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

2,824 profile views
  1. it will still be vehicle centric from the player's point of view; while there will be several units under control, i intend to limit the amount of playable units, one or two per mission max (with perhaps limitations on external views); this gives a different feel for a mission when players are limited to a single vehicle more or less, you lose the vehicle, the mission is over. i want to curb the tendency for players to take artificial risks, and also i think even in my own experiments, i tended to appreciate playing with less chances to mess up, hot seating from unit to unit as tempting as it is also reduces immersion, it comes at a cost. less units under direct, playable influence gives all the more a critical sense of survival.
  2. i wouldn't dispute you here- technology does not win wars: that is, there is no script that wins all wars. there is no single ingredient that you can always rely upon to do that. wars are always evolving, situations are always changing. my point however is generally that we should accept more or less that we aren't always going to be winning clear cut wars as such, the best we can do is to make them bearable. given that we can expect to be involved in open ended wars for the forseeable future, the best scenario is not to play the body count game. this is even the sort of thing that osama bin laden had stated his goal was to lure the united states into a slow bleed because of what that predictably does: if victory were resolved to a single epic battle were all the deaths were tallied up and at the end of the day you can play taps and then throw a victory parade the next day, that would be one thing. it's over and done with it and has different psychological schema; it doesn't have the same effect on morale as draining the same amount of will over a long period of time, which tends to wear out patience. it may seem like it shouldn't make a difference, all things being equal, but it does, mainly for the reason that it makes it look as though we simply combine being stubborn with a lack of imagination given the amount of time some alternative could have been worked out. it's like the difference being out in the elements on one horrifically cold day and being over and done with or just outside in drizzle and mud for weeks or months on end. the misery sets in...
  3. i've never heard anyone say that: if you point to a discussion where that goes on- zero casualties, then i'd take that seriously. now maybe you mean that as a sort of hyperbole, but even in that case it's an exaggeration. i repeat: that is simply not anything i ever hear anyone say, i see no evidence for it. we just lost more sailors in a peacetime incident, and i don't see a chorus sounding off that the end has come. what i tend to hear is the opposite: plenty of people especially on the internet going off about how weak the west is for not having the stomach for war; i've debated that one enough times with all kinds of cranks like on various boards where i hear the same points over and over again and even to the point i sense i'm not even debating an actual fact pattern but a mindset that is inherently filled with contempt for some reason (present company excluded, this isn't what i necessarily get out of here). but i say it again to the point it's a cliche: the object of war is not to die, it's to defeat the other side. because of our generally accepted technological gap, the mindset of our less capable foes is to kill enough of us til we give up, so if they are trying to rope us into that, not playing their game is what i expect we should have learned by now. someone should explain to me how actually facilitating the enemy's strategy is what we want to do- when during the last several decades there are examples where that has shown not to work so well but the opposite. the initial victory over iraq in 1991 is a textbook case of what i'm talking about, an enemy thoroughly spanked with low casualties on our side. i still fail to see the problem with that. think of it: the cost of one of ours versus one of theirs: take an individual in the united states from birth through primary and secondary education through military service, the cost in terms of resources invested in each individual is exceedingly high. you're talking hundreds of thousands to even millions of dollars in some cases, therefore replacement rates are expensive against the kinds of enemies where even several of them doesn't cost anywhere near one of ours. if we are basically locked in endless conflict, and there's no historical reason to think that war ends, simply, it is not logical to promote attrition warfare in the way potential enemies would have it: this doesn't mean per se zero casualties, but it does mean keeping casualties low is part of the calculation: even spending millions of dollars on cruise missiles to kill equipment worth a few hundred dollars is getting to be the way we fight wars, and if it weren't for federal reserves printing money out of thin air, that's likely a fast track to bankruptcy at the rate you can make enemies out of countless guys who can easily be recruited and replace the ranks in these countries. replacing men and equipment in ww2 was relatively easier than now- the loss of just a few modern aircraft and tanks cost wise is incredible compared to the amount they could afford to throw away in some battles and still recover. the situation has evolved: because we spend so much more per unit, you're going to have fewer units you can afford to lose. in an evolutionary sense this is the direction our species is going- first world societies are essentially worth more, but also have the most to lose. in the stock markets like what's going to happen if and when we go to war with north korea again is going to hurt us much more than say the taliban. we are basically evolving to use our resources, technology and ingenuity to put buffers between us and lesser societies- they are not 'worth' our lives in comparative terms. robots, automated systems and things like this are likely the future.
  4. i estimate a couple months. creating the map is taking a lot of time, then i may do series of linked missions using the campaign tool- which i haven't used yet, so there is learning curve there. cheers-
  5. then i'm not sure what your complaint is- keeping losses down is not a controversial strategy notwithstanding the arguments we tend to see on the internet that people complain that the west is soft and is not prepared to sacrifice itself to win at all costs. so i'll start over- and i hate to introduce a cliche into this here, but of course the object of war is not to die- again, there is a tendency for people to romanticize dying in war as the ultimate marker of commitment, but that in itself is not a strategy. the united states has commitments all over the world, it's an individualistic, first world culture where it invests lots of resources in individual soldiers and equipment - losses to the united states are expensive relative to many of these states or groups that we tend to be involved with. if our enemies understand that and attempt a strategy to outwait us, out endure us in casualties, so the conflict becomes more expensive than it's worth, then all the more so not to play that game. it becomes a self feeding mechanism: we spend more resources on individuals, which makes them more valuable, which makes them less expendable, so we spend more effort on making them less expendable, and so on. profit motives for arms makers aside, once you go down that path, it becomes exceedingly difficult to remove yourself from it. it becomes a hard sell to convince the public that protracted combat with no clear goals or end dates or for dubious results is in its best interest- so again, if you are going to do that, the best thing to do is to keep losses down, especially when there is no tangible purpose that many of these conflicts don't appear to relate directly to national security, or the conditions that they did have expired or something. sacrifice troops because some saudi princes have some enemies somewhere? well, the public is a bit wiser these days. with things like the internet, open media, and the ability of an educated public to ask questions and seek information on their own and share information and question one another, unlike in the past, people can largely figure out the predicament they find themselves in without necessarily relying on the narrative their governments tell them- again, the difference between the first world and people in other states. this is what you're seeing. accordingly, western governments have to adjust to this and realize that they can't simply behave as if there is an information vacuum, and even states like russia and china are likely to start following a similar pattern with use of more technology instead of live bodies and things like this, and be more wary of casualties. in china for example, if there is a culture of 'little emperors' among more affluent classes with more and more first world consumption patterns, there is a more individualistic strain rising.
