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

    1,599
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Captain_Colossus

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

3,118 profile views
  1. i don't know what dynamic ai is, but whatever it is, again to the point that the behavioral routines in steel beasts would have to be fundamentally changed to get you there- this is why i keep saying, as much as we would like it, i don't think it's just a feature that's added in a patch. the code would have to be fundamentally reevaluated and re-built for steel beasts to have something like that it didn't have before insofar as the way units behave and interact. so again, it's not that you shouldn't want it, i'm saying it wouldn't be easy to shoehorn it in an existing engine which wasn't originally tailored for it.
  2. and then add yet another factor- ir beams which can be detected considerable distance away projected from the target. add several of them. the point i'm making is that in addition to the dust clouds and all the other line of sight behavior, now add something which can be detected even outside of visual range for considerable distances. what i'm saying is that it would seem logical to me major revision of the code implied to get it going- i wouldn't expect this to come so soon. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- { bmp ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- { t-72 in defilade ]0[ here is a tank above, here are two beams perpendicular to its line of sight at an arbitrary distance above- a bmp source, and a t-72 source; the bmp is relatively out in the open, the t-72 is turret down in a depression, no line of sight to the vehicle itself. imagine the 7-27 inclined enough that the the ir beams are detected. the computer tank crew below can see both beams, which target does the computer crew prioritize? imagine several more vehicles in several more permutations of the above scenario. it can see the beams, it can 'know' (and by that i mean the computer must necessarily cheat in that like the thermal signatures, it knows what class of vehicle is projecting the ir beam) what is behind them, but because evidence of the targets is nearly 'everywhere' instead of relatively localized, this would mean major rework of the detection and response behavior to deal with that. information about where targets are becomes a lot more complex by several orders. again, my point is that i believe that esim would have to really break things to change things for this new regime. not that i don't want it, on the contrary, one of the things on my own wish list would be to see this through, but this doesn't seem easy at all- especially for the thorough standards that esim demands of itself generally.
  3. i've seen videos of it down in steel armor blaze of war- yes i know it has been done. my question is do the computer units detect the beams and react to them or do they just ignore them, in other words, yes, the player can illuminate targets, but is there a detection penalty? if they can detect them, do other units get overwhelmed when there are a dozen searchlights swinging around? imagine the size of some scenarios steel beasts is capable with dozens of vehicles on each side, and please try and understand the point i'm making when i ask these questions, imagine say 30 beams swinging around the map and scripting computer behavior to deal with that. again, it's not to say it's not on my wishlist, it certainly is, i'm not arguing against more content; i'm only suggesting to do it right would likely be a quite difficult- and would entail profoundly affecting and re-writing the behavior routines for computer units to do it, you can already appreciate this when observing path finding behavior of computer units, now throw this even more complex behavior in for good measure, if you see what i mean therefore.
  4. i don't know the computer industry terms of art for lighting, there is ambient lighting and shading influenced by the sun- not from say sources of light like burning flames or gun flash. my bet is one day those kinds of nice things will come around when there are resources and time to do it.
  5. it may have been done in other simulations, but how well do those simulations model the behavior- i don't just mean does it look technically accurate when targets are illuminated, do the units react in ways that looks consistently believable. just trying to imagine writing a script in plain every day language how a unit is supposed to react when it detects a search light that would more or less work in any practical situation seems difficult- again, which isn't to say it's not my wish list, but because i immediately start to think of why it would be difficult, then i can understand why it's not there already.
  6. however to the extent that human beings in real life can operate from context and make inferences from prior knowledge, which behavioral routines in commercial software cannot really emulate. the alternative would be to let computer units ignore the beams as if they weren't there- which would be a major conceit to feature creep over realism just so that human players can use them. i don't deny it would be both useful and great to have from the standpoint they would look cool, but in practice it seems squirrely to do things even within a ballpark of realism- for example, the computer would need to inevitably 'cheat' in order to sort out a friendly search light from those of an enemy, and so on (which it already does with thermal signatures, this would be another example to add), there would be several scenarios i can imagine where the computer would need to either have an unfair advantage or a disadvantage (again, such as ignoring beams altogether) fudged in.
