no airstrikes? unbalances the game? How come?

[oscar19681]

I dont understand why the developers only added a hind for air support . They say if you add aircraft like the a-10 of su-25 it wil bring the game out of balance . I dont understand . why not just model AAA and SAM units? i mean these systems are built for the very purpose to maintain the real balance on the battlefield. I wonder will sb2 pro pe have more air support? I would just mis to call in air support like i did in m1 tank platoon where ther would be a massive number of enemy tanks and would the a-10 atrit the forces to i would stand a better chance . Surely i dont understand this might not be in the game since in other tank games air support would bring balance insted of unbalance it . And on many occasions the a-10 would be shot sooner or later but it never unbalanced the game at all.

[Bluewings]

You 're confusing 2 things here :

Pro PE is a Tool-Sim while SB2 will be a game .
The Militaries do not care about training their crews vs. su-25s or A-10s .
SAMs and AAA have no place in Pro PE .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[oscar19681]

well there wont be any in sb2 now will there? And i think people want to call in air support.

[Bluewings]

well there wont be any in sb2 now will there?
We do not know yet . Too early to say ...

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Gunfighter]

I dont understand why the developers only added a hind for air support . They say if you add aircraft like the a-10 of su-25 it wil bring the game out of balance . I dont understand . why not just model AAA and SAM units? i mean these systems are built for the very purpose to maintain the real balance on the battlefield. I wonder will sb2 pro pe have more air support? I would just mis to call in air support like i did in m1 tank platoon where ther would be a massive number of enemy tanks and would the a-10 atrit the forces to i would stand a better chance . Surely i dont understand this might not be in the game since in other tank games air support would bring balance insted of unbalance it . And on many occasions the a-10 would be shot sooner or later but it never unbalanced the game at all.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=4494&highlight=air+support

I think that the development time for AAA will affect the release of SBPROPE. But the door is open in the future.

[3Star]

Hind was put in because a military customer asked for it as a target.

NTM

[mapman]

Pro PE pretty much has what Militaries have paid for to be developed and have provided the specs to allow for such modeling. Hopefully, some more military clients will want air assets to practice combined arms with and we will reap the benifits :-)

[Shane]

Aviation is for fairies with technical college degrees, good grades, and participation in the Key Club. lol

:)

I'm kidding of course. ;)

[flyboy]

Hmm if they bring in AAA,they will have to bring in Stealth fighters to take care of them.Then you will have to bring in masses of Su27,s and Mig29,s to counteract that.Then you will have to add F16,s and F,18,s to add support to the Stealths,ahhhh stuff it just bring in a nuke.

[Ssnake]

I dont understand why the developers only added a hind for air support .
We didn't. We added a HIND as a target for tank gunnery training, and since we were at it, added missiles that it could fire to make it something of a threat as well. We're aware of the fact that it's going to be "abused" for other purposes as well, but that doesn't change the limited scope for which it was originally designed.They say if you add aircraft like the a-10 of su-25 it wil bring the game out of balance . I dont understand . why not just model AAA and SAM units? i mean these systems are built for the very purpose to maintain the real balance on the battlefield.
I was just an armor officer, and have no personal experience with air defense units. However, I do know that mobile air defense requires a fair amount of planning and very considerate decisions about where and how to employ them to be of actual use. It's not like just because they're there they're going to shoot down whatever is in the air. The question is, how much of the planning burden should we load on the player's shoulders? How can we keep the simulation fidelity high and still add all this stuff? Do you really know enough about the limitations of, say, a Gepard/Cheetah AAA tank or the Linebacker to decide whether it should roll along with the battalion's road march to a new location, or if they should be positioned in fixed locations to provide cover for key situations (e.g. like a scheduled maintenance stop-over), or because the location is especially suited for air strikes, or whatever. You may not know it, but the efficiency of SAM/AAA radar is reduced if the vehicle is on the move - and on top of that, constant Radar emission works as a homing beacon for ELINT to locate the battalion on the march, and eventually direct artillery strikes on that formation on the move. On the other hand, if the radar remains switched off, how do you actually detect inbound bogies?

