Steel Fury demo - a "preview"

[Skybird]

All the new activity because of the new two tank sims has made me a bit jittery, and so I did what usually I do not use to do: playing a demo, even more so: playing a demo not from CD, but downloading it. After the brakes have been slammed in regarding TvT’s problems with MP, and some other issues, and earlier words that maybe Steel Fury may be the more sim-heavy game of the two, I decided for the latter. And of course, I cannot escape to compare it a bit to the current benchmark in tank simulations, SBP-PE.

This is not meant to be an official review, but a highly subjective descpriton of my very personal first impressions. Please do not try to turn this into a counter-argument to Neal's review of TvT. Im am focussing on the SF demo here, and a bit SBP, not on Neal's review.

Installation of the demo went smooth, and left me even with a 5-pages pdf listing the keyboard commands, of which there are 99, and done in - if I may note that - funny English. Switching on the lights becomes “inclusion of the illumination”, “place of the charging” means “loader’s position”, there is an “automatic box of transfers”, but what an “arrow gunner” or “undercalibre a shell” should mean, I still need to find out. I was using the dedicated English demo, so what we see here is a first hint at how they approach their expected English-speaking custom-ers, and obviously they forgot to make sure the needed care is going into that aspect of a producer’s job regarding marketing. It’s nothing major, but a first small negative score. A more serious issue it becomes if they do not manage to find a better translator for the documentation in the final release, and the support forum.

I happily learned that my old system: P4 3 GHz, 2GB RAM, AGP 7800GS (256 MB), was evaluated to allow me to run the sim with maximum graphic settings at 1024x768. I became daring by that message and increased the resolution to 1280x960 at 72 Hz. The result were frame rates that were almost smooth, but not completely, but were absolutely playable. I assume I would have had fluid frames at 1024 resolution.
The graphics of the tank’s outside looked very good, there is a feel of massive, solid cast iron, and good visual detail, even of the uneven surface. The interior of the T-34 is very dark, but 3dimensional for the stations of gunner, commander, driver, MG gunner, Via mouse you can turn the head, but not unlimited, you get an impression of how tight and cramped it is inside – no comfortable place to be. View is constantly shaking when the tank moves. There was no TrackIR support (I tried with activated hardware).

The landscape looks nice, with grass and flowers, rolling hills, and trees, really a sight to see, with much detail, however, vegetation and colour selection in this mission that comes with the demo appears to be limited in diversity and change, maybe that is different with the main game where you get different weather and time of day (and night). I did not see the great viewing ranges I am used to from SBP. Maybe that is because of the topography of the map in the demo, but it could also be limitations of the engine. I found orientation in the 3D-environment a bit more difficult than in SBP, because of the lacking change of how the vegetation looked – although what was to be seen in vegetation, taken for itself was presented with more details.

Sound is a mixed bag. You have loud weapon sounds that are okay, but the engine and track sounds do not convince. The constant yelling of the TC, who always calls the same Russian words, quickly became annoying, and from youtube videos where I heard his German counterpart I must say that the commands are extremely generic, with much room for improvement. For the time being I wish one could switch them off in battle. There is plenty of bird chirping, and these are really battle-hardened birds, they even keep on chirping with tank guns going loose right under their tree. While things are loud, accoustic signature more confuses than helps you to keep situational awareness of events, directions, and distances. And all the time the birds keep chirping away as if their spring knows no ending.

Driving the tank via WASD-keys was easy, and illustrated common sense in fundamental physics, like the tank slowing down when climbing a hill. However, commanding it from TC’s position, felt – well, “toy-like”. I miss the feeling of commanding something big and heavy, something massive and solid-made. It’s a matchbox tank I am sitting in, the sense of immersion for me simply does not create a spark of ignition.

The keyboard commands are sub-optimally arranged, I found it difficult to see system and easy-to-memorize arrangement in them, and some things, like how to man the actual station you are already watching at, are also not solved in an ideal way. The ergonomy of keyboard commands needed could be improved. The sub-optimal English translation did not make it any easier. The way SBP presents sdtations and access to substations, is clearly superior by fopcussing on the important, and making the less important an option that can be accessed. I think SF gives you the less important thing first, and the important thing you want to have second. Also, some of the sights are looked and need to be unlocked before you can move to another. I found that a strange thing, second to none I have seen before in any game. It took me ten minutes before I found out why I could not jump from outside view to another crew station. I first had to go back to gunner'S sioghts, unldock my view from there, and then was free to move to somewhere else.

