mean this compaison tactically. I got owned so often in flashpoint but after playing SB for a while, I mobed the floor with my enemies. In flashpoint I was used to focus on the near environment, like the next bushes and tree lines but Steal Beasts thought me to think big. That did the trick

[Skybird]

But they stay invisible in the window, just the muzzle flash. So do they hide behind the walls actually or do I simple have to shoot at windows and score a hit every time, when I know there is someone in there ?

If your callibre is big enough, and your type of round is dedicated enough - does it matter...? But you can gun them down with small arms fire, too, just aiming at the muzzle flashes becomes more crucial.


Not necessarily. Some AA units would do it too.

You are wrong there. even if you throw in just a single Gepard, a whole new bunch of concepts, LOS calculations, models for new sensors, damage models, AI routines would be needed, not to mention models for the Gepard, damage modelling to itself, AI logic, and so much more. They once commented on it. It means opening Pandora's box. It also means to have appropriate flight models capable of doing pop-up-and-hide tactics for the choppers if they should have a chance to survive. It's actually a very, very big tsk you are asking for. In the far away future - well, maybe, who knows - but in the forseeable future: no.


Ok I figure they will build in whatever some military want to have in there. So when some of the military would suddenly want to have a copter sim so that their tankers can train together with their gun ship pilots then they would implement a copter sim too ?

Such training obviously has not been demanded by anyone so far. Like the military does not want a jeep that can drive under the ocean, they do not expect SBP to be more than it is - a tank-centred simulation that touches some side aspects as well - not more. Tank crews do not care about getting introduced to the basics of gunship flying.


To inflexible. I want that chenook to pick up squad X at point A and drop them at point B.

I want that too, and much else as well. What a small team can actually manage to deliver, is somethign different. For the time being, you can work around it via the editor.

[Deamon]

Not necessarily. Some AA units would do it too.

You are wrong there. even if you throw in just a single Gepard, a whole new bunch of concepts, LOS calculations, models for new sensors, damage models, AI routines would be needed, not to mention models for the Gepard, damage modelling to itself, AI logic, and so much more. They once commented on it. It means opening Pandora's box. It also means to have appropriate flight models capable of doing pop-up-and-hide tactics for the choppers if they should have a chance to survive. It's actually a very, very big tsk you are asking for. In the far away future - well, maybe, who knows - but in the forseeable future: no.

Can the AI vehicles shoot them down ?

Tank crews do not care about getting introduced to the basics of gunship flying.

I was erffering to pilots actually but never mind.

To inflexible. I want that chenook to pick up squad X at point A and drop them at point B.

I want that too, and much else as well. What a small team can actually manage to deliver, is somethign different. For the time being, you can work around it via the editor.

The possibility to carry troops in a vehicle is in the game already. It just need to be applied on the choppers, with some modifications maybe. Don't see a big problem here.

btw, did the M1A2 made it into SBPE finally ?

And any news whether the Leo2A6, with its killer gun will float up in the near future ? I could need a bigger punch against that pesky T-80 in a frontal confrontation.

Hey do I see here that the new german IFV is in the game already ? What was its name again, Panther ?

[Skybird]

Can the AI vehicles shoot them down ?

Too easily, yes. That'S becasue helicopters in all regards are dramatically simplified. They are not the focus of this sim. I find it strange that they are included at all.


I was erffering to pilots actually but never mind.

It is no flight simulator and lacks all characteristics to be that, so nobody cares for SBP being a tool to train pilots.


The possibility to carry troops in a vehicle is in the game already. It just need to be applied on the choppers, with some modifications maybe. Don't see a big problem here.

Tell them. Big problem is: time. Lots of stuff they have on the ready, but lack the time to implement it, becasue it also would mean to throughly test it in a multitude of different situation contexts.


btw, did the M1A2 made it into SBPE finally ?

No military customer asked for it so far, which makes me wondering, but they may have other demands for that sim than we civilian players do have. I would like to see a better Abrams myself, too - preferred to a T72. SA in the Abrams is no competitor for the SA you have in any the Leopards, both one and two.


And any news whether the Leo2A6, with its killer gun will float up in the near future ? I could need a bigger punch against that pesky T-80 in a frontal confrontation.

You mean the longer gun used in the experimental Leo2A6, and higher? Not even a whisper on that. The current 120mm already is devastating enough, btw, especially with the latest DM55 round. It is almost unfair a round. the difference between american uranium and Germn tungsten round in terms of penetration capability by far is not as huge anymore as it once has been. The German roundas are the reference for non-uranium rounds anyway, and at short and medium ranges are as lethal as the american rounds. The American round only has an advantage of maintaining the assured penetration capacity over a slighty greater range, but we talk ranges probably in excess of 2500-3000m here. Both nations could deliver precise fire with their 120mm over 4000m. russian non-missile ammo is listed in the sim as having a maximum range of 3300m. Beyond that, they need to use their cannon-fired mini missiles, with ranges of up to 5000m. - Well, at least that is what the sim lists as technical data being used ingame. The difference between latest uranium and latest Tungsten ammunition it lists to be just 10 mm additional penetration capacity (being in the range beyond 800mm anyway). As i said, the uranium ammo is capable to remain penetrative over a slighty greater distance only.


Hey do I see here that the new german IFV is in the game already ? What was its name again, Panther ?

No German IFV. An armoured Australian truck called Bushmaster is ready, it compares to the German dingo. Also, the Spanish Pizarro is done. both vehicles so far have not passed the analysis cycle of their military customers and thus still wait to be included in an addon release. the last addon saw the Swedish CV9040 family of IFVs, and nthe Strv-122, which is a swedish improvement of the Leo-2A5 (better roof armour and mine protection, different design of aiming crosshairs, magnification switch for daylight optics as well).

