More SB Pro PE questions

[CommC]

A couple SB Pro PE questions.

What will be the maximum map size?

Will we be able to coordinate the movement of multiple platoons? i.e. will company formations be implemented?

Will we be able to select either the enemy or friendly AI quality? Will the scenario designer be able to select this? i.e. can we choose between a highly skilled AI gunnery, spotting, etc or an opponent with poor gunnery skills?

Will a map editor be included?

Will the user or scenario designer be able to order troops to dismount or mount vehicles (IFVs) at any time?

Will troop carrier trucks be included?

What control will the player have of dismounts? Can they be ordered to go prone, seek cover, fire at a specific target, fire a specific weapon type, etc.

Thanks.

[TankHunter]

IIRC
Same map size as SB1.
No Height map editor.
Troop carrier trucks may be included in the future.
I am about 66% sure that all of what I have in this post is correct.
So don’t go to the bank with any of that until Ssnake says anything. But I think that is all true. :|

[Ssnake]

What will be the maximum map size?
Slightly larger than in SB1, 20x20 km². This allows to frame the battlespace with unique landscape, and help the user orient himself properly in the 3D environment. The wraparound will still be there, but given the potentially huge height differences near the boundaries, extreme gradients can occur. It's best to avoid them unless the area is really flat all around.Will we be able to coordinate the movement of multiple platoons? i.e. will company formations be implemented?
No. It just doesn't make sense. You can copy and paste single routes and entire route chains, so if you set up a formation in the beginning, the units will move synchronous for a while. But once that the terrain is restrictive and not just a flat empty space, the tank no longer is a "land battleship", but a vehicle that must adapt to the terrain, and therefore the company formation will deform all the time.
This should be planned in advance, just like you do in SB1.Will we be able to select either the enemy or friendly AI quality?
Not beyond what's possible already (reaction time and gunnery boni). We try to make the computer act as smart as possible, and under favorable circumstances they're as good as trained recruits. If we could make them better, we would do so. Dumbing down from recruit level doesn't make sense - wouldn't you agree here?Will a map editor be included?
Yes, just like in SB1. That is, you cannot change the height maps, but the terrain is yours.Will the user or scenario designer be able to order troops to dismount or mount vehicles (IFVs) at any time?

Will troop carrier trucks be included?
Can't promise it for the initial release, but it's a planned feature, and of above-average priority.What control will the player have of dismounts?
Not much beyond what's possible in SB1. But you can order the squad to stay mounted or dismount anytime, and to separate from the vehicle or not. That already is a great help. We'd like to do more, but we'd also like to work on night combat, weather, better vehicle suspension modelling, ...
(What I'm trying to say here is that it's not a question of whether it's desirabe, but what we must sacrifice in order to free the development time for it. Of course we'd all like to have everything, and now - but the realities of running a business interfere here. We cannot hire indefinite amounts of programmers to tackle all these issues simultaneously.

[Joe]

A couple SB Pro PE questions.

Will we be able to select either the enemy or friendly AI quality? Will the scenario designer be able to select this? i.e. can we choose between a highly skilled AI gunnery, spotting, etc or an opponent with poor gunnery skills?



Concerning BW's gunnery range screenshot in general forum and OddBall's reply: will a different result in gunnery range with M1/Leo vs T-72 result in different "skills" i.e. AI behavior for red/blue forces?

[OilBucket]

Do you 2 Germans ever mis-spell a word? hehe.... impressive!

[dejawolf]

indeed. twice a year ;)

[Ssnake]

Concerning BW's gunnery range screenshot in general forum and OddBall's reply: will a different result in gunnery range with M1/Leo vs T-72 result in different "skills" i.e. AI behavior for red/blue forces?
For the moment - no. But it's a good idea that didn't occur to me, and it's not even on The List yet. Congratulations!
I'll see to it that we'll work on it for SB2. :)

[Ssnake]

Do you 2 Germans ever mis-spell a word? hehe.... impressive!
Is that a compliment that I don't recognize?

Well, I try. And I have a lot of practice. ;)

[OilBucket]

Is that a compliment that I don't recognize?

Yes, definitely a compliment. hehe

[CommC]

Thanks for the info, Ssnake and all who replied.

