How SB Pro is Perceived Outside the SB Community

[ShoutingDog]

I've been playing SB since it first came out way back in the last century (was it that long ago - well at least since 2000 and I kind'a think since '99). Since then I've watched the game's evolution into what I consider the premiere tactical level simulation of contemporary mechanized warfare available to the general public.

During all that time I've recommended SB on various forums and newsgroups (not all of which are game oriented) when ever the topic of gaming came up. Most times I was surprised by how many had actually heard of what I - quite honestly - consider a niche game. I was even more surprised by the generally negative response.

Two common themes cropped up over and over:

1. Too hard, don't get it, etc - this from the kids, command and conquer RTS types and the arcade types. Ehhhhhh ,<shrugs shoulders> who cares what they think? Not I for sure.

Before I go into the 2nd one I've got to say that it has been my experience since getting into PC wargaming in 1980 (did paper before that starting at age 10 in 1962) that one thing that makes a game really popular and gives it legs is user created content. SB is an excellent platform for providing both in the form of mods and user created scenarios. AND that brings me to the 2nd most common complaint I hear about SB.

2. The quality of user made scenarios runs from pure crap to pure gold and the players who depend on them to give the game legs have no way of telling which is which.

Well - I'm here to tell ya we can fix that and maybe even liven this place up a bit (guys - compared to when I started hanging out here in 2000 this place is dead, Dead, DEAD! - when I came back after 2 years gone I was surprised - I figured Pro PE would have breathed new life into SB).

Anyway - fixing the scenario quality issue is relatively easy. Take the time to rate and comment on the scenarios you download and play. It only takes a few minutes. I've already commented on and rated 3 in the last 2 days and writing this has taken longer than it took to rate and comment on 3 scenarios. The authors appreciate it - even if you trash their scenario (surprise - surprise - I did trash one and was PM'd by the author with thanks and a rec for another of his scenarios - NK Offensive by Dragon6G which is freaking GREAT and well worth the download and well worth rating and commenting on).

The only way the outsiders will be able to seperate the wheat from the chaffe is if the people who play the scenarios let others know about them. It's not hard.

I would recommend rating - takes all of 10 seconds - and commenting. But at the very least RATE the scenarios the authors take so much time and work so hard at making (think it's easy to make a really good scenario - try it).

If commenting I would recommend the following format using a 5 point system where 5 is so good you'd pay to get that scenario and 1 means if you had the chance you'd take the author out into the woods and whip his ass for having the effrontery to waste bandwidth by posting it.

A possible comment format could look like this:

Map: X
Concept: X
Design: X
Playability: X
RePlayability: X
FunFactor: X

[Narrative Comments]

Here's how I define the above definitions:
Map - is the terrain realistic (do rivers or streams go up and down hills, are there pine forests in the desert, etc)? Does the map make sense given the overall scenario situation?

Concept: Is the idea behind the scenario good? For example the concept could be as simple as a single tank running a guantlet of various enemy vehicles down a long narrow valley just for fun or one that is meant to teach a player how to set up a spoiling attack, a feint or other military situation. In other words is the reason for making the scenario interesting, fun, a good teaching aid?

Design: How well did the scenario designer execute the concept?

Playability: 'Nuff said. Example - a scenario that requires an hour of planning and lasts 10 minutes is IMO not really playable but then that's just me.

RePlayability: Can the player run the scenario multiple times and have a quality experience each time?

FunFactor: Self Explanatory

Narrative: What ever you want to write that supports your ratings. Positive or negative - it's all good. The authors who really want to make good scenarios will appreciate both. The guys just looking to be admired won't and will eventually stop making scenarios we don't need taking up hard drive space on a server somewhere and wasting bandwidth up and down loading.

This is how I see it.

Comments, suggestions, hate mail?

Buehler...

Buehler...

Anyone...

[Captain_Colossus]

Well, look at Tanknet- those loony toons won't even discuss SB much, given the premier interest of that group. I calculate that their most prolific members have post counts approaching 15,000 right about now, with the preponderance of those posts ranting the same political views over and over. I've seen attempts to spur on interest in SB in the Games area, which apparently has almost no effect. They have nice topics in their armor discussion areas though.

But you know something? Steel Beasts came at time for me when I finally acquiesced to Internet connection in the Summer of 2000. Up until then I was skeptical of the Internet, but before long I could see the value in forum presence and discourse- I had never seen anything like this before, nor had I foreseen the tremendous possibilities. The most obscure topics for discussion which occured between maybe less than a hundred people all over the world suddenly became viable for everyone. But since then, the whole thing has settled down on me: even the tremendous SB Pro somehow isn't as fresh as SB1's arrival- we are like children who have outgrown Christmas and birthdays.

[Lone*star49]

...

I'd like to add my sense and hope for SB, even though many who see my post will no doubt say: "who?" or "I heard LS dropped of the edge of the earth, long ago".. lol

Both true, lol..

But, once I get my home situation in balance, and get past the next few months of classes and practice of the new pistols I have purchased for SD mode, for the near future of when we have to let BD (battledog) go, I/we intend to be German Shepherd free for awhile so we can travel, and explore things like the Matterhorn, Egypt's monument's to man, etc. Having had 7 GS-dogs thru-out my lifetime, I've done my duty (all from the dog pounds, or found, thru fate.

But, back to on-subject.

I wish, with the selected few, that like in old SB1 days 1999 on, had the skill, along with the joy, to make small 1 vs 1 sce's, that had easy application-use with any of the following players, 1 vs 1, 1 vs 2, 2 vs 2, 2 vs 3 or 3 vs 3. These type sce's offered many benefits such as: easy to get a game going, great place for vets vs vets, or vet vs good plus one new guy, or visa verse, just a great way to learn and talk about it thru AAR afterwards and the use of TS as well.

Many of these 1 company, or smaller type, sce's had the beauty of the basics, meaning, tanks, M1 vs Leo, or Leo vs Leo, etc, only, or with Brads and Jags, or Brads only, for grunts to scout and work wonders, when they did it right.. lol

But, with all the new type units available now with Pro Pe, I see another great way to get trained up in new type units, without overkill of too many units, types, players, taking long times to get a game going, etc.

The big games/sce's, 3 company, 4 company, will always have a place, and, like the many small sce's, as the good ones, will always be found to be SB "classics" that have a ongoing life of their own, as did so many of the small ones that were classics in SB1, with ongoing re-use, over and over, never boring, always fun, hair-up-on-your-backs, kind.. lol

My final thought was/is: we had a small Ladder game, 1 vs 1 only, in which it was well thought out, as to ones ability, meaning; strong Vet, Vet, Good, and beginner, and it gave the lesser, learning player, a handicap, so to speak, and it was active, for the time until that particular event ended, with the top 10 players, in order of 1st thru 10, along with say, 50 players participated, you'd see 11 thru 50, in placement, along with how many battles each person participated in. It was blast, and the best part was, that the loser of each battle had to post the results, and had the "option" of posting a small "remarks" of anything he had to say, such as "great map", "map sucked", "thanks Archangel for the battle and the AAR review, I learned today, alot, even though I need my arse mailed back"..(that would be me.. lol) I never could beat him, came close, but NEVER did.. lol, along with many that gave a "rating" of the map, sce, itself..

But it got many involved because it was a tool, to improve, learn, get to a MP battle quick without waiting and waiting, along with, very little lag or packet loss, due to small sizes, both in units, and players.

And anyone could chk out any battle, and the losers remarks about any battle, if they made remarks.

I would like to see that unique gem/diamond, be rediscoverd, both by vets of scenario making, along with many of the newer members that want to put their thoughts, battleplans, to work.

You'd get both of the best worlds IMHO, activity and comments.


I wish you all well, and it is my goal to get back to the hunt with many old friends, along with being cannon fodder for the taking, until I get back up to speed, thru re-training.

I really believe this could happen, as "all good things in life, come around again in our search for the 'very best' of life, and one comes around full circle."


