Esim word about Crewable T-72??

[Stratos]

Ok, Homer closed the threat, don't understand why.
Only want to know what is the official Esim word about the current situation.
Hope to get a little more of expression liberty in this post.

[Sean]

The other thread got locked because it was getting nasty.

Heres the official word: you already have read it elsewhere, but here it is again.

"Right now, there is no available time in the short term schedule to add the T72. Lots of work on this tank has already been done by dejawolf and oddball, and esim is not going to let that go to waste. It will be added at some point, but when I do not know."

[enigma6584]

Thank you Sean.

[Ssnake]

From my point of view, and for some I probably need to don my fireproof suit now since I am going to say a few unpleasant truths, the whole thing looks like this:
Nobody forced you to buy SB Pro PE. When you did, nobody promised you a playable T-72 You paid $125, and for that you got an adequate product. Even more, with the CV90 you got a hefty expansion for free, which we promised, and we lived up to that promise. Even if anyone of you manages to pull out a public statement from me that we would have a playable T-72 by date X, and I doubt that I ever made such a promise, such a prediction must be subject to change if the fundamental conditions under which such a promise was made, change. I can't foresee everything, and creative processes cannot be predicted and planned with 100% certainty. I find the constant whining in the face of calm explanations why we can't service your request a bit annoying, to say the least. And irritating us is definitely not going to help to speed up the process. Quite the contrary, I tend to put up more resistance the harder I feel pressed to do something. I know that it is an irrational emotion, and so far I managed to suppress it. But I shall be damned if I ever support the impression that over all the years we didn't implement the T-72 just because there wasn't enough public pressure, and that we would implement a T-Rex in Steel Beasts within weeks if only there was a sufficient public outcry for it. Now, I have never criticised team members in public since matters like these should be handeled internally. I won't change that, even if others act differently. But let me just say that I don't think that I deserve features for which I worked hard in the past which haven't been implemented, and that others have worked very hard for things that didn't get implemented yet who would never think that way either. It's just an unprofessional attitude.
At this point I simply don't care if some of you prefer to believe that it's all a big conspiracy against a playable T-72. There are nutheads who prefer to believe in anything, irrespective of evidence to the contrary. To all others I say Thank You for your constant support. I want a playable T-72 as much as anyone else, and the entire team will do what they can to make it possible. We will make it happen, and we'll make it four you, not the nutheads.

[Retro]

<rambling>
I really don't understand what this T72 outrage is about, who wants to play the underdog with the crappy tank anyway? It might be fun for a week or two but then I guess it would be back to the old Leo/M1..

I figure I got my money's worth with PRO PE, IMO esim could have charged for that CV90 as well. In the end I'm just thankful they're even doing this so that I can get a glimpse at all these vehicles and at the ways they are operated.

I know it's none of my business but I wish esimgames did something about their artwork backlog.. I understand that things like the clickable M1 pit, the 2A4 pit etc have been in the pipeline quite a while and would basically be not be a big deal to implement, if only Al had a week or two (or a suitably trained/trusted helping hand)..
</rambling>

[dejawolf]

the seniors would love to hand some arse out to new players i'm sure.

vehicle numbers can also be skewered to balance off the fact that the T-72 got such shitty vision equipment, such as the fulda campaigns, and any battle that before was coops, and can now be made full-out player vs player campaigns.
or there could be light vehicle scenarios, where you might not want to heavily skewer battle balance with heavy players like the 2a4 and M1A1, you can add T-72 and leopard AS1's instead.

its also going to be heaven for the scenario designers who loves to disable TIS for the old brutes
(you know who you are) in order to make playstyle more interesting.

you could have campaigns where the ruskie side is heavy on artillery and numbers and weak on tankpower, while the other side is the opposite.
you could have scenarios where light forces is to take out a band of T-72s and BMP-1s.
you could have anything short of T-72s with jetskis crossing the atlantic to invade the united states, armed with nuclear warheads!

you can even have leopard vs M1 scenarios with the T-72.
you could have scenarios where you are supposed to hold off the enemy with T-72s, before reinforcements arrive, you could have scenarios where you are supposed to attack the other side with T-72s before they get reinforced. you could.. gah.