  6. i'm not terribly sure i understand the controversy here; because the west, and in particularly the united states above all else tends to insinuate itself into so many global conflicts, people are complaining that the west should be willing to lose more lives; well if we did that we'd burn through our manpower where loss rates exceed replacement rates rather quickly in all these backwater dust ups (many of which are not publicized and known to the public); so it makes sense that if we are to involve ourselves so much that we use a strategy that minimizes losses, because if the time were to come that we needed those men for a real serious situation say in the far east against bigger players, we haven't expended ourselves for the big leagues. again, this only makes sense- people calling for more willingness to lose lives over very murky objectives doesn't really saying much insofar as to what that ultimately accomplishes. as much as people complain about it, if put in the same position of leadership they would likely approach these problems the same way. the body count metric for winning wars doesn't prove a thing. say what you will whether the west should extend itself into all these situations, but if you are going to do it, then it makes sense to mitigate losses- that's purely logical. i honestly don't see the problem unless some of you are of that masochistic mindset that there is no such thing as too great of sacrifice. that is the kind of thing that was practiced in world war i, the callous indifference to the loss of life by the generals and the leaders, and purely from a practical standpoint, it accomplished nothing to think like that but instead really caused morale to tank. it just exhausted everyone for very little gain and the whole thing looks like a needless waste.
  7. also it's been rather widely reported that is fighters are boosting with amphetamines and other stimulants.
  8. by the way, what's very interesting is the 80/20 rule, which has been applied to unrelated topics from dating match selections to crop yields http://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/80-20-rule.asp One of the biggest hurdles to overcome is the human ego- it doesn't like to accept that we are like all part of a machine collectively, our wills aren't so independent as we would like to idealize ourselves as human beings. it's uncomfortable, so people resist it, not wanting to be reduced to math or statistics. but if you drop your ego, things appear differently and more clearly.
  9. most things are predictable in the sense that you can make predictions- again, it doesn't mean your predictions are 100 percent accurate but for the purposes of making decisions that are more reliable than not. i'll give you an example of stop lights. most people will follow the rules of traffic most of the time- all the individual driving behaviors, discrepancies in skill, confidence and so on still creates a reliable model for behavior. of course, you will still get accidents, people violating the rules and so on- however, it is more reliable to rely on the gathered data than not and to say it's all random. when something looks 'random', it may be it just that you don't have enough data yet. people's behavior wouldn't look more 'random' to you if you were famous. let's however say you were a very attractive model or movie star or celebrity- other people's behavior wouldn't look so random, their behavior towards you would be a lot more predictable. turning heads, they would be looking at you, approaching you, mobbing you, and so on. but if you're not a famous celebrity, your perspective wouldn't have this kind of insight and behavior wouldn't be as predictable (which is why celebrities often burn out on the fame- at first it's great, then after awhile they can't get privacy and go into public incognito).
  10. i would imagine were it possible to get the entire population on earth to participate and run the experiment over and over enough times you could generate a statistical model of human behavior that would follow predictable patterns- which would confirm your hit location distribution- perhaps a bell curve say. even accounting for individual play styles would eventually at some point average out as players gain more experience and learn through trial and error, learning from and emulating more experienced players- given an infinite amount of time and reruns of the simulation, you'd get predictable behavior from the point of view of a statistical model. actuarial science is interesting in this regard- for all the belief that some people may have that human behavior is so complex as to be unpredictable or can't be modeled reliably, people make a living doing that in many disciplines, from advertisers to insurance companies. if there is a finite range of behavior or if there are only so many 'rational' moves available in a situation, eventually, most players in the system will on average show predictable responses.
  11. external stowage/equipment to vehicles as an option in the mission editor; external fuel drums on russian vehicles, camo nets, tree branches and things like this all removable or added as options.
  12. thanks for the offer gents and the confidence. the below images show an experiment i was trying to achieve a look of pre-damage to some structures.
  13. And here are some shots of various points of interest of the map in progress.
  14. hopefully esim will give the ai the essential ability to call mortars at some point- quite simply the terrorists and insurgents won't have them. at any rate, this is going to take a few more weeks, i'm still populating the map with nice things, and i've also changing some of the building textures so that they look more uniform and aren't several shades of tan/brown/white. for instance, the eu warehouse simply didn't look right below in the environment, so i took some textures from other buildings and re-skinned it. there are before and after shots below. the large mosque is also a work in progress.
  15. it seems there are a few plant types in the textures file directory that don't get mapped into the map editor, one is the wheat field wall; i thought it would be nice to see wheat fields, so i sacrificed a bush type file and renamed the wheat field to that bush to see what it would look like. while it did show up, it was disappointing, it didn't look right. to small and sparse even with all the detail sliders cranked. i may try again with a different bush or grass type, but i think it would be essential to have wheat fields in steel beasts, those are just nearly everywhere in most countries.