Good hunting,



LS

[GaryOwen]

J. F-ing Xrist! There's a snowball fight in hell this afternoon. I've been thinking about that exact same thing.

LoneStar and Gary Owen, not only on the same sheet of music, but maybe even singing in harmony.

[Captain_Colossus]

GO- you're in the zone, look at your post count!

May I retain your posting services so that it remains so for an agreed upon time at market rates? My evil scribes will draw up terms of the contract, there shall be an arbitration clause, etc. etc..

Don't post your reply here!

[ShotMagnet]

The quality of user made scenarios runs from pure crap to pure gold and the players who depend on them to give the game legs have no way of telling which is which.That particular issue is being worked, though in reality the individuals working it are probably not going to change the hearts and minds of those who make missions.

'You can't legislate morality', neither can you tell someone to go out and make a good mission. All you can do is give them the tools. Kinda like therapy, I guess.


Well, look at Tanknet- those loony toons won't even discuss SB much, given the premier interest of that group. I calculate that their most prolific members have post counts approaching 15,000 right about now...T19 is around 22k, KingSarge is around 17k. tank-net is a great place to learn about tanks, and if you want to see an intelligent discussion turn into a train-wreck. Otherwise...

I think the real issue comes down to something like 'How hard do I want to work to entertain myself?'. For a lot of us, that answer is 'not very'. For the rest of us, there is a sliding scale against which gradually fewer of us find ourselves wishing to exert ourselves in doing things like design good missions.

That applies also to the games we play. I've been playing Advanced Squad Leader for about 27 years now. It's the board-game equivalent of SB, and it too suffers from the same problems; it's a niche-market of a niche-market and the folks who play the game often do not trouble themselves to do something more than just play the game. Bad scenarios are fewer, but not unknown, and there are even people who are willing to indulge in sense-free bloviation.

It comes down to this: the folks who are willing to do the work are pretty much always going to be in the minority, compared to the folks who will try to tear down the good deeds you're striving to do. That's the bad news. The good news is that the folks willing to do the good work only have to do the good work, quality finds itself and attracts such to itself.


Shot

[ShoutingDog]

What Lonestar said: I remember that ladder - fun - fun - fun - even though I got my rear end kicked more often than not.

Who ran that? Are they still around?

[GaryOwen]

Here's a link to the rules for the old ladder. The download link for the ladder scenarios still works.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/Ladder/rules.htm

[Lone*star49]

J. F-ing Xrist! There's a snowball fight in hell this afternoon. I've been thinking about that exact same thing.

LoneStar and Gary Owen, not only on the same sheet of music, but maybe even singing in harmony.
...

LMAO GO, or as the great Shermans War once said; "Christ on a bicycle".. lol, anything is possible, especially when two old (speaking for myself..lol) vets naturally come around full circle..


I didn't want to mention names, (too many to forget just one great one) but between you, GS, Werewolf, AA, Caveman, Poker, Hack, damn, who made "the 3 sisters"? On the tip of my tongue, (Kam6?)and more.

Anyways, the molds are there, along with many new members who must be trying their hands at making sce's.

What size, what works, what lasts, are written in stone.

I hope that the carving can be re-lit, both old/vets, and the new-er members.



LS


PS.. Thanks SD for sparking up the eternal SB flame (oh no, "flame" in a good way.. lol)

[Sean]

Gs and I ran one, Hackworth did one too. I posted the old rules for reference - see garys post for a link.

[Captain_Colossus]

I saw GS in a game of Red Orchestra a couple of months ago. I killed him, offered my salutations, and departed.

[Sean]

Yeah, I saw you there too, got you with my IS2 :-)

[ShoutingDog]

I saw GS in a game of Red Orchestra a couple of months ago. I killed him, offered my salutations, and departed.
<Best Homer Simpson voice> Ummmmmmmmm - Red Orchestraaaa

Just visited the ladder link. I remember those scenarios - fond memories.

[Ssnake]

Well, maybe we will see a growth in the community through the help of the ANZAC version of PE. While limited to Aussie vehicles as playables, the Australian Army is going to put 10,000 copies on a DVD in Infantry Magazine so that possibly every soldier in Australia can gather a copy with ease.
If just 0.5% of them are going to create missions of their own, we should have 50 new mission designers in the next four to six months. Let's also not forget that SB1 was sold through retail in much larger numbers than what SB Pro PE can possibly sell through our web store. Since we're not aiming for the mass market for precisely the reasons given by the "kiddies", this in itself is not a problem. But I do take their objections seriously, though not in the context of SB Pro but an eventual game sequel - we must be creful not to paint ourselves into the complexity corner like what killed flight sims as a mainstream computer game genre.

SB Pro, as it is right now, can pass as a serious game. But it is of very limited entertainment potential for those who haven't already developed an appetite for contemporary armored combat. I can but ask you to see (and communicate) our concept for SB2 not as a "dumbed down" version of SB Pro, but as a use of the same underlying technology for a totally different application with the goal to attract new players into a "talent pool" from where new life can be breathed into mission design and multiplayer sessions.

[Captain_Colossus]

Yeah, I saw you there too, got you with my IS2 :-)

What's your RO name? Someone from the [181] clan recognized- well, shot me in friendly fire fit. He never said who he was though.

[Sean]

Im not in the 181. TRMN8.

[Captain_Colossus]

Hmm. I don't remember that name, but I went through my screen grabs hoping for any proof that I paid you back. Alas- nothing, but by coincidence here you are, and someone else delivered the coup de grace.

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/5349/shot00016ww0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Vati]

But I do take their objections seriously, though not in the context of SB Pro but an eventual game sequel - we must be creful not to paint ourselves into the complexity corner like what killed flight sims as a mainstream computer game genre.
As a developer of a very successful flight sim, I cannot agree with you at all with your argument for the complexity. If anything made flight sims "die", it was exactly your counter-attack to the problem - making them less complex.

[Ssnake]

So, which "dumbed down" simulations do you have in mind?

I liked "Strike Commander" very much, but it probably counts only as a "sim lite". Then there were stupid but fun flight games like Crimson Skies. Not exactly simulators, but I have a hard time picturing CS as the dagger in the back of the sim community. So, which are those killers that brought the demise of the flight sim genre?

[Vati]

Ssnake, its not the titles, but the developers/publishers with the mindset that if something is less complex it will be more successful for that genre.

Let me give you a very nice example of prime online flight sim gone dead - Warbirds. It started with being strict hardcore. It was best in realism/complexity for its time on whole WW2 flight sims front and very popular. Now its only a bad shadow of itself. The reason was simple.. the excuse for players decline was in its complexity, as stated by the management team. So they dumped down the whole thing with easy flight options, etc. and even more people left. The sad thing is they made several iterations of the same thing and now the product is more or less dead.

Complexity is what attracts folks to the sims and not the opposite. The focus should not be on making things less complex, but how to present this complexity to the user, if you understand what I am trying to say.

[ShoutingDog]

Complexity is what attracts folks to the sims and not the opposite. The focus should not be on making things less complex, but how to present this complexity to the user, if you understand what I am trying to say.
Sitting on the fence on this one...

A lot of folks say they want complex when what they mean is they want an accurate model. Complex doesn't necessarily mean hundreds of controls, options, etc.

A good example of that is the Falcon flight sim series. Falcon 3.0 was an absolute dream to play even when set to complex flight model which was pretty darn accurate. A large community was vociferous in it's demand for a more complex version, more accurate flight model, more planes, etc etc. Microprose listened and gave the Falcon community what it wanted. Falcon 4.0 added so many bells and whistles, controls etc that it was just a chore to play. Oh sure you could select dummy mode but that made it feel like you needed to drop 50 cents thru the slot every time you fired it up. There didn't seem to be a middle ground.

4.0 sold well on the rep of 3.0 but rapidly died. (Aside: one could argue that the numerous bugs and performance issues that 4.0 had for about the 1st year after it's release is what killed it - there may very well be some validity to that). There's still a small and hardcore community that supports and plays it online and offline but that's about it.

