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.

Ssnake

Members
  • Content count

    19,341
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ssnake

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    Hannover, Germany
  • Occupation
    Director, eSim Games
  1. (If you came here for the debate about other games' pricing strategies, I split it off into this thread...)
  2. A "good" mod will include a readme describing which files it changes. It's a good idea to save these readme files. If there is no readme, at least when you unzip the content you may want to write down notes for yourself. I'm sure, you do that already.
  3. ...which in turn can be useful if you create reconnaissance missions that rely on the user "spotting" a certain unit in a certain region. How do you know that the user actually "saw" the target and it wasn't just accidentally rendered on the screen when he wasn't paying attention? Shift+Lase is the answer in that case.
  4. Yes, but that goes straight back to the "zero loss doctrine" that I mentioned above, the desire to fight a bloodless war (on "our" end).
  5. Delete the files from the mod folder.
  6. But it's those infantile, irrational and emotional civilians who will ultimately decide about whether your war receives continuous support or not. So, get used to that...
  7. I'm not saying that this is well reflected in Steel Beasts, not the least because in most scenarios you are setting up largely symmetrical forces (makes for better entertainment). But the unspoken assumption in your reference is a doctrine of attrition. And no matter how realistic it is: The expectation of the general public/political leaders is that we be fighting bloodless wars (on our end, at least) --- unless, maybe, it is a matter of national survival. Time and again western civilizations (including Soviet Russia) have shown little patience with protracted campaigns and even moderate losses (compare the duration, number of soldiers deployed, and actual losses of WW2, Vietnam, Afghanistan 1980, Iraq 1992, Afghanistan 2002/2012, Iraq 2003/2006) when the wars were fought based on some more or less abstract political concept (Domino Theory (1963), "helping out a socialist brother" (1979), defending a rich but impotent ally (1991), fighting back against a large scale terrorist attack (2001), "transforming the Middle-East" (2003)). Of course, the effects in Soviet Russia were less drastic/took more time because it wasn't an open society back then. Nevertheless, the Soviets pulled out eventually for well-documented reasons. Like in Vietnam it was never a question of winning the tactical battles. It was a strategic defeat because the public, no matter how suppressed its voice may have been, was unwilling to sustain losses over an extended period for little ot no appreciable gain.
  8. ...if you are willing to follow the attrition doctrine - that's the unspoken assumption behind it. This does not apply to every situation! In fact, I somewhat doubt that any western democracy is still following the attrition concept of grinding down the opponent faster than he grinds you, not even with a 1:10 ratio; maybe 1:50 or 1:100. Instead, our armies are pursuing the (elusive) goal of a zero defects/zero casualties doctrine that is willing to substitute casualties by (extremely high) monetary spending. "Shock and awe" is at the core the Blitzkrieg concept - to overwhelm the opponent with a totality of (precision) fire where the explicit intent was/is such a big psychological impression that the enemy is willing to surrender before he even gets a chance to fire at you (it only worked partially in Iraq - but that was the idea behind it nevertheless). Israel would roundly reject the concept of attrition in any conflict ever since 1948. Even Russia is seeking to transform its military towards fewer and fewer losses. The zero losses doctrine - let's call it that for a moment - demands of course massive fire superiority and, at the same time, the reduction of personnel exposed to enemy fire (actually, the reduction of personnel in theater). The individual infantry squad in Afghanistan, say, can at times wield firepower exceeding that of an infantry battalion in WW1 if you count access to loitering air support, otherwise it's the infantry platoon that has as many MGs as the infantry battalion had, 100 years ago (plus anti-tank weapons, which they didn't have back then). In other words, ZLD is designed for asymmetrical warfare - it aims at creating conditions for substantially superior firepower and standoff for all engagements. The obvious weakness of the concept is the small personnel footprint (sheer "boots on the ground" - to influence the situation by means other than firepower, and to sustain occasional losses), and the implicit assumption that you actually can force the conditions for asymmetrical conflict.
  9. Yeah, this may be it. The ASLAV-25 doesn't carry dismounts, so this might have resulted in it being registered as a "tank" rather than a "PC". We need more categories, eventually.
  10. I agree. Although, at really long ranges it may still be the right decision. But our vehicle commanders do not take the engagement range into consideration when making the decision about which ammo to fire, as far as I seem to remember.
  11. There are a number of issues that have recently been identified with the "Terrastan" map. Most of them, I hope, will be addressed with the coming (new terrain) update.
  12. The AAR thread about the War in the East campaign on SimHQ a few years ago was very enjoyable. If nothing else, the game gave me hours of entertainment just by reading the "Oberkriegkaboomfuhrer's" weekly reports for more than a year, and I didn't even have to buy it or learn it to enjoy it. Of course that says nothing about the game as such, but maybe reading the thread is still worth your time to form an opionion.
  13. Well, here's some context: It's bug #2226 of currently 5434 entries in the bug tracking database, of which 3195 have been closed. It's been assigned a "medium" priority. 71 entries have a higher priority, 698 entries have the same priority, 789 entries have been assigned a lower priority. Fixing bugs is one of our higher strategic priorities, but not the only one.
  14. Over time there will be. The main purpose of the new terrain engine is to replace the existing technology with a new one that does what the old did, for backwards compatibility reasons, and provides the foundation for new capabilities - which will be added over time So, the amount of changes won't be dramatic, but there will be a few things - for example, the ability to level roads, which is a big improvement in moutaineous terrain, or the ability to build ramps (which lets you create overpasses). Procedural embellishment can however only do so much. Where the original data doesn't exist there is no magic wand to generate it. A map built from 30m grid data - still the standard for most maps in Steel Beasts - simply cannot provide the richness of small depressions and other places to hide a tank which are available in abundancy in most places (the Utah salt flats being a well-known exception).
  15. Oh. So far all my test orders arrived.