So I understand from your comments that friendly AI quality is tied to the players gunnery range performance, as it is in SB1?

And enemy AI is basically fixed at the trained recruit level?

Thanks.

One additional thought... I think it would be extremely helpful to have a supporting IFV following at some distance, knowing it will follow at a certain distance, without having to micromanage it, especially since this is a real-time game. It is catastrophic to leave your leading tank to go back to adjust the spacing of a trailing IFV. It just can't be done in the heat of battle. So I would like to see this as a fairly high priority on the list, at least a simple command to a platoon "follow platoon X, keep 100 meters behind it" where the player designates platoon X and the distance to follow.

[Bluewings]

command to a platoon "follow platoon X, keep 100 meters behind it" where the player designates platoon X and the distance to follow

Excellent idea .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[sbrocker8]

For the moment - no. But it's a good idea that didn't occur to me, and it's not even on The List yet. Congratulations!
I'll see to it that we'll work on it for SB2. Smile

I'm liking all the stuff that you're planning for SB2, and I'll definitely buy it and everything, but can you PLEASE keep obstacles and obstacle breaching in SB2!?! The eSim games site is saying that obstacle breaching will be absent in SB2, and this is one feature that's making me foam at the mouth waiting for Pro PE...

[Ssnake]

There will be obstacle breaching in SB2, but in a simplified manner. It will be faster than in reality, and you'll need only a single unit type (a tank with breaching equipment). The tactical possibilities are retained, but it's not bloody complicated that way, and you won't spend half an hour with a single obstacle.

[Hell_Hound]

command to a platoon "follow platoon X, keep 100 meters behind it" where the player designates platoon X and the distance to follow

Simpler yet, have the spacing algorithm measure the distance to the nearest friendly unit on the road, and not to the nearest unit in one's own platoon. That way platoons will end up marching in column with reasonable spacing, instead of interleaved like they do now.

[Poker]

C'mon HH ... I think it's kinda fun to watch a platoon of tanks try and "overtake" a platoon of BMP's. ;)

[Hell_Hound]

No argument there. :)

[Thiefcatcher]

just a question....we have a minefield, for example, and a tank with breaching equipment. So this tank is send forward to breach the field.

But, as we have learned, every minefield should be guarded :twisted: , this tank is shot by the guards.

Will be able to push the destroyed tank through the minefiled? Because, I guess, we will not have "that" huge amount of breaching equipment.

Thx

TC

[GaryOwen]

But, as we have learned, every minefield should be guarded :twisted: , this tank is shot by the guards.


Hopefully not if you set up good overwatch of the far side of the obstacle, have troops set up security on the far side, use arty to suppress likely threat overwatch positions and cover the obstacle with smoke.

[Bluewings]

What Gary said .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[TopKick]

But getting to the far side of the bridge/obstacle/obstruction/minefield in the first place, is liable to get you shot.

[GaryOwen]

low crawl

[DrDevice]

Low crawl is a new movement command for the Leopard 2A5. The latest in MBT design. It slinks.

On another item for The List: making the map visible during planning and mission time different from the actual terrain map. Having to "proof" maps and verify routes etc. would be excellent, and help train the recon troops how to perform such tasks. Matching the real world to the one on the map is a critical task for scouts and cavalry units.

[19D30]

Hopefully not if you set up good overwatch of the far side of the obstacle, have troops set up security on the far side, use arty to suppress likely threat overwatch positions and cover the obstacle with smoke.


SOSR (pronounced SO-cer): Secure, Obscure, Supress, Reduce


Matching the real world to the one on the map is a critical task for scouts and cavalry units.


I concur, for all that thats worth. In game this could prove to be immensely fustrating, however (not to mention all the "bug" reports you would get).

[Thiefcatcher]

but a) the other guys are not "dumm" ie. stupid and will cover as long as possible, wount they? and b) my question is till not answered.

Thx in advance

TC

Pls forgive me my bad english

[19D30]

Thiefcatcher:

Breaching is never an easy or always desirable method of dealing with an obstacle, and casualties are almost inevitable even if SOSR is carried out perfectly. Obstacles are put in place for one reason: To channel the enemy into a kill zone, so for the commander it is a lesser of three evils decision.