How does this apply to SB? The lesson to be learned is that complex doesn't have to mean difficult. A game doesn't need to have the ability to turn every switch on a control panel, you shouldn't have to go thru a half hour procedure just to get to a point where you can taxi to the runway. The model can be so accurate that it simulates reality at a 100% level and still let the player PLAY - that's what the masses want. They don't care if all upteen layers of what ever goes into chobham is there - they just want to play a game that makes it harder to kill a M1 than a M60 if hit by the same type of round. The model can put 'em in - the player really doesn't need to know about it.

Okay - I'm rambling now - but it should be obvious where I'm going.

Complexity yes. Playability - HELL Yes. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[MajorMagee]

Which brings us back to the scenarios. The key to any good simulation is generating the sense of immersion in what you're doing. Accurate behavior of the environment, and the objects in it helps create the feeling of "being there". A distracting user interface, and unbelievable situations get in the way.

[Dachs]

I find learning the ins and outs of a sim, is often easier when the sim really do simulate the reallife counterpart. It's not like the manufacturer of a given irl machine wants to make it complex, they generally aim for ease of use (yeah, i know, there are exceptions to that rule)
And if the player/simmer have the time, and are willing to understand the systems, and the logic behind them, suddenly it all makes sense. Then a question about why X does this, when i push Y, can be answered!

When a sim developer dreams up some kind of "simulated" system, the only answer to the above question can be.. because we say so!? Thats not satisfactory IMO, i'd rather have the "as real as it gets" deal, with all the bells and whistles.
But.. downside is, it takes a lot of valuable time to research and read up, on all this. I know i spent countless hours reading about F16's, BFM manouvers, missile technology etc. for use in Falcon4, but i enjoyed it all. And as an added bonus, I now have a lot of useless knowledge about modern fighter planes ;)


Huh, hope all this makes sense

[dejawolf]

the time has come for: STEEL BEASTS 2: ACTION!!

http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=679991
http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=682488

gathering ravishing reviews, and enticing millions of new fans to the Sb franchise!
so that SB can walk into the annals of history, with numerous sequels,
each better than the last.

[Jester_UK]

Complexity is what attracts folks to the sims and not the opposite. The focus should not be on making things less complex, but how to present this complexity to the user, if you understand what I am trying to say.

For once I completely agree with Vati here. An excellent point well made.

The problem as I see it with the mainstream PC developers (such as Ubi and EA) is that they've lost sight of this fact, blinded by the big money available from straightforward games. And since it's these big boys that pay the money to the developers they do, for better or worse, call the tune.

I think that it's a fact that the majority of gamers want "quick fix" adrenaline rushes. Not suprising really I suppose. Older gamers want to just blow stuff up to relieve the stress they suffer in the working world, and in general terms the younger gamers nowadays lack the attention span, patience and desire to take the time and make the effort to learn a complex simulator. For example, sit 10 teenagers down with Falcon 4 and its manual. I'll put money on that you'd be lucky to have two left working on learning the procedures etc an hour later. Most would have taken one look at the thickness of the manual and legged it back to their X-Boxes!

This leaves those of us who prefer the longer learning curve of an accurate simulation out in the cold since the large publishing houses feel they can make more money catering to the majority. Although this makes financial sense to them, it obviously doesn't help us greatly.

I've seen a move over the past few years of simulation developers either cutting out the middleman completely and taking the financial risk of marketing directly via the internet, or using smaller publishing houses who use similar marketing routes. This seems to be the best route for complex simulations to go for the time being. At the very least it helps to ensure that our favorite genre isn't going to die out completely.

How does all this relate to the original post? Well I don't suppose it does to be honest. But if serious simulations are going to be forced to go independant by the big publisher's fixation on the console and quick learn gamers' market, the best form of advertising is going to be word of mouth (or word of forums I guess in the internet universe). As such the quality of available scenarios for SBPro PE will play a big part in that.

Maybe it would be worth ESim looking into the feasability of actually approving the better scenarios and marking them as such in the download section. These could be the ones that they feel show off SBPro to it's best. This way they can avoid potential customers being put off by anything made by the community that's not quite up to par.

[ShoutingDog]

Maybe it would be worth ESim looking into the feasability of actually approving the better scenarios and marking them as such in the download section. These could be the ones that they feel show off SBPro to it's best. This way they can avoid potential customers being put off by anything made by the community that's not quite up to par.

That's a heck of a good idea. Now if Al or Ssnake only had the time...

They could delegate that review/stamp of approval process though.

[Hedgehog]

Hmm, maybe a virtual unit could be the judges?
Of course esim could rotate this priviledge.

just my suggestion...

[JamesT73J]

I find learning the ins and outs of a sim, is often easier when the sim really do simulate the reallife counterpart. It's not like the manufacturer of a given irl machine wants to make it complex, they generally aim for ease of use (yeah, i know, there are exceptions to that rule)
And if the player/simmer have the time, and are willing to understand the systems, and the logic behind them, suddenly it all makes sense. Then a question about why X does this, when i push Y, can be answered!

When a sim developer dreams up some kind of "simulated" system, the only answer to the above question can be.. because we say so!? Thats not satisfactory IMO, i'd rather have the "as real as it gets" deal, with all the bells and whistles.
But.. downside is, it takes a lot of valuable time to research and read up, on all this. I know i spent countless hours reading about F16's, BFM manouvers, missile technology etc. for use in Falcon4, but i enjoyed it all. And as an added bonus, I now have a lot of useless knowledge about modern fighter planes ;)


Huh, hope all this makes sense

I do agree. To a point. I like the Flanker and IL2 approach; realistic flight dynamics and immersion - you get a real 'feel' from playing these sims. Both of them do not require much frantic switch-flicking to get things done - but enough for you to get the idea and enjoy each platform's strengths and weaknesses. In my opinion, SB takes a similar approach.

From my PPL days, I have few fond memories of what it took to bring a C150 to life from cold - in fact I probably couldn't do it again from memory. What I do remember is the sensation of flight and movement.

James

[dejawolf]

i always missed the switchflicking in IL2, also heard that IL2 was heavily biased towards the russian aircraft, with german airplanes having ridicolously low ROFs.

[NEpi]

first, about the original topic:
no need for esim to monitor scenarios, when there are enough players doing that already. ranking system is not practical, IMO, since you have to get back and rank the scenario after playing it. for that you have to remember what it was called, what you liked or disliked, and be ultra-altruistic, since you already know how good it is, and you don't have any incentive in ranking.

one solution is to add such incentives. I think it's impractical. another solution might be some kind of implicit measure of the quality of the sce. downloads meter is such a measure, but it is not working well, since a sce might only look good and have a large number of downloads, and worth nothing.

I think that esim can help with inserting such an implicit measure by collecting information about the scenarios actually played. by counting the number of times and the number of players that played a specific scenario, one can learn how good it is.
of course, it means sending some information to esim at the start of any game, but since it is non-intrusive information (for example, anonymous), I don't suppose anyone will object. I can think of other ways too, but it's too late, and I'll have to continue tomorrow.

for the complexity issue, what is complex?

[chappy]

the problem with trying to rank scenarions is that different people like different things. What one person thinks is a crap scen may well be another persons dream scen.
For instance, i like ultra realism, i like COMPLETE breifings (everyone else complains about the breifings i write because they are complete, aka 'too long') I like accurate force structure and doctrine and i like all the possible options to be allowed for by the scen designer.
What i dont like is
a) instant action
b) unrealistic or 'silly' scens
c) scenarios that run on rail tracks

If i go through and rate MOST of the scenarios on offer i would rate the vast majority of them quite poorly im sorry to say with the exception of a very few membrs of the community who i obviously have similar thoughts about scenarios on.
Now perhaps Esim has its own concept of what an ideal scenario is, althought i doubt it and expect they are happy to play the role of benevolent ruler from above, allowing the community to organise itself and its talents independantly from the company to wherever that takes them. This is ok but it will inevitibly result in some polarisation and there will never be a focussed community working towards commonly accepted quality of scenarios. The other option would be to identify people in the community that THEY believe write good scenarios and provide incentives for them to do so. This has the effect of steering the community a bit more in the direction that eSim wants it go however.