The battle I stumbled into, was a confused mess to me, and I would tell lies when saying that I had an adequate mental image of what was going on. Plenty of soldiers of my side went along with me and some tanks, and they shot all into one direction, and so I looked into that direction as well and tried to figure out something, no matter what. The non-differentiating sound and the detailed but generic graphics prevented me from becoming really immersed in the action - and I found myself loosing interest soon. It felt a bit like - playing galaxians. Well, tjhat might be unfair a comment, but the one thing I really missed was: a feeling of the mahcine I was expected to sit in, a feeling of immersion with the battle. It was a shooting game I played. No cockpoit feeling I experienced. No feeling of being there. No feeling of massive iron around me, and a nasty environment. I tsimply did not feel like a tank simulation. but maybe I am just "verwöhnt".

Of course, this is a demo, so you have to give it the benefit of doubt. But for me it feels even less as a simulation as IL2 does in campaign mode, which most people agree to feel very sterile. The exchange of rounds with hostile tanks is much more dramatic and takes place in a much more dynamic and frantic way in SBP, I must say. SF in this regard felt more like an ego shooter. That is strange because a WWII-tank sim would be expected to feel even more direct and mechanical than a technological Hi-Fi gadget like a Leopard 2 filled up from tracks to turret hatch with sensors, monitors and electronics. The comparison becomes even more negative for SF when I refer to SBP’s secondary gunnery sights, which are backups for the pri-mary sights when laser, thermal imager etc are down, they copmpare to the optical sights they had in WWII. The firing in SF simply does not compare to the manual backup modes in SBP. In SBP I often end in loud cursing and wet hands around the grips, in SF I thought: “Aha. So what?”.

Of course, different tactics back then and today, play a role here. Combat distances for tanks in WWII were not as great as today, and the beasts were not as lethal over the distance, as are modern tanks. And still…

From what I have heard about TvT so far, SF probably is the better solution for the player who wants to play single player, but I say that with all caution needed, do not take this as my final word on matters. A demo is not a final product, and things could be better in the final release. But honestly: I don’t hold my breath that I will consider SF to be a must-have. First impression after the demo left me in complete, peaceful neutrality. It's not that I wait for the release.

That leaves those of us who are not desperately waiting for right a WWII-simulation, but are interest in a good tank simulation in principle, in the comfortable position of always having a safe bet with SBP – which I think by my first impression on both WWII-sims is the far superior tank simulation in all but graphical regards - , while being able to simply wait, watch and see what the future will bring in improvements with TvT and SF. From what I read about TvT I am not planning to get it for the time being, and from what I see in the demo I cannot recommend to buy SF blindly. If you already have SBP and like it, your best option right now is – to wait, lean back relaxed and enjoy another battle with the Steel Beasts, not needing to actively wait out the two WWII-sims, but allowing to eventually being surprised in the future, or not. If it happens – nice. If not, it’s nice, too. Blind enthusiasm about TvT and SF currently does not seem to be justified, in my personal and subjective opinion.

I do not reflect about mission planning and the map tool here. obviously the standard set by SBP in this regard is extremely high. as long as SF does not have the intention to allow players to command a force of the size of a whole batallion, and en detail, there even is no need for SF to come up with such a superior tool. If the management of your unit in SF is solved in a satisfying way, I will not judge after just the demo.

[Lieste]

This generally agrees with my perceptions of the SF demo as well..

I still have it installed, but I haven't felt the need to re try it since I first gave it a go several months ago. I didn't uninstall it, as I felt that I should like it enough to give it another go... but in truth I may never feel the need to acquire a taste for it.

It reminded me a lot of the T72:BOF game in terms of odd controls, graphics style and absence of soul.


It *has* been a long time since the Demo was released, so the current Simulation may be better, and they may have made an interesting game from it as well... but only the finished release, and perhaps a patch or two will prove this.

[tigershuffle]

Hi,
well i only downloaded the demo a couple of weeks ago and only really have RO and distant memory of M1 Tank Platoon to go on Oh and countless hours in the tanks in OpFlash (love the WW2 mods)

I think its great for a year old demo ..

have you seen the new add on Fall Blau......
you may get better links and films but it looks really positive
http://files.graviteam.com//fall-blau/SF-BLAU.avi

[Skybird]

Welcome aboard, Tigershuffle.