[Deamon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Can the AI vehicles shoot them down ?

Too easily, yes. That'S becasue helicopters in all regards are dramatically simplified. They are not the focus of this sim. I find it strange that they are included at all.

I guess AA units are then superfluous anyway

The possibility to carry troops in a vehicle is in the game already. It just need to be applied on the choppers, with some modifications maybe. Don't see a big problem here.

Tell them. Big problem is: time. Lots of stuff they have on the ready, but lack the time to implement it, becasue it also would mean to throughly test it in a multitude of different situation contexts.

I fugure that. But 2009 then maybe.

btw, did the M1A2 made it into SBPE finally ?

No military customer asked for it so far, which makes me wondering, but they may have other demands for that sim than we civilian players do have.

Do the US use it too for their tankers ?

I would like to see a better Abrams myself, too - preferred to a T72. SA in the Abrams is no competitor for the SA you have in any the Leopards, both one and two.

SA ?

You mean the longer gun used in the experimental Leo2A6, and higher?

Yes. The canadiens introduce the Leo2A6m already with the new killer gun.

The current 120mm already is devastating enough,

Didn't have this impression in SB1. Can hardly crack the T-72 and T-80 over larger distances from the front side. Even with an M1A1, had a hard time to kill T-80 from the front side over somedistance from the front side.

btw, especially with the latest DM55 round.

How late is it actually ?

It is almost unfair a round. the difference between american uranium and Germn tungsten round in terms of penetration capability by far is not as huge anymore as it once has been. The German roundas are the reference for non-uranium rounds anyway, and at short and medium ranges are as lethal as the american rounds. The American round only has an advantage of maintaining the assured penetration capacity over a slighty greater range, but we talk ranges probably in excess of 2500-3000m here. Both nations could deliver precise fire with their 120mm over 4000m. russian non-missile ammo is listed in the sim as having a maximum range of 3300m. Beyond that, they need to use their cannon-fired mini missiles, with ranges of up to 5000m. - Well, at least that is what the sim lists as technical data being used ingame. The difference between latest uranium and latest Tungsten ammunition it lists to be just 10 mm additional penetration capacity (being in the range beyond 800mm anyway). As i said, the uranium ammo is capable to remain penetrative over a slighty greater distance only.

Does the DM55 also have some incendiary qualities like the uranium round ?

Hey do I see here that the new german IFV is in the game already ? What was its name again, Panther ?

No German IFV.

Ehh, did i said IFV ? I meant APC. That new german one. I think it was in that moving engagement movie.

[Skybird]

Do the US use it too for their tankers ?

No.


SA ?

Situational awareness.


Yes. The canadiens introduce the Leo2A6m already with the new killer gun.

They are leased from Germany, for use in Afghanistan.



Didn't have this impression in SB1. Can hardly crack the T-72 and T-80 over larger distances from the front side. Even with an M1A1, had a hard time to kill T-80 from the front side over somedistance from the front side.

Depending on distance and impact point, it can take several shots, yes. T80 are tough nuts. Overkill capacity you can only guarantee at short distances. That's why althiough the 120mm can precisely shot at 4000+ meters, preferred combat range is much closer - what is medium range for the 120mm, is long range for the russian cannons, so in this distance segment, the Wetsern equipement has probably a slightly superior chance to kill it's oppoinent, than the russian gear has. Beyond that range, the Russian heavy armour makes it difficult to kill it quickly, below that range, Russian cannons becomes as lethal as the Western system.

Do not expect that every shot at a T80 means "tank destroyed". there would be no constant developement in cannons and rounds if it would be so easy.


How late is it actually ?

Some years only. Doin't know the number withoiut looking for it. Actually it has not been fielded in large quantities so far, that new it is. Phasing old ammunition out and new ammuntiion into service actually takes years.


Does the DM55 also have some incendiary qualities like the uranium round ?

Don't know for sure, but I assume it. Kinetic ammunition almost always enters the inside of the tank as some kind of burning gas only, due to the immense friction heat when penetrating the armour. But I am not a specialist. Maybe Bradclark knows this, if he reads here.


Ehh, did i said IFV ? I meant APC. That new german one. I think it was in that moving engagement movie.

Vielleicht steh' ich auf dem Schlauch - but I do not know what you talk about. the sim so far has the Marder 1A3 for Germany, but they are not crewable, and a variety of M113s. Aslavs are not in use in Germany, and Piranhas are in Dutch service.

[Deamon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Do the US use it too for their tankers ?

No.

That would explain why it is not present

SA ?

Situational awareness.

Would it have more of it than the Leo2A6 ?

Yes. The canadiens introduce the Leo2A6m already with the new killer gun.

They are leased from Germany, for use in Afghanistan.

Leased ?

Ehh, did i said IFV ? I meant APC. That new german one. I think it was in that moving engagement movie.

Vielleicht steh' ich auf dem Schlauch - but I do not know what you talk about. the sim so far has the Marder 1A3 for Germany, but they are not crewable, and a variety of M113s. Aslavs are not in use in Germany, and Piranhas are in Dutch service.

I am talking about this one here:

Look in 3:06

or here in 5:41:


Could it be eventually the marder 3 ?

I am talking about this one here btw: http://www.freundeskreis-panzergrena...sut_200410.pdf
http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/bw_spz_3_puma-a.htm

The Puma. But it seems to be much smaller than that one in the SB movie. So could it be the marder 3 or something ? Or is this something from scandinavia ?

BTW is the fennek or at least the Luchs in there ?