What will the effect of the launch of SB2 have on the quality of scenario? what style will they be? We may get more scenario writing members of the community but what will their contribution be?
compare this to the fact that each military force that uses this software for training has trained people that make scenarios FOR their respective militaries. of course people outside of the military will probably never see these scenarios, but imagine if they could. Would they be well recieved or half of them be considered 'too hard' or 'too boring' or 'too complicated'


Snake, on the ANZAC version: yes theres gonna be 10000 copies of it going out there to all aussie servicemen, but unless im mistaken, that will not be compatible with SB PRO PE. There is a big gap between a free anzac version and someone buying the PRO PE version. What % would you expect of people exposed to the ANZAC version will then go ahead and 'expand' to the PRO PE version.


An after thought, how do we see SB PRO PE's situation post SB2 release? Will it suffer or will it expand the userbase?

i guess what i mean here is, Will SB2 and PRO PE be seen as 2 tiers? one for the average gamer and 'fun' and one for those that want something just a little bit more? If so, will the userbase of PE expand? IMHO it may not, as many of the people in this community could probably comfortably belong in a more 'casual' SB2 community given the type of game play they enjoy and benefit more from that. however that may be offset by other people who start with an attraction to SB2 and then 'graduate' to PE? i'll stop rambling now

[ShoutingDog]

first, about the original topic:
no need for esim to monitor scenarios, when there are enough players doing that already.None is enough? The whole point of the OP is that outsiders don't like SB because they can't tell if the user made scenarios are good or bad. That's because no one takes the time to rate the scenarios they download and play. ranking system is not practical, IMO, since you have to get back and rank the scenario after playing it.Hmmm... 10 seconds to log on, 10 to find the scenario and another 10 to select 1 of 5 choices. Man - what were we thinking - the very idea - asking anyone to take 30 seconds of their life to rank a scenario someone spent many hours making for other's enjoyment. Geez what a selfish bunch scenario designers are. for that you have to remember what it was called,Whoa! If someone can't even remember a scenario's name... :cul: what you liked or disliked Wait a minute - if one can't even remember a scenario's name, we certainly can't expect them to remember whether it was any good or not... and be ultra-altruistic, since you already know how good it is,Uhhhhh... that's the whole point. Neither the designer or anyone else has a clue whether a scenario is good, bad or indifferent UNLESS THE PLAYERS TAKE THE TIME TO RANK IT.and you don't have any incentive in ranking.Lost me there.

one solution is to add such incentives. I think it's impractical.Probably... another solution might be some kind of implicit measure of the quality of the sce. downloads meter is such a measure, but it is not working well, since a sce might only look good and have a large number of downloads, and worth nothing.Agreed...

I think that esim can help with inserting such an implicit measure by collecting information about the scenarios actually played. by counting the number of times and the number of players that played a specific scenario, one can learn how good it is.
of course, it means sending some information to esim at the start of any game, but since it is non-intrusive information (for example, anonymous), I don't suppose anyone will object. I can think of other ways too, but it's too late, and I'll have to continue tomorrow.E.T. phone home? That's gonna go over real well - not many folks like their PC's sending data to remote sites that they don't know about or don't have control over the content. One man's non-intrusive is another's invasion of privacy. Good Luck with that.

I for one have taken the time to rank and comment on every scenario I have downloaded to date. Time to rank less than a minute. Time to comment 2 to 5 minutes (but then I'm a long winded rambling SOB)...

[GGTharos]

Not to mention there are probably some EXCELLENT scenarios out there that likely aren't played very often due to their complexity.

[Skybird03]

I disagree with some comments indicating that SBP is not already attractive for a diversity of sim players. I think quite the opposite is the case. But the grain of salt is this simple truth: the price scares many potential customers away, no matter the argument why the price is like it is. I have had many emails last year with members of the subsim.com community (of now some 17.000), and usually the audience is naval hardcore. But SBP raised quite some interest, I would say, I got plenty of mails with questions, while the new tankforum remained relatively quiet. as I see it, the situation was like this: SBP raised interest, but modern tanks in general did not, so I (as author of that review) was contacted a lot, but the tankforum was widely ignored. Note that there are many on that forum who wait for the relase of that Tigers vs T34 simulation to be relased shortly: the interest for WW2-related tanksim maybe is higher than for a modern sim. However, there are quite some SBP-customers coming from subsim.com. I also see a failry low but constant activity level of visitors at simHQ's SBP-section.

If SBP would have been a release at ordinary price, and would have been marketed more conservatively like other sims and games, I'm sure it would have sold in record numbers. Seen that way, I think a market-oriented SB2 has very good chances for being a success. Just get down that price to competitive levels, right now it isn't. This is the most important thing, I think. Give it the price of a usual game, and you will hook the usual gamers.

[Ssnake]

This is (at least potentially) one of the most constructive and useful discussion threads in a long time. :)

[Porphyr]

Hi

As one of the converts from Subsim (although I still go there and take the subs out for a "walk" occasionally :) ) I would like to chime in with a few of my experiences, that is how I percieved SBPro PE. First, I have never been interested in tanks for their own sake. I do like simulations and "wargames" with a bit of depth and immersion. I also like playing chess...

When SPPro PE was released I read a few comments on it, (and especially after seeing some captured movies with tank action) it was quite clear that this was a quality product. So I ordered it and now I'm hooked. I find myself more often load up a tank scenario, than flying aircrafts or driving subs. I'm only scratching the surface on this sim so far but I'm very impressed with what I see. I haven't played every sim there is, but so far SBPro PE is the best I have had. Period. :luxhello: (IL2 Sturmovik comes second as it is a project that totally transcended its own goals)

Pricing is a difficult thing. To me the price tag made me hesitate perhaps a day or two. But as many others that do that, I already knew I was going to buy it. But I can fully understand someone a bit curious on simulations and want to try their hands on this genre, will not buy SBPro PE with current pricing, which is a shame because you need to get your hands on to it to get "sucked" in. I can also imagine people that say, "hey I love good simulations and I love flying a virtual aircraft. This is obviously a good sim but I don't like tanks. I won't buy into tanks for that price." Point is, like me, they could have found out that they acctually like driving and shooting tanks as well.
I showed SBPro PE to some friends and they looked on with amazement, untill the infantry showed up... "uuggh.. what is that!" :mad3: I have to agree that this part singlehandedly did do a lot to dispell some of the magic and immersion. I know it is eye candy, but to an outsider this stands out as a inconsistancy, a flaw, which might raise questions about pricing vs content, etc.

As for the future, I think SBPro PE should be the product leading the way (for public consumption) SB2 seems to be what should be incorporated into SBPro PE not developed apart from it or branching the series. I imagine a SB product line where you could buy basic SB first (for the the not already addict), then buy and download PRO extension and merge them. voila you get the whole package and range of options, extra difficulty, better graphics etc

Cheers Porphyr

[ShotMagnet]

This is (at least potentially) one of the most constructive and useful discussion threads in a long time.Four pages and no vitriol, must be some sort of SB record.

I'll mention, for anyone who hasn't noticed, that there is now on TS an SB Design Help channel where anyone can come with a question regarding how to use a particular Mission- or Map Editor feature.

Eventually there can be expected to find in the SBSDG a mention of what makes a good scenario, as well. Fundamentally, though, what makes a good scenario and what makes a popular scenario will remain as subjective as 'who should I vote for?'.

People like different things; I don't think ranking missions on a symbolic-rating basis will do much to distinguish the ore from the rock. Adding a comment text-box might, though. Doing so might also allow the unsuspecting forumite to distinguish based on the commentary whether or not this is something the individual concerned might have a good time with.

I personally don't use the missions found in the downloads section, even though I presume that there are good ones to be found. Presently there isn't enough information there for me to shop intelligently, and I spend time looking for a mission I might like while asking myself in parallel why I'm not just doing up one for myself.

