Welcome to Steelbeasts.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Captain_Colossus

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,113 profile views
  1. Add two or three more species of tropical palm trees- thicker trunks, thicker fronds, generated at different heights to create denser groves. The forests which can be created now are fairly thin, difficult to hide or obscure units, movements, and so on.
  2. I think the problem with that is the way crew members instantly teleport into each other's stations; what this means is that a crew which should be shocked or stunned with serious damage taken recover too fast and are able to turn the ables on the attacker. This happens enough to notice: attacker gets the first shot in, maybe one or two of the enemy is killed, but the crew member(s) remaining sometimes get the return shot in and kill the player. How many times have you guys seen a situation like this: "Gunner, sabot, tank (PC, or whatever). Fire. Target. Re-engage. Fire. Target. Re-engage. Fire. Target. Rengage." Then at some point in this sequence, the enemy target gets in one lucky hit and kills you. The ultimate blue balls. Check the AAR, and it does appear the enemy vehicle was taking damage to components and crew, but whoever is left all too quickly recover, and the attacker ends up the victim. So you can imagine a tank where the driver is killed, but the practical effects are not really shown if the tank keeps maneuvering because a crew member teleported into the driver's station the way it works right now.
  3. I think I've noticed something similar in the T-72; with stab knocked out, the gun appears to be locked in position unless you jump out of the tank.
  4. 'Game' can refer to the fact that players have opposing interests, i.e., game theory- there may or may not be any fun to have at all in a game. A simulation may be a game in varying degrees: if someone were to write a paint the fence simulator, adverse factors even if modeled such as wind, time passing, paint mixtures yielding unwanted, different shades of color against the player's wishes may still have game elements nonetheless, albeit not a fun game. A classic study in game theory is the "Prisoner's Dilemma" for its study in long and short term selfish or selfless strategies, although it's quite dry and boring when running it. In other words, you could run Steel Beasts without any opponents, just drive around and look at things, you've removed the game elements out of it- that is, the adverse conditions. It's still a simulation, not much of a game, it becomes more of a game when adding some kind of goal or some kind of opposition.
  5. Nice. I'm starting to worry about my memory or something here aren't I. sure. When i get home and have a look I'll probably have a wargasm and this sort of thing.
  6. Conditioned routes like waypoints are conditioned- the same kind of 'fire if' 'retreat back if', 'surrender if,' etc. context sensitive menu can be opened up and predicated to routes as they are to waypoints. In most cases, units don't change plans while embarked- exceptions would be the 'Scout' route where units will automatically retreat if under fire, units stopping to avoid artillery, or stopping to fire when en route when given the Engage command (as opposed to Assault command). Example: let's say I want to simulate an attacking unit to surrender or retreat back if taking too many casualties- in practice, it must endure and survive, perhaps attack through mounting casualties to reach a checkpoint before it can do that. While human players can always react and intervene when a unit is already embarked, the computer in most cases doesn't, it follows the last orders given until the next checkpoint is reached, even if it is suicidal. Rationale: Eliminate some inertia in computer behavior: especially when advancing or attacking, promote more flexibility or more complex behavior so that they don't have to necessarily reach this or that or such and such checkpoint first before changing behavior. The checkpoint system as the foundation to assign behavior favors complex defensive scripting, that is, set pieces in place defending or waiting at checkpoints, but when on the attack, the scripts tend to look more blind and plodding as units generally can only follow a route through all kinds of variables that might happen on the way before reacting to them. Therefore, a conditioned checkpoint-route system permits the computer more complex behavior on the attack or on the march about as much as it can be scripted on the defense. I do see however at least one difficulty in attaching an 'embark if' command to a pre-existing route like they are to checkpoints (in other words attaching a route to a route), so maybe that wouldn't be replicated the same way or at all.
  7. That data doesn't reveal too much to be useful for modelling purposes. Does the accuracy rate rule out human intervention, for example, in 1973 Arab gunners were subjectively reported as bad shots compared to their Israeli counterparts (I have several materials explaining how even at very close ranges with every advantage- the superior IR sights of T-55s and T-62s would still fail to detect or hit Israeli tanks which didn't have them at dusk or light conditions), how much of the tally is extrapolated from bad training and this sort of thing versus the accuracy of the machine and the gun system? Likewise, on the Syrian front in 1973, Israelis were able to do well despite overwhelming odds not simply because of the accuracy of their machines but because they had presighted range tables of the approaches rehearsed and insinuated into their drills so well so that when the real thing happened, it probably worked out much better than if the whole thing went down completely unprepared. If you see what I mean, you just get a crude figure without much context there.
  8. Simply a matter of erasing the parts in the template in Gimp (which is the same as converting these parts to transparent alpha layer). With other paint programs, this may be a different process.
  9. From my sources, there are both 2 tone and 3 tone schemes in 1973 as well. I have done both 2 types with the T-62 and T-55 (in previous versions of SB). I'm going to do another 3 tone pattern for the T-55, since the T-55 in 4.00 uses a new model over 3.00.
  10. You're right. My mind is definitely getting slower.
  11. Can you please tell me where the snorkle attachment point is below- I can't find the location for the part(s).
  12. I converted the pre-existing Syria template into Egypt in 1975 (top images). Bottom image is Iraq T-55, with 3rd regiment markings.
  13. You did a good job erasing the snorkle, I still see little tiny outlines of it here and there after I did it. It's not easy.
  14. Here is praise for a nice new touch I recently noticed: the leaves and branches and things breaking off from trees when you shoot into them. It feels different now because of polish like this.