  7. it would probably be very difficult to represent something like an active illuminator- profoundly re-tooling the computer behavioral routines at minimum and likely breaking other behavior in the process. it's one thing for the computer to spot point targets, it's another when a target can project evidence of itself across the map, then all the computer units which can detect a beam whether out in the open or projected from behind cover become distracted looking for the source. i can easily see the results of a nasty exploits that would arise, position a low value unit out of the way some place, swing an active illuminator around to get the attention and distract all the computer units, which become fixed on it and perhaps start wasting ammo. this would be a problem whether intentional exploit or not; then this has to work within with the computer's target selection priorities (is a beam from a brdm-2 platoon worth investigating more than a beam sourced from a single t-72, and so on).
  8. well it's not just mine, that is, i hoped you caught on to the fact that i referred to darwinian evolution, which is not my opinion. believe it or not, believe or not we evolved or are evolving, believe or not that we continue to evolve, it's not just my personal opinion, i didn't invent it, it's a shared view shared by many people, and i predict it will be accepted and understood, and I think we should get on with it. it goes so far to give such an account of why things are they they are- why tribes and groups below the level of civilization have evolved, why they fell, why civilizations crash and others succeed. in the first world, populations are growing taller, life expectancy is longer, family sizes are growing smaller or having children is being put off later, (testosterone levels are also declining, which wouldn't surprise me and is likely related to first world lifestyles); this is not just a curious happenstance, this is not my opinion, this is a real thing. i am not claiming these things, these is all happening, and it is all a process that is ongoing, evolving. how this doesn't point to a process of evolution has yet to be convincingly shown, everything is evolving, competing, experimenting, and so on, and the reality you live is the product of that. in all of us, encoded in our genes are our the traits of our ancestors who survived to reproduce, that would seem to be self explanatory. and there is no coherent rebuttal to that. and so, to accept that this is what life is, it would be useful to approach 'the clash of civilizations' sorts of argument similarly. many of our enemies know they lag in certain key areas, so they adapt, and again, one particular way is one that they themselves would often say openly, the intention to fight an enemy such as the united states is not necessarily directly or decisively; again, this is what they would even say themselves, to drag the united states into long, unending conflict until it just isn't worth it anymore. my opinion? no, that is something even they would say, and that's how they would behave. north korea is another example, the dprk strategy isn't per se to win a war against the united states, but to make victory for the united states too messy to contemplate, again, what would we consider in exchange for rescuing seoul or tokyo. again, this isn't just my opinion, this is a real script. but your pattern of responses is boundless energy to deny. that's all you do- just deny.
  9. look at the job market, very similar things happen- old industries get wrapped up by new, even on an individual level, people compete for jobs, there should be no doubt that conflict is wired into reality itself; it's everywhere, including entertainment and leisure activities, sports, video games, any sort of competition implies a winner and loser; we watch movies with horror and killing in them, because frankly if watched a movie where they sat there drinking lemonade underneath a rainbow for two hours, no one would go to watch. we are wired for it. somewhere along the line, when one organism or system gains an adaptive advantage that becomes significant enough, it tends to dominate until there evolves another response which checks or surpasses the old one. this is why we are here where we are now and not still scraping by looking for things on the ground to eat, all of this process has culminated to our present time, and it will continue after us; this is why the speculation that eventually human beings will have reached a kind of hard limit insofar as their bodies will continue to evolve, and we may be increasingly fused with machines if not replaced altogether in the future. this is the catch-22: our cells are programmed to die, we are programmed to die, and it if wasn't like that, profound problems arise: if no one died, there the would be the problem of overpopulation, older generations die and so that newer generations don't have to compete with them again, for things like resources, mates and living spaces, life and death are on the same spectrum and life makes use of death for its own ends, not for us as individuals, but on macro scale, we are all in a sense servants of life doing its will.