If we had a comments block where you could read something about the mission, that might help. Trouble is, not everyone will be bothered to post something about what they liked as regards a mission, even if they liked nothing.

And it's still a trick, deciding what's a 'good' mission. I personally don't think there is such an animal, not as can be described in a paragraph or less. On the other hand, there's no reason we can't at least make better-known the tools that are out there.

Shot

[Jester_UK]

Regarding the choice of what makes a "good" scenario:

It is indeed a very subjective question. To be honest there's no overall right answer to it.

Maybe a redesign of the downloads section (preferably overseen by someone with actual military experience) where instead of dividing them into "easy" and "hard" as they are at present (since this is in itself also a subjective division), divide them into "realistic" (proper briefings, proper force doctrines and movement tactics etc) and "fun" (everything else including Rambo styles and those aimed primarilly at enjoyment for the genreal masses).

This type of sub-division would not only be less subjective than what we have now, it would in itself give a quick guide to what sort of content to expect in a particular mission simply based on which part of the downloads section it was placed in.

[ShoutingDog]

If we had a comments block where you could read something about the mission, that might help. Trouble is, not everyone will be bothered to post something about what they liked as regards a mission, even if they liked nothing.

GUYS! There absolutely is a comments block already available. To enter comments for a scenario in the downloads section just click on the More Info link that every download has. Then click View Comments. You can immediately read all posted comments and add your own.

It's pretty simple actually and doesn't take a lot of time at all.

[stalintc]

lol people didnt know there was a comments block?!

Well now you do know time to get over there a post some comments :biggrin: not that im one to talk because I havent either for the shame of it :(

Cheers

[stuart666]

Irish Hussar a number of months ago posted a thread upon the unofficial British army website (ARRSE) on SB Pro PE. I think some of the comments they raise are fundimental to the reason why SB Pro PE its not pulling in more people than it is.

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=52918.html


Yes, there are people who are more interested in simple and light, though I think the failure of T72 balkans on fire (and God Help us, Gunship 3000) suggest that is NOT the way to go. That would condemn SB2 to bargain bin hell. What we want is a sim that combines the best of SBpro pe with more juicy playable elements that you would find in sims like Silent Hunter III. And somehow, get the cost down. Its driving people who would otherwise be interested away.
Not sure on the modern angle, but I think it would be fair to suggest that if SB2 aimed for something that fires peoples imaginations (WW2, Cold War, 1967/1973) it would do rather more to help sales than just the Generic term of 'modern armour'. For a populist sim, the set of simulated vehicles needs to be more focused.

SB Pro PE is a niche item, and whilst satisfying people who bought SB1, its not going to significantly widen the SB community. That is why im so anxious for SB2 to be developed, its the only way the SB community is going to grow. And Its only by growing it that you are going to get the flow of maps scenarios and mods that was available with SB1 which increased the vitality (and presumably the sales) of the program.

BTW, you are all talking about scenarios, why doesnt anyone rate maps as well? Mine has been up there for the last 3 months and last I looked only 2 people had voted for it. it doesnt encourage people to keep adding to the community if you, the downloaders, dont encourage the people who do these things to continue. For example, Alfa did a cracking canadian map, how many have voted for it yet?

[dejawolf]

battlefield/OFP-like dismounting of vehicles?
i remember that was a real buzzword back when i was a console gamer.

anyways, a single player campaign is not a given for a games success.
BF 1942 and BF2 (with modern vehicles) is selling by the truckloads,
even with poorly implemented and repetitive single player.
i think an ability to join games that are playing would do a lot more to SB,
and a switch to disable this in the scenario editor.
especially for players with bad connections, who frequently drop.
better graphics would also attract more customers.

[Skybird03]

I understand why SBP does not invite modders to be able to do their own stuff for SBP-PE.

but imagine this: SB2 also not allowing to change the included modern stuff. But this option: a trigger to switch off the included modern equipment, and by that opening the sim for modded equipment that then fills the gap of the default content and uses the sim's AI and scripting system to get modder's stuff rolling. There is a lot of interest for WW2 related tank simulation, and modders could take care of this and develop the WW2 part in community work, while the switching back to the original modern equipment allows to use the sim for online play without problems from players using incompatible versions or different stuff. Look at the unified standard the non-AF Falcon modding scene has reached, for example the SP3 standard. GWX for Silent Hunter 3. And other examples. If this feature gets properly advertised, that people buy unmoddable modern tank sim with the option to tweak the sim for a complete modification by the modder community concerning historical themes, I think this could be a true customer magnet. For eSim, there is only little additional work, they just need to implement that magical switch, and make sure that once the default modern content got locked away, the empty "shelves" are ready to be used by modders to fill their own historical tank models and physics variables in. esim also would not need to invest anything in the support and development of a cold War mod. A Korea mod. A world war 2 mod.

Nothing to loose, nothing needed to be invested, no risk - only wins possible. If you think about it, moddability is one primary and most dominant argument pro longevity of a sim, and it's attractiveness.

BTW, I do not speak because my own interest. I am happy with SBP like it is, and I do have far more interest for modern tanks than for historical ones. A WW2 mod is not for me, but I know that many people wait for a WW2 tank sim. Such mods I speak of are not for me. But the idea sounds like a clever trick to get customers lining up for being hooked. :)

[dejawolf]

opening SB for moddable content isn't like opening a door.
its more a matter of chiseling a hole in a wall, and building a door out of trees from scratch, with hinges and all, molded from pieces of metal ore mined from the mountains.

[Skybird03]

I can'T judge that, I am no programmer. but eSim and the developer team should not evade to give it some serious thinking. What two things have these sims in common: Flashpoint. Falcon. Sub Command. Dangerous Waters. Flight Simulator. rFactor. GTR 1+2. - these are just some of the sims I know.

Answer: a long life. And - moddability. One could even count IL-2, since it has seen so many addon theatres and airplanes by the developer additional to the skins and tools by the community. I even do not startz to mention FPS games.

Fact is that many newcomer ask one question very early on: "I want to buy the sim/I have just bought it. What patches and stuff do I need, what mods are recommended?"

It simply is not wise, considering market chances, to scratch moddability off the list so early. Me you must not attract, I'm already hooked. but there are plenty of potential customers out there, and the less you meet their basic expectations (and moddability simply is a common thing nowadays, like it or not), the smaller the number of those who actually will buy. You eventually run the risk that for the main only those will be attracted that already have bought SBP-PE. And quite some of these people will not buy twice, even if graphics are improved.

I really think that SB2 needs some more stuff and different design to attract people in greater numbers than just some cosmetical improvements over SBP. Else you get stuck with the hardcore tank enthusiasts again only - with us that we are already here!

[Captain_Colossus]

The intrinsic map editor cuts to the heart of the graphics representation probably more than any other element- but the flexibility gained there also means that you don't get the good-looking pre-rendered maps found elsewhere. This is particularly deleterious to MOUT combat, since the kind of resolution necessary to render a detailed city block doesn't quite lend itself well to SB's map construction- and you would pay a performance cost to create those sort of maps with SB's larger draw distance. Online pick up and play Steel Beast matches ala BF2 and Red Orchestra while gaining a good draw for gamers seems similarly hamstrung by totally different design mechanics at the outset; I can't even begin to think how to blend both of these most desireable elements, but I think that somehow online focus is the key.

To that end, I believe that any derivative SB products should be severely distinguished from the parent line- think BF2, RO and OpFlash influences insofar as there is more interaction with flying things, running things and driving things; the success of future SB games should do well to pay attention and emulate a successful formula, but accomplished from a different starting point. In other words, the core focus of SB remains tanks and AFVs, but all ground and air vehicles (and infantry units) serve as more than just a foil in that they are playable. This means the integrated battlefield promised in other games but unique in that a higher fidelity armor model remains the focus this time. Obviously, this means concessions would be made where information still remains stingy. In this case, you can for example streamline fire control solutions and vehicle interiors to closely match other vehicles already in the system, just so that you have something to work with; note that this doesn't mean simplfying things in the sense of dumbing them down, but simplifying things in the sense of making already high resolution models common to more units, so that they can be brought in.

