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.

Captain_Colossus

Members
  • Content count

    1,554
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Captain_Colossus

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,552 profile views
  1. well here is the thing: don't forget that people are more literate and educated than they ever were in the past. they now see their social predicament, pay grades, value and so on to society better than they ever have before (and partially as result of being told the individual life is supposed to matter in first world, free societies). they have seen the results of governments withholding or manufacturing information and stay in protracted conflicts and display a willingness to spend the lives of its citizens or their relatives in wars where there seems to be some disconnect often with what they governments are saying and what is actually happening. is it any wonder why the public's appetite for endless losses and spending money to prop failed states or dubious regimes is growing a bit thin? the fight for freedom narrative has been exposed to any sort of rational scrutiny with the history of western governments supporting, among others, non-democracies and often brutal regimes like the saudis , the military dictatorships in asia and latin america and so on. western governments were even friendly with the fascist francisco fanco even well after world war 2; so if you see what i mean therefore why there will be a disconnect usually between average citizens and the people who fight on their behalf- the former if they have any sort of education at all can often see the aims and objectives of their governments in war on their own, the latter is usually the type of person who is idealizes these things enough to voluntarily join the armed services, who doesn't reduce all this behavior to cynicism and politics- at least not until they may disabuse themselves of these stories as well.
  2. it's always gone both ways; human beings are evolved primates straddling on the one hand the frail psychology which comes with evolved brains and their animal natures on the other. hence why leading up to world war one, you had people writing about how rotten and boring the perpetual peace was compared to the chivarly and heraldry of the romantic past- the adventure, the extreme risks, the rewards in war and this sort of thing. then people got sick of it once the war set it in and life obviously was cheap and disposable on the battlefield with new weapons technology capable of industrial scale killing. then it only took a few years for some people to forget all that and start pining away again for the start of world war 2- which in virtually all states participating in it was presented as clean as possible, references to casualties were not only reduced or white washed but usually forbidden to be shown, wartime censorship seems obvious now to anyone watching old films just how contrived the narration was, like boy scouts going off to war was like an afternoon football match. all media was virtually propaganda for the the governments to one degree or another. post war there was a lot of films presenting the topic of war in very john wayne-esqe sort of terms, despite the real events going on in korea and southeast asia showing a very different picture in a different movie house. here is a known phenomenon for us troops in vietnam: it was common at some point in a tour for the average combat soldier to settle in and accept that he may die and perform his job nonetheless- but as he drew closer to the end of his tour, his psychology switched into a real dread that he may buy it close to the end, then apprehension and fear set in as he naturally sees the end so near and the survival instincts overrule what the mission goals may be. studies done after world war 2 by western allies seemed to indicate as a general rule, about 1/3 of combat troops were usually the gung ho types, the ones most likely to take the most risks and found killing for the sake of killing to be quite stimulating and gave them a feel of power; 1/3 were more opportunistic, finding discretion to be the better part of valor; this group may enjoy killing but may struggle with it personally and feel guilty for it. the last 1/3 were the guys that from the standpoint of wanting to throw young men into combat in order to kill, these are least reliable and the least cut out for it- combination of social and biological factors just meant that they weren't 'natural' combatants and found themselves caught in the circumstance.
  3. did you create a vbeid by using 'explode combatant if' condition attached to a trigger?
  4. i wouldn't deny this- which is why i make the point to say expect units to get destroyed even more efficiently, which goes both for and against you when your human opponents have the capability to do the same thing. i don't do mp, really what happens online with the community is a mystery to me, and if you enjoy it, all the better. to say it again: i'm not against it, i know i would use it. insofar as breaking game balance, i suppose if something like that ever became a feature, an option to turn it off in the mission editor if there was ever issue with it could solve that. but it goes without saying: it's esim's call, and only they know how much of that would require backtracking, re-working code to fit in, adjusting computer behavior in reaction, and so on. after all, it may not be long before players start making more add on requests for the computer ai to improve because it's not much of a match, or more animations and postures programmed so that human players can take cover and move with more degrees of freedom and this sort of thing. i can think of one area that would probably need major work- combat inside buildings, which is a bit abstract and simplified, now you'll probably need content inside buildings, stairs, furnishings and this kind of thing, and moreover computer units which know how to move around them or use them for concealment, and so on. so you see, it can really entail a lot more work to get it going in the first place.