  10. whether they chose it or not isn't controversial, the point i'm making is that they they were outmoded or defeated or whatever you want to call it. the end result is their gone, kaput. and this is what has been going on a long time, otherwise you'd still see these groups around predominately as representative of human societies, which you don't. are you just contrarian on everything? i think even if i said 2 + 2 = 4, you would have a comeback for that trying to disprove it.
  11. it is life itself; the paradox is that life cannot be separated from conflict. just recently there was news of that 'uncontacted' amazon tribe that was annihilated, so their genes don't get passed on, that's the end of the road for that genetic group. there are a few groups left in central and south america that are still essentially in the stone age, the men raid each other's villages, kill one another, take the females for breeding utilities, and that's more or less what has been going on for a long long time. but their time will eventually come up craps, the rest of the world will move on and push them out. they failed to transform their societies to keep up with the rest of the world for whatever reason. it would be rather predictable, if you set up an environment where there were limited resources and living space and the organisms were let to work it out, the conclusions of what's going to happen is predictable and consistent in repeat experiments. life consumes energy and resources and competes for these things to survive, metastatize, mutate, evolve, it is inherent to life; life arises to consume and to compete for living space, mates, resources, and even mere survival isn't enough- it competes to dominate above and beyond daily needs but for power. just look at the fact that our species, the apex of evolution has evolved sensory systems especially attuned to pain avoidance and reward seeking behaviors indicates our relation to the world- why the need for pain sensation if the world wasn't in itself a hostile place- and the more advanced, the more complex the organism, the more deeply these things are capable of being experienced.
  12. well, the original question is: " Would you consider this acceptable or not, and if not, what are your strategies to reduce losses? Especially needless losses like swimming tanks and brainless IFV's marching into the middle of an open plain. " in the united states, i'm not aware of any sort of figure or number that commanders all the way down to ncos are told x number of losses means you do what? (retreat, do nothing and wait, ask for help, stay in place, and so on) there is no hard and fast rule to answer this question, and this would be obvious why for multiple reasons. but the question itself asks not what is doctrine anyway, but whether you the user thinks what is acceptable or not. then we get to the kind of second part where this went when people start talking about about national goals and strategies, which is why i answered the way did. granted my answer my tend to be seem esoteric, but there is a purpose to why i say what i do especially when it gets to the point where it becomes the 'those who are willing to sacrifice are the ones who usually are predicted to win" this is not true, by itself that does nothing; you could have cannon fodder willing to die, but that wouldn't necessarily win against a stealth bomber or something.
  13. you implied it- you were alluding to something, now it's all innocent. and i just fell off the onion wagon. it's been rather clear what i have been responding to and it is tied in; back in world war 2 on average there were ten service and supply troops for every line soldier in the field, some 20 years ago it was about 20. i don't know what the calculation looks like today, it's not something i follow. in world war 2, education standards were also rather low on average; these days it's nigh impossible for enlisted men not have at least a high school diploma; in any case, the point i'm making which really isn't so mysterious us that our militaries are also a reflection of our national policies, goals, self identities and so on, because again, we invest so much in the individual; the armed forces are drawn from the civilian population, they don't come out of nowhere, it's not as if you can isolate one from the other. even down to the individual private there is an expensive investment put into him. you don't deny this surely, and i'm explaining why and how it got there. moreover, the survival rate from wounds is better than it ever has been. so all of this should turn on the light bulb above your head. this means something, right? what does it mean? i've been explaining it. as we've put so much investment in our own society, and in our own citizens, and in the armed forces, there's an interesting phenomenon that we try to preserve our investment. equipment gets more expensive, individuals get more expensive, therefore, there is compounding effect to take less casualties as a consequence. it's not just a psychological avoidance of casualties, but a logical one. it's an intentional design, and if we're going to fight an endless war on terror, well, then we will explore ways of doing so which means not draining and over extending ourselves. this can't be mysterious, i simply cannot believe you'd question something like that. when you started talking about the zero casualty red herring, which you introduced, which i explained why you were wrong, then you seem to not understand why. i'm explaining why. i've heard this all before, and it's irrational, it's the ranting and raving "we're not willing to make sacrifices