Otherwise, you risk bringing in more or less the same esoteric product line, with the same question of larger appeal to gamers again and again.

[chappy]

Regarding the choice of what makes a "good" scenario:

It is indeed a very subjective question. To be honest there's no overall right answer to it.

Maybe a redesign of the downloads section (preferably overseen by someone with actual military experience) where instead of dividing them into "easy" and "hard" as they are at present (since this is in itself also a subjective division), divide them into "realistic" (proper briefings, proper force doctrines and movement tactics etc) and "fun" (everything else including Rambo styles and those aimed primarilly at enjoyment for the genreal masses).

This type of sub-division would not only be less subjective than what we have now, it would in itself give a quick guide to what sort of content to expect in a particular mission simply based on which part of the downloads section it was placed in.


AMEN BRUTHA preach it!

The only catch is *who* decides? an individual from esim? a committee drawn from the community? what classifies as real life experience? How realistic does it have to be for it to be considered realistic?

[12Alfa]

Most times I was surprised by how many had actually heard of what I - quite honestly - consider a niche game. I was even more surprised by the generally negative response.



Anyone...
Well I've a view a few of us here have that offers a answer I think to such questions. I have the pleasure to train armoured troops with SB Pro and I also spread SB to the general public.
The reason why most people find this sim hard is simple, it is. It is a simulator to train troops on the concept of mech warfare in this century. It as most of you know is not rocket science, however it is nearly as hard for most people. Not saying you all can’t play the sim, however would you be able to jump into a AFV and fight in a armoured environment such as Iraq or Af-gan from the sim? I think not. The reason being that its hard because it is that way in real life. The sim is used to train war fighters not to play for fun. Now it can be fun and so is the US Army’s Simnet.This is not the only sim in use, however it is from a few to hit the general public. Most sims can’t be played as we play this one for fun.

The sim is not meant to be fun for gamers, it has that appeal to most of us here with a basic armoured/army background. (We are making it fun for our selves).And a few that don’t. But for the most part a civie can’t keep the necessary learning commitment to grasp the difficulties in modern armoured warfare, let alone more that one tank fire control system.

I have trained first timers on the sim and they find it great and ask where to buy. This is due I think to their already mil training and how the army with various system work.
I have also showed the sim to friends, who say they would like to play, however the sim looks very difficult.

SB2 will have to be different than PE, as SB1 is different from PE.
I think E-Sim knows this and will tailor sb2 along the lines of SB1 not Pro.

Mastering SB Prp Pe is difficult, having no mil experience make this task more difficult.SB2 will need to find a way to make the play a little easer for all for it to appeal to a wider group of gamers.

I don’t think SB Pro Pe is a game and would not portray it as such to a new player that has no mil background. When selling SB Pro Pe to a non mil person I tell them up front that its not a game but a simulator. This seems to lay the framework in his/her mind of what they can expect. To a another mil person the sound of a simulation is a selling point as most of us now use simulation in our training and have a generally good experience with them.

Be careful how you sell the sim as it does make a difference to the two different audinences.

The gaming world I think blurs the two. Generally the gamer is looking for a quick thrill in their gaming time.A sim as you know is longer learning curve however the thrill lasts much longer.

Just my 2 cents from both sides of the fence.:men_ani:

[chappy]

SB Pro PE is a niche item, and whilst satisfying people who bought SB1, its not going to significantly widen the SB community. That is why im so anxious for SB2 to be developed, its the only way the SB community is going to grow. And Its only by growing it that you are going to get the flow of maps scenarios and mods that was available with SB1 which increased the vitality (and presumably the sales) of the program.


What do you define as 'growing'? Simple numbers and income for esim? or progress, quality and development as well? The community may well grow but in terms of its interaction with the EXISTING community of PRO PE users will it benefit? I think it will to an extent in that it will expose people to SB in general, there will be higher flow of people through the website and a larger userbase of the overall SB product, and people may graduate onto the more 'hardcore' product of PRO PE if they want more realism a greater simulation challenge but i honestly doubt that i (or anyone into realism, simulation and challenging realistic scens) will personally gain in terms of maps and scens from what may be produced by any future SB2 community. I say this knowing that i already have trouble finding good realistic scenarios in the current community as it is. (perhaps the above suggestion for categorisation of scens will help )

[Jester_UK]

AMEN BRUTHA preach it!

The only catch is *who* decides? an individual from esim? a committee drawn from the community? what classifies as real life experience? How realistic does it have to be for it to be considered realistic?


Good questions. Unfortunately I'm one of those members round here with no military experience and as such exactly the wrong person to put forward an opinion about your last point.

Regarding the first two, well that (IMHO) would be up to ESim really seeing that it's their product and their website. All I can say is that with the range of experience available through guys like yourself and all the other members here with either current or past personal military experience we are blessed with a wealth of potential knowledge deeper than most other communities. It's up to ESim whether or not they feel it right to take advantage of this.

[Dragon6g]

As I watch this thread unfold I would like to add my two cents on some issues. As a scenario designer I know I put in way too many hours into planing , testing and just polishing up a mission before I post it on the web site. Your feedback so very much encourages scenario designers to make good products and improve past ones. I get very frustrated when I download a mission from the web site , spent 45 minuets playing it and its just broke or not planed out well. Iv gotten to the point that I wont spend the time to try a scenario if it hasn't inspired someone else to leave feed back about it . Bottom line , leave feedback. We are our own quality control team. SB Pro is just a program. Its the scenery designers that make it in to the game that it is. You want a better game?. Encourage better scenarios . Leave feed back The other point is there is a lot of talk of how to bring more people to the game. (how to sell more copies.) I don't feel that bringing the price down will be the best way to introduce SB to people . I'm willing to bet a dollar that only 50% of the steelbeasters that play this game now would be here if they didn't play the demo 7 years back.. I push this game as if I collect revenue from it. I'm a M1A2 Tank commander in the US ARMY. The people that I talk to about this game are young PC gamers with a common interest in tanks. That sounds like your target market excluding military contracts of course . I have only been able to get one to purchase the game. Most of the other people want to know if there is a demo. Would it really kill esims to put out a demo? Introduce a demo in a game magazine? Or maybe give a significant military discount . I bet most of the people playing this game are people that you didn't have to sell to. They were people that were checking the steel beasts web site time after time just to see when it would be released. They were already going to buy it. I guess what I'm saying is that I haven't seen this game marketed to any one outside the SB community. I think maybe if there was a push to get this game into the mainstream it would do much better.

D6g

[chappy]

as already stated by snake earlier, the ANZAC version will potentially expose the product to several thousand people who it would be safe to say are a good representation of the target demographic (the australian military)
This may well bring in new recruits to the PRO PE version and later the SB2 version who want more than just the aussie vehicles and want compatbility to play online with others (ANZAC version is only compatible LAN with another ANZAC version). This is pretty close to a demo yet it is still very targetted and not freely available to people who may otherwise seek out a demo on their own.
It does beg the question, if THIS is possible(limited vehicles and incompatible with the standard version) would it be that hard to make a demo that had perhaps the m1a1 and the t72 only available?

[JamesT73J]

I was guilty of not leaving feedback for missions I've tried. I now make a point of commenting on the missions I've tried.

[[panzer]]

Guys - compared to when I started hanging out here in 2000 this place is dead, Dead, DEAD! - when I came back after 2 years gone I was surprised - I figured Pro PE would have breathed new life into SB)...

Something that is being over looked is the fact that there in no lobby in SB where players can join at any stage whether it be planning or after mission start.
There is a very small window of opportunity with SB in terms of getting a game going. Players cant just drift in and do a game and leave.
For example if a players turns up just after the planning starts the he can look foward to a 2 hr wait due 45 mins of planning,( no idea why people plan for that long)45-60 of actual play then 15 20 mins in the AAR. So that can be as long as 2 hrs between games. People arent interested in stuffing around for that long to get a game in when the can join any game of Red Orchestra at the drop of a hat.
SB will continue to remain small as long as all of the above continues as is and to be honest I can see any of it changing.