Nice video indeed. the videos about SF that I saw on youtube, also looked nice. But that is exactly the reason why I found it so confusing to find that actually playing the game was far less absorbing than the videos made me believe it would be.

I can only refer again to the feeling of the campaigns in IL2, which are also very sterile. And considering other Russian games like LOMAC or Flanker, they all suffered from this as well: lack of immersion, lack of feeling to be there, sterile campaigns or missions. T72BOF was said to suffer from that as well. It seems to be a Russian thing , although all needed ingredients are there, and many of them in very good quality and execution, like visuals of models for example.

Copared to SF, I would say that even the old M1TP2 had more feeling in it and was more addictive, than any of these Russian titles, including SF. Somehow M1TP2 made something decisively different.

[Lieste]

If you don't mind things a bit wider in scope...

I enjoyed (and still play) Airbourne Assault (Red Devils over Arnhem), and am intending to get the next iteration which is the Wacht Am Rhein operation.

I skipped HTTR and COTA, though only because I was still getting what I wanted from the original..

The battles that result are fluid, and you never know for sure when you set up a defense, or launch an assault how long it will take for your subordinates (the AI) to get everything sorted and the plan underway. Very large battles can be fought, in near real-time (with options for time acceleration during lulls) over operationally significant time periods.

A very small, very short engagement may be a 1-2 day battle between an Airbourne Brigade and a couple of Kampfgruppen, but the system remains manageable up to Corps-level 1-2 week operations. Units are represented at the company level (with some platoons - mostly low numbers of 'heavy' weapons, and some battalion sized units - Heavy Flak Battalions, or Brigade/Division Support troops (LOS troops of low quality)).

[Skybird]

I like round-based strategy, the old classical cosim design. for that reason, I still play - oldie but goldie - Steel Panthers MBT. I tried BCT longer time ago, but found it disappointing. I have given up TOAW III, for I am at war with the interface. Fonts are too small, and info is presented in a way that I find myself with the nose at the monitor to decypher the code. Very bad information presentation.

[Lieste]

Well I have difficulties with 'one counter at a time' movement and combat as it is done in traditional hex-games like MBT...

Successful play depends more on 'beating' the selection of unit movement order than on real capabilities and tactics.

With large battles, the time taken per (1minute?) turn is large, and this only gets worse if you advance in bounds within the turn.


I would agree that BCT and the follow on were not fun to play at all, but this is a different system than AA:RDOA/AA:HHTR/AA:COTA

If you have a spare hour I would suggest trying out the (fairly small/basic and ancient) RDOA demo: http://downloads.gamezone.com/demosfiles/t3158.htm

There is a new demo promised of the enhanced engine for the Ardennes game for this winter, but this may slip as the Australian MOD has contracted the developer to produce a training version of the software. (Kind of like eSimGames - so it has to be worth a second look)

Link to a portion of an AAR of KG Pieper's advance:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1450882

[stabiz]

As others have said the demo is really old, and it didnt impress me either when I first tried it. The videos look cool, though.

I am a bit worried since these russian games seem to run at 16-20 fps no matter what resolution or graphical settings you choose. After my latest upgrade I cant even get shadows working in Theatre of War.

[Skybird]

If no huge angular speeds get created in a game (like it happens in combat flight sims and FPS), there is nothing wrong with 20 fps. To the eye it is fluid - especially when ingame speeds are that of a crawling tank.

[tigershuffle]

lol....you could be right about the Russian immersion thing....

If youve watched movies 'Come and See' and more recently '9th Company', the Russian sensibility seems to enjoy nihilism?!?!

Im just guessing that cos of the apparent modding capabilities of Steel Fury, there should be the ability to get it to the flavour you like....:hmm:
I assume some of the youtube stuff means they have modded the ability to drive more vehicles ie. Hanomag and Panzerjaeger

oh and cos i play in the living room and have the sound either v. low through cheapo 2.1 or through even cheaper headphones its sounds okay to me

[stabiz]

Originally Posted by Skybird

If no huge angular speeds get created in a game (like it happens in combat flight sims and FPS), there is nothing wrong with 20 fps. To the eye it is fluid - especially when ingame speeds are that of a crawling tank.

Until you hit "record" with fraps. What I am saying is that the graphics engine(s) they use are not good, considering performance vs look. I hope this is not the case with TvsT34 & SF. (SF demo ran awfully on my pretty good setup when I tried it, but I hope it has been optimized)

I`ll know in a few days.