  5. i find the light machine guns a bit difficult to use- but only because grasses and things like this tends to block the entire field of view (one of my wish lists items is to either correct the perspective so that the sights are higher than the grass, or somehow move the grass aside a little so we can actually see). in some cases however i can work magic with it and kill quite a bit; it is fun to use, don't get me wrong. but i think what's going to happen is that you'll see players using the first person sights on average getting much higher kills than the a computer in the same situation- just the fact that you want it because the computer seems inaccurate would imply that to be the case, that would suggest that you believe that you the human player would get the kill the computer should have got. Then again, we don't have hand grenades modeled for these situations to clear areas so you don't have to rush in with rifles, or to break those stalemates when the computer continues firing but can't seem to hit. i still tend to think that human players tend to act like computer opponents on the virtual battlefield, that is, take more risks, that is, more heroics and things like this. but i still would never argue against having first person sights but to say that there is always a drawback either way.
  6. i rationalize these situations as acceptable in the sense that in virtually all simulations, the attrition rate is generally too high- for probably similar reasons, flight simmers are all tripple ace medal of honor candidates in every mission and what have you. sure. there is always something missing in computer simulations (never enough ground cover, concealment, lack of proper emotional responses such as fear, and lack of contextual awareness for computer units- computer units operate in a near vacuum compared to human opponents, unaware of some situation developing nearby that a human would take into consideration and move or act accordingly). i'm all for having first person sights, but it's probably reasonable to assume at the same time simulation results will be skewed again, human players will conceivably rack up rambo tallies under select conditions; perhaps crosswind or other variables will need to be taken into account (especially for the case of rpg rockets) so that players don't fire off their weapons with too much accuracy.
  7. terraforming in the map editor- in a similar sense that wadis can 'painted' in the map to editor, hills, rises, mountains would also be created, in other words, any pre-existing map can be loaded and edited in the map tool to create a map with new terrain elevation data. staying in the map editor- proper raised sidewalks, or a raised foundation able to be placed under buildings to give the appearance of sidewalks.
  8. another reason why is that many of the things requested are just a given, like lists of playable vehicles: just assume that everyone wants as all vehicles playable; even if you don't prefer certain vehicles, that would still guarantee that your selected vehicle gets in there. given an infinite amount of time and resources, or a magic wand, that would be the easiest wish to fulfill without thinking about it- unless someone really believes they've found a particular vehicle probably outside most people's awareness for this reason or that, requesting playable playable vehicles is like requesting better graphics. not that i mind it so much, but it does make the list longer when everyone fully is aware already they all want, ideally, all playable vehicles.
  9. wouldn't it also be a practical compromise to script targets in the planning phase for the computer the same way artillery can be scripted with set bombardment if context sensitive boxes? as far as i can tell, even though there is the option to select available mortars, the computer ignores pre-selected targets as well with on map mortar teams. with off-board mortars, it drops something of large caliber artillery shells, though.
  10. i don't want to spoil all the surpries; the btrs at this point represent security vehicles for shiite militias, (which will also include mraps), and of course the hmmwvs are in there; a few t-55s provide infantry support. the taliban figure will be removed, for now it's just a place holder while i am testing.
  11. good to know. that component can easily be removed.
  12. my focus lately is creating a scenario with mixed vehicle and infantry interaction less so high intensity combat between mechanized forces; using current events in iraq as the backdrop, this was mainly to experiment with the more complex infantry behavior that has developed, which has also led me to experiment with some mature themes, and which may encroach on certain sensitivities for obvious reasons, for instance, rescuing hostages before time expires, or in a another version of the scenario playing the role of enemy terrorists for interesting tactical decisions (which wasn't the original intent until i was scripting behavior in the scenario editor); i may not offer this for upload if the community or esim finds this objectionable, but some screenshots below of a map and scenario in progress:
  13. Certainly, I will get to that tonight.
  14. I will add that I think turning it off gets rid of more good than the bad; at this state, the things I mentioned are not show stoppers, the gain is certainly worth it. Look at the difference in thermal sights now, it's a nice effect- can't go back. The eSim team has done a great job.
  15. Sounds good.