[Ssnake]

Actually this specific point is on The List, and may be addressed within the next 15 months (hopefully less).

[RecceDG]

For example if a players turns up just after the planning starts the he can look foward to a 2 hr wait due 45 mins of planning,( no idea why people plan for that long)45-60 of actual play then 15 20 mins in the AAR. So that can be as long as 2 hrs between games. People arent interested in stuffing around for that long to get a game in when the can join any game of Red Orchestra at the drop of a hat.

That's not a bug, it's a feature.

For any scenario of any reasonable complexity, it takes time to figure out what forces are available, how to distribute them amongst the players available, do a quick map recce and a quick combat estimate, come up with a plan, communicate that plan to the other players, get buy-in on that plan from the other players (which may involve tweaking the plan to make everybody happy) and get satisfied that everybody understands the plan and their responsibilities in it.

45 minutes is a VERY compressed timeframe to get all that done; the major saving grace being that the time is similarly compressed for the enemy.

I don't particularly want random people parachuting in mid-game; people who haven't been briefed on the plan, don't understand their portion of it, and (if games like America's Army are any indication) aren't predisposed to follow a plan anyway.

If I task someone (or if I am tasked) with the job of, say, flank guard, then I want them in good turret down positions overwatching the flank - not wandering around the battlefield looking for someone to shoot at. Etc.

SB's major selling feature, beyond the technical accuracy of the sim itself, is that the Usual Suspects tend to be professionals, retired professionals, or amateurs willing to listen to and learn from professionals, not some 133t Hax0r Dud3 looking to make bright lights and loud sounds.

Personally, I don't give a flying fart at a rolling hat about how "SB is perceived outside of the community". Who cares? That's not the sim's market.

I'd rather see more attention placed on fixing known bugs, increasing tactical fidelity, improving the scenario designer, and generating high quality scenarios (both single and multi-player) than attempting to pander to the "Quake in Tanks!!! W00t!" market.

DG

[stalintc]

Quake in tanks? that would be called Quanke I believe :)

[dejawolf]

SB is frequented by players with bad connections. myself i've dropped out of a game on several occasions, and i've got a so-called good connection,
and then watched the game continue on for a good half hour. then theres people who drop out of the planning phase, players who want to join, when the planning has just started, and you have to go back ,and in again.
Or halfway through the planning you got 2-3 players who wants to join...
so you have to quit, and redistribute your tanks when you're back in,
re-setup waypoints, etc.

being able to join the game while its in action would negate all of the above bad points. or at least the ability to join during the planning phase.

Then theres some scenarios where theres really only 1 direction the enemy can come from, and 1 direction you can go, yet people spend 45 minutes discussing how they are going to approach this.
then theres scenarios with bad indications of where the enemy might be coming from, you spend 45 minutes discussing how to defend the enemy from that direction, and boom, the enemy hits you in the rear.
rarely with an SB scenario, you'll need more than 15 minutes to plan.

[Doug97]

I can but ask you to see (and communicate) our concept for SB2 not as a "dumbed down" version of SB Pro, but as a use of the same underlying technology for a totally different application with the goal to attract new players into a "talent pool" from where new life can be breathed into mission design and multiplayer sessions.

That sounds great. When's it out?

[Hub]

I don't particularly want random people parachuting in mid-game; people who haven't been briefed on the plan, don't understand their portion of it, and (if games like America's Army are any indication) aren't predisposed to follow a plan anyway.DG


I'm not for it either. I've played in TacOps CPX's that were turned into trainwrecks because of late arrivals and people who weren't up to speed on the plan.

[stuart666]

Quake in tanks? that would be called Quanke I believe :)

But only played by Quankers. :)

[BloodOrk]

100 Points for RecceDG.

So we need a Password function. Maybe with an Info Window for every server
where you could write the TS Server adress so that guys could ask for the Password before they could join. So it is everbodys choice if he starts an open for all server or to make an PW protectet one to play only with his buddys.

[dejawolf]

no need for passwords, just common sense.

[Ssnake]

The development goal is to allow players to re-join an ongoing session. Further possible options would be to declare a session "open" so that others could "parachute in", if that option has been activated by the session host. This however is likely to require that a session in progress be paused to transmit the session state to the new player, which may be a tad disruptive to general immersion. Then again, good immersion doesn't guarantee a good learning experience. One can have fun without learning anything. ;)

[chappy]

i think that is an excellent idea ssnake. IT will immensely improve the enjoyment for things like TGIF games etc. Beyond that option it becomes the 'game master's' or scen designers call on whether they choose to use the function based on their goal of fun versus realism etc
I would go as far to say that a feature like that would be almost a necessity for SB2 which is clearly angled heavily towards *fun*.
Just look at armed assault versus VBS for a good comparison of sim versus game i reckon.

[RecceDG]

100 Points for RecceDG.

Cool! I just levelled up!

DG

[tarball]

I think mission quality is subjective, however I do think review, commentary and classification might help. Getting content into the game, getting it critically play-tested and reviewed and getting that feedback to authors is important. Furthermore, MP sessions should, as much as possible, conclude with some eye towards feedback.

There is GREAT content in this game and people's hesitation comes from the fact that they have been strung out, like junk food, on $50-a-pop half-assed games that they don't trust a quality $125 game. This despite the fact that they'll waste 3-4 times that price on junk throughout the year.

The game is quality, and there are many missions which are quality (despite the subjectivity of the term quality). Save for some obvious issues related to MP difficulties (player limit, lack of lobby system, etc.), you would be HARD PRESSED to find a better title in terms of value-per-$.

[Paladin]

Greetings
Just ordered SB Pro PE last Friday and have had SB1 for years.As to the outside world the standard answer would probably be along the lines of "If the wife found out I spent $125 on a Sim she would kill me" However what the wife doesn't know is many have spent $50 a piece on there last three games and there sitting on the shelf collecting dust for a variety of reasons from system spec,stability to limitations with co-op play.Cases in point the last two offerings in The rainbow 6 series and the latest Ghost recon. There are a number of people that i have talked to at late that are seriously looking at SB Pro PE as a Sim with staying power ,something that won't wind up collecting dust on a shelf. So the perception I see that most people have of SB Pro PE is a high quality ,stable Sim/Game that is ether monetarily out of reach or an expense that is difficult to justify .........UNTIL you do the math. Hopefully I will be joining you folks on the battlefield within a couple of weeks

paladin

[HotTom]

Excellent thread!

Just a few thoughts -- perhaps some of them obvious -- based on quite a few years in the sim world.

Don't dumb SB Pro PE down to make it SB2.

I strongly disagree with the post that said Falcon 4.0 was too complicated and because of that its players abandoned it. The learning curve is much steeper than SB's (170-plus pages in the manual), but, like SB, as you master skills there is a real feeling of accomplishment. That challenge should be preserved!

The problem simply was that, in the beginning, F4 was horribly unstable. It should have been named CTD because the desktop was where you (or I at least) usually ended up. My copy finally went in the trash out of sheer frustration.

Now that Lead Pursuit has made it stable, F4 is THE choice of hard core flight simmers and has enjoyed an amazing rebirth for a game that is almost 10 years old. Its complexity (and tactical and technical accuracy) is its chief selling point! Most F4 players scoff at Lock-On, which they see as a "Sim Light" and rightfully so.

I do agree with the comment that WarBirds (where I started flying on line) made a fatal error when they dumbed it down. Many of us old hands migrated to IL-2.

There is no reason to dumb down SB to make a viable commercial version.

But there is need to add to it.

I do think in order to be a success, it needs to appeal to more nationalities, for example.