anymore." we've been doing it for a long time, where this comes from makes no sense at all. the united states anyway is now in a war with no end, our longest yet. so i don't see what this is based on. and if the united states tends to use other means to reduce its own casualties, like i said that's a good thing, only in some twisted bizarro world is that not a good thing. there are mudslides and earthquakes that kill thousands, tens of thousands of people in countries like china, and it barely registers on the news at all; if that sort of thing happened in the united states, it would be a very pronounced occasion. so again, the way we view ourselves and our own lives reflects also in the armed services, it shows, this is not a mystery. if you deny this, i just won't believe you. there must be some agenda. it's not a strange coincidence that societies which don't place a high value in the lives of their subjects tend not to develop very far. those societies tend to flunk sooner or later, it's not hard to see why. sure back in paleolithic history, the most brutal guys with stone clubs and axes would dominate and that probably ruled the day for tens of thousands of years. then here and there this or that tribe or individual developed something new and innovative, new ways to feed themselves, cooperate, new ways to defend themselves, and so on- gradually the more brutish tribes were outmoded and outmaneuvered, and little by little the cumulative effects of this interaction became what society looks like today. so to tie this in, one needs only to examine the evidence: compared to our more primitive hominid ancestors, our bone structures are not as a broad as we are not as heavily built, our jaw bones and jaw muscles have reduced in order to make room for a larger brain case to support a larger brain. conclusion: on a society and species level, brute strength has been selected out, ingenuity and intelligence and cleverness , in our larger neocortex and even the capacity for empathy are the products of the time tested clash between tribes and civilizations over the eons of animal evolution, the implication is that the brains have won, at least for now, unless some new kind of condition where to arise where some other trait were better suited for survival. i ask that you really understand what i'm saying and not keep dismissing it as unrelated. in sum: we should not focus per se on the will to accept casualties but our ingenuity to avoid them which will be the better play- and again, to alll the markers which i've explained, which indicate that as such.
  14. knock it off. i gave you no reason to respond the way you do. i am prior service- over twenty years ago, and i had a sense that was what you were trying to establish, your assumption that i have no military background, therefore i have no right to speak my mind or couldn't possibly have a point of view. at the end of the day, my point is still the same. if people question why things happen the way they do, i am explaining that there are patterns to this, and reasons why we trend in the direction we do. it bears repeating: the trend towards modern civilization comes with predictable patterns and likely reasons for it. first world societies are an evolutionary response to the conditions of the world- attempting to make the world more comfortable. this is no accident: the technologies that came with it which automated or made work easier and safer, increasingly machines perform the labor, freeing up people from these tasks, and it happens in war as well. additionally, the basic tenets of modern first world societies tells their citizens that their individual lives count, so people of course will take that seriously. when you supply people with a comfortable lifestyle, they aim to keep it. there is rather a strong correlation for warlike or martial societies by definition to regard their own lives as expendable and to have a comparatively low standard of living.
  15. in case my point isn't plain yet, i am stating the case from the fact that life itself evolves, life itself is a will to power, and darwinian evolution does matter, it is real, and this is going on. it's rather in plain sight. i am not making the case for what is hypocritical or not, everything virtually is. just assume that to be the case. assume that life is unfair, and assume that people control others and there are injustices. assume it so that people will even disagree what they think hypocrisy is. but that aside, i'm explaining how people may start to raise these questions to begin with- the very societies that they are expected to fight and sacrifice for has the freedom to question in the first place; and with information flowing freely which is unprecedented in history, with means to communicate such as the internet and electronic media and information and contrarian views at the touch of the finger, now more than ever with an educated population, it becomes more difficult to justify to them some of the old narratives they used to get told to mobilize them. and where first world societies will insinuate themselves in conflict, the trend will be to use more expensive technology, again, another evolutionary battle in the technology race, even eliminating the weak link in the chain- the soft, fleshy organisms and replaced by drones and maybe eventually ai. and that would be a reflection where even civilian life is going- increasingly the societies themselves are trending towards automation. so this is how i'm trying to connect all this up. the general trend is to replace and remove people from the action, both in conflict and in society in general.