[cobrabase]

Christ people,

This program that you are bitching about is a military TRAINING AID that just HAPPENS to be available to civilians - IT'S NOT A CONSOLE GAME! What is it about the words CUSTOM-BUILT FOR ARMIES that you people don't understand?

If Armies with the sh#$%y T-72 don't want to use this software for training purposes it's NOT repeat NOT Esim's fault! GET OVER the T-72.

Go out and buy "T-72: Balkans on Fire" and see how many hours of fun and enjoyment it offers you. It's a bad GAME that is easy, unrealistic and full of eye-candy - perfect for you.

[Captain_Colossus]

The T-72 has become quite tough since SB1- individual units might shake off 3 or 4 120mm main gun rounds and then disable an M1 with a hit on the track before finally succumbing- one T-72 for an M1 mobility kill is an acceptable ratio.

Besides, consider doctrinal use- the scope of SB take places at such a level so as to obscure the big picture. Specifially, 'Blue' units which might perceive local success are in reality preoccupied with a blocking action while a textbook pincer move whips past in order to exploit an opponent's operational depth; scenarios can easily accomodate T-72 attacks along unexpected axes to simulate a Red opponent shifting forces to attack the flanks, or even cutting of a defender and getting in from behind. You can go a step further and cut T-72s loose in order to run amok upon weak rear echelon, heaquarters units and serivce troops, with the only opposition a few bewildered IFVs or tanks thrown in to delay superior numbers. It's more a matter of scenario design than inherent limitations of the T-72.

[Chaplain]

OK, I'm not officially a moderator anymore, but I'll remind people of a simple rule we used to have:

If a thread was locked, and someone reopened the discussion with a new thread, any and all people who jumped on the new bandwagon had their accounts suspended.

I don't know if that is still an official rule or not, but I do suggest that people let this discussion cool off for awhile. :bangin:

[dejawolf]

ey don't worry, i'm sure homer'll be right along, and push the big red button fairly soon.

[dejawolf]

btw balkans on fire is an insult. its poorly modeled armour simulation, with a lot of errors everywhere.

[ChristianWagner]

IMHO the Admin should close those vehicle requests threads immediately.

1. The requester is pissed about the poor answer.
2. The developers are pissed about the language the requester use.
3. The others are pissed because the devs are pissed
4. The others are pissed because the requester is pissed.

Man, close those threads at once. I think these are the next vehicles:

1. ascod pizarro
2. t72 with a little bit luck.
3. we will see

I dream about a crewable "BMP 2 or 3" ...hey, just dreaming!

[Stratos]

My fault If I used a rude language, please forgive me, I'M SORRY! but imagine all this american simmers, waiting the M1 for years, how you believe they would feel if month after month no news apeared??

[Captain_Colossus]

OK, I'm not officially a moderator anymore, but I'll remind people of a simple rule we used to have:

If a thread was locked, and someone reopened the discussion with a new thread, any and all people who jumped on the new bandwagon had their accounts suspended.

l

Any and All?- Surely that would include your account as your statment in this thread is now implicated; you can't protest on the basis of individual allowance in your case since 'any and all' stands on its own. It's a slippery slope to be sure.

There is still meat to the topic, if only people would settle down on both sides. Some of the behavior which attempts to stave off whining hasn't been any more exemplary. I'm only discussing the possibilities- I can wait patiently for any length of time.

[Homer]

ey don't worry, i'm sure homer'll be right along, and push the big red button fairly soon.

... and here is the reason why: This topic has people emotionally charged up and they need time to cool down. The subject matter is not the problem; its the way how people chose to "discuss" it. When people cant control themselves in spite of their better judgment, that is when I will step in.

You are welcome to discuss this topic but not right now because it will just degenerate into repeat of the thread that I just locked.