You can either spend time finding a way to bypass the obstacle and take your chances of wandering into the kill zone anyway (or not finding a bypass at all and wasting your time), force your way through the kill zone and hope you have luck and or superior numbers and firepower (and probably take serious casualties in the process), or breach an overwatched obstacle and take the risk of spending a cosiderable amount of time in a relatively static location taking indirect fire and/or direct fire.

Tough decisions, for sure. METT-T(c), experience, and intuition are the driving decision making factors here. If you were committed to the breach, and your plow tank is killed, you might as well try pushing it with another tank (assuming it CAN move). Hopefully though, you had a MICLIC along with you and a lane was already cleared (the plow tank is just to proof the lane) and you could just push the plow tank out of the way and drive on.

Hope this answers your questions.

[Thiefcatcher]

19D30, thanks for the explanation. I knew, even not in this detail, all this.

Sorry for asking in such unclear manner. What I meant, acording to Ssnake


There will be obstacle breaching in SB2, but in a simplified manner. It will be faster than in reality, and you'll need only a single unit type (a tank with breaching equipment). The tactical possibilities are retained, but it's not bloody complicated that way, and you won't spend half an hour with a single obstacle.

is the following: we will not have batallion size battles at the beginning or at all, so battles will be Co size at best. Therefore, using mine obstacles, we might be in situations that our timetable forces us to breach. In this situation, and I mean ingame, it also might happen, that a tank plower gets shot, or just, to make it easy, a tank runs into the minefield and is dead. Will we be able to push this destroyed tank throug the mine field??

I mean, its not important, not realy, just came through this discussion in my mind.

And to that what you said, I guess the first explained manner (trying to get around) would mostlikely NATOs try...and the second (breaching at all costs) morelikly WarsawPact doctrine. At least, I hope :roll:

Thanks again, very good explaind.

Greets

TC

[DrDevice]

I concur, for all that thats worth. In game this could prove to be immensely fustrating, however (not to mention all the "bug" reports you would get).

I imagined it as a sort of "map reveal" a la RTS games. So the map view would change as you "proof" it to reflect current reports. And I had in mind only minor things: road type and composition, obstacles, bridge type, etc.

Just another way to make the map less omniscient. The pinpoint accuracy is a bit much, and I hope that later iterations of Pro include some sort of difference for GPS/IVIS/ other navigation system equipped vehicles compared to ones without. The information fight is so critical IRL, the fact that we have hyper-spotting degrades some of SBs accuracy IMO.

It's a chrome feature, though. Imagine: you are headed for the bridge clearly marked on the map, only to find it is not strong enough to handle heavy armor. Then having to use your scouts and dismounts to find fording spots nearby. Way cooooool.

[PS-SCUD]

It's a chrome feature, though

I disagree.

The current pinpoint map accuracy is a large degrader of MP games.

[DrDevice]

Scud - I agree with you 100%. I meant it's something that hasn't been mentioned, and was therefore farther down the list, if on it at all.

I agree that it would have a huge effect on gameplay. I just don't expect to see it anythime soon.

[Ssnake]

On another item for The List: making the map visible during planning and mission time different from the actual terrain map. Having to "proof" maps and verify routes etc. would be excellent, and help train the recon troops how to perform such tasks. Matching the real world to the one on the map is a critical task for scouts and cavalry units.
Given that Armies have all the means to import existing terrain databases into SB Pro, they can create the terrain for which they have printed maps anyway. In network sessions, you can disable the map view for the students, and if you hand them paper maps, you already have the feature that you requested. :)

[Hell_Hound]

In network sessions, you can disable the map view for the students, and if you hand them paper maps, you already have the feature that you requested. :)

W00t! :mrgreen:

[Ssnake]

Not a PE feature though, as there is no Instructor mode and nobody would have a map view to give commands to non player controlled units (a major pain).

[Hell_Hound]

UnW00t! :(

[NEpi]

HH, don't get unwooted yet. this kind of gameplay is great when you have a human in every tank, but any other way will make the AI-controlled units more of dumbasses than they already are.

[mapman]

Nice hat HH...