Sure enough, we can implement something. But we don't want to implement as much as possible at the expense of fidelity. We want to keep the fidelity of what we simulate as high as we can, so we add new stuff only in baby steps. The good news is, whatever we add offers at least a decent amount of realism. If you want everything, but with extremely limited fidelity, pick Battlefield 2. It offers better looks, has a bigger community with more battles going on, and is a crappy simulation. It may be a great game - but if you're looking for a simulation with a reasonable degree of realism that offers virtual and constructive elements, SB Pro may be a better choice. We don't attempt to be everything, but what we do, we do well.

Now, with SB2, things may be a bit different. We need not worry as much about fidelity, so we could add AAA tanks with radars working all the time (and not model the effects of ELINT/SIGINT, so that having them would still not give away your location as it would in real life). The question is whether that's the highest priority for development.

For the moment, let's focus on what we have with SB Pro PE, and not worry about what we might get or what we might be missing with SB2.

[Elf`]

SO I guess Cylon Raiders are out of the question? :)

[Ssnake]

No, but of fairly low priority.

[Blackmuzzle]

You're just making up excuses, Ssnake ;)
I'm currently trying to make SAM, AAA and tank units in the game "Enemy Engaged: Comanche vs. Hokum" player-controllable. However, while said game offers a huge battlefield with very interesting interactions between combined arms, it's still very limited on the ground warfare aspect as it's primarily a helo sim.

I agree that if you want to keep realism high, you're running into all sorts of difficulties. It would be awesome to have SB show a much wider scope of simulation, like aforementioned air defences, airstrikes, etc. - but in the end it's always a question of time and budget.
Since SB is driven by hand-edited scenarios (and not a dynamic realtime campaign like EECH) I would think that giving the mission editors the option of designing airstrikes and setting up air defences etc. would be nice. It's not a must-have though.

[Wahrborg]

SO I guess Cylon Raiders are out of the question? :)

Whats the rha on that thing anyway?

[3Star]

Pretty slim. Looks like the Vipers are having decent success with cannon of the 30mm range.

NTM

[Wahrborg]

Yea, specially since they seem to use HE rounds. Funny, cuz one would think you could get some neat penetretion values on saboted rounds in an low gravity enviroment like space lol

[Ssnake]

At orbital velocities, even a spoonful of sand could be devastating.

[RecceDG]

How about a golf ball?

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ft_060227_exp13_golf.html

DG

[dejawolf]

well, adding spaced platings to the ships renders the spoonfuls of sand completely harmless.
its what nasa uses to combat high-speed space particles.

[Bluewings]

:shock:

Cheers . :3starSK:

[stuart666]

well, adding spaced platings to the ships renders the spoonfuls of sand completely harmless.
its what nasa uses to combat high-speed space particles.

They dont use spaced armour, they all carry beach towels. :wink:

[Elf`]

No, but of fairly low priority.

SCAR happy,....very happy... will wait :)

[PaleRider]

Having been a duck hunter (air defender, redeye/stinger/avenger) for a number of years, that is a lot to ask of someone who is playing this great simulation for its pure enjoyment. Integrating air defense assets along with armor and infantry company teams is a huge task in of itself. What will happen is that the player(s) will become overwhelmed with too many types of weapons systems performing different types of missions on the battlefield. What was fun before now becomes something more along the lines of work which you can never catch up with. It is hard enough to manage units now (ask some of the beta team members), only the hard core gronards will attempt to play that type of simulation and others will find easier pursuits. Or play easier missions.

[Ssnake]

Well, OK - in that sense, adding those units in general wouldn't require a scenario designer to incorporate them in his missions, so for entertainment purposes you'd either leave them out, or completely pre-script them. But even then it would invoke a LOT of effort from our side at rather limited returns on this investment. To that extent, I'm not going to rule out the possibility that one day even SB Pro might feature ADA and AAA, as well as bomber jets. But for the foreseeable future we think that there's bigger fish to fry elsewhere.