IL-2 is an excellent example. As it added planes from new countries, its audience swelled. Every flight simmer in Finland jumped in when Finnish planes were added. You can't pry the Brits out of their Spitfires and Mossies and Typhoons (which were nowhere in sight when the sim began with just a few Russian planes).

National pride plays a huge role in sim marketing. Look at how many Swedish players we've added since the Swedish vehicles showed up!

So, to make SB2 viable commercially, it really must have an M1A2, British armor (armour), French armor, Israeli armor. And, of course, Russian armor (what can be less realistic than a head-to-head scenario with Abrams versus Leos? Well, maybe Egyptian or Saudi Abrams :) )

They don't all have to be there at the beginning, but they must be planned as add-ons as time progresses.

Frankly, as a Yank, I'm annoyed at having to drive an out-dated M1A1 when I have to face Leo2A5s or (worse) those (IMHO overmodelled) Swedish 122s on line. I'm outclassed from the moment the scenario begins. My bullets just bounce off those 122s. And the hunter-killer ability guarantees more accuracy for the late model Leos.

I guess what I'm saying is that the playing field must be even to insure playability.

Accurate, challenging, dynamic campaigns are a must. Falcon 4.0 has the best campaigns I have ever seen and they are random enough to maintain interest through endless replays.

And, let's face it, the graphics engine is more than a bit out of date. At a minimum, adding shadows would be huge leap into modern graphics.

ADD those things to SB Pro PE, don't subtract anything, and it will, I believe, prove quite popular.

My $0.02 (US).

HT

[Ssnake]

The problem of this thread is that only SB veterans are discussing how SB2 should be like, and none of the target audience of SB2. You're already happy with SB Pro PE, and paid a considerable sum for it. You have a decidedly different motivation.

The way I see it, the fundamental problem for Steel Beasts is that the general audience doesn't even have a remote interest in modern armor-centric combined arms combat because nobody ever really did it right. A tank simulation with an invincible player vehicle is worth diddly-squat - yet it is what game designers usually come up with whenever they make a tank game. Games with this design flaw kill the interest of the audience because they don't make interesting gameplay - just drive around and shoot 'em up.

The purpose of SB2 is to spark interest in a wide audience about the fun in modern tactics. It is supposed to create the market out of which players with a deepened interest would then consider buying SB Pro PE.

[MajorMagee]

... and now we've come around to the old Sim versus Game discussion. I happen to be a simmer, but in general there are too few of us out there to make a commercial success out of most software. Silent Hunter IV is going through a version of the Sim - Game wars right now with neither side particularly satisified with what was initially released. SHIII didn't get this resolved until a group of dedicated simmers put out the Grey Wolves mod/upgrade that made it properly useable for everyone. The amount of development work that went into Grey Wolves could never have beeen justified commercially, but was absolutely the difference between something that stays on your computer for weeks versus years.

Perhaps all that's needed here is to release a moddable version as SB2, and let the two version go their own way through the forces of natural selection.

I do love this thread by the way. ;)

[Ssnake]

I agree. SB2 wouldn't make sense as a mere clone of SB Pro PE; we have SB pro PE already, and if we wanted nothing but Pro PE we could abandon SB2 as a project right away. I'd like to see some of the complexity reduced and the general pace of missions a bit increased for SB2 while retaining as much as possible of the combined arms spirit. It's not as if SB2 and Pro were mutually exclusive products. The world is a place big enough for coexistence.

[Paladin]

The problem of this thread is that only SB veterans are discussing how SB2 should be like, and none of the target audience of SB2. You're already happy with SB Pro PE, and paid a considerable sum for it. You have a decidedly different motivation.

The way I see it, the fundamental problem for Steel Beasts is that the general audience doesn't even have a remote interest in modern armor-centric combined arms combat because nobody ever really did it right. A tank simulation with an invincible player vehicle is worth diddly-squat - yet it is what game designers usually come up with whenever they make a tank game. Games with this design flaw kill the interest of the audience because they don't make interesting gameplay - just drive around and shoot 'em up.

The purpose of SB2 is to spark interest in a wide audience about the fun in modern tactics. It is supposed to create the market out of which players with a deepened interest would then consider buying SB Pro PE.

In reality I was part of your target audience for SB2. There does exist a middle group in between Sim player and gamer. That thrives on realism and tactical game play, not to bring up Ghost Recon and R6 again but that is were it seems to have started for most of us. As most of you know both series's have changed direction leaving a fairly large community waiting for a new game to play. How large this community is I can't honestly say. In my opinion what SB2 will need is the following.

1.Team vs Team and co-op modes of play.
2. Co-op playable with more then the current trend of four player max. Eight to nine player minimum
3. TCP/IP capable
4. Dedicated server files
5. Realistic weapon and Ballistics modeling.
6. A viable editor
7. Modability an absolute must


A couple of things I shouldn't comment on until my copy of SB Pro PE arrives but will anyway.

1. The high tech Graphics have come at a cost,mostly in the areas of game play and system spec. Most people I have talked to are more then willing to sacrifice a little on the graphics side to get the stability and gameplay back.

2. The CM stick: Probably a $40 or $50 dollar piece of hardware.If it makes programs such as Starforce unnecessary and eliminates the dependence on the likes of Gamespy,Steam and Ubisoft servers its well worth the money.

3. As Hot Tom mentioned above you will have to expand the player crewable models to include the Russian,UK ,French and Israeli equipment at some point.

4. Don't dumb it down.Your probably looking at an age group ranging from the mid to late 20s on up to old goats such as myself pushing 60.

5. Most of what you need is already here

As to the AI ...that is an area where opinions seem to vary rather widely from one player to the next so I can't really comment on that.

[Ssnake]

Oh, I'd be perfectly happy to settle for a realism level in the realm of RB6/GR with SB2, though I don't expect us to turn it into a first person shooter. Squad level is about the lowest level I think we should go, not the individual rifle sight.

Making SB2 less complicated doesn't mean to dumb it down. But since you're already talking about the age group of 25+ (an assessment that I share), let's not forget that most of them have family and a job. There's a limit to the amount of time that you can spend in this phase of a life to playing computer games, and I think that good design on our part must reflect these constraints.

[Kingtiger]

2. Co-op playable with more then the current trend of four player max. Eight to nine player minimum


Correction: its 8 players max for a internet session... not 4...

[Paladin]

If SB2 is Clan/team match playable you will see people devoting a couple of nights a week to playing ,not everyone mind you but a fair number.I agree that Squad level gameplay is the way to go here but consider that SB has the ability to satisfy both sides of the coin so to speak. Both the Tactical gamers and the FPS players (with some adjustments ) could conceivably find what they want in SB2 .


Edit: Reference to "With some adjustments" means on the players part not necessarily the game.

[Paladin]

Correction: its 8 players max for a internet session... not 4...

I realize that, my reference is to the other two game series that have cut Mission based co-op back to a max of four players.That proved to be a major issue for all three of the new R6 and GR titles.

[dejawolf]

Oh, I'd be perfectly happy to settle for a realism level in the realm of RB6/GR with SB2, though I don't expect us to turn it into a first person shooter. Squad level is about the lowest level I think we should go, not the individual rifle sight.

Making SB2 less complicated doesn't mean to dumb it down. But since you're already talking about the age group of 25+ (an assessment that I share), let's not forget that most of them have family and a job. There's a limit to the amount of time that you can spend in this phase of a life to playing computer games, and I think that good design on our part must reflect these constraints.

OTOH, this age group with its incredible patience, will usually play a game with sufficient depth, not very often, but over very long time periods.

[Paladin]

OTOH, this age group with its incredible patience, will usually play a game with sufficient depth, not very often, but over very long time periods.

Another aspect of that age group will be the Modability of SB2 if released with a Good Editor.The Modding community which we have seen in action in the past with Gr and presently with Red Orchestra will keep the game alive for years as opposed to months.One thing I believe you folks at Esim have going for you is that if you do decided to reduce the complexity level in SB2 you have SB Pro PE for those who wish to take there gaming to a higher level. At the moment I can't think of any other developers/publishers in that position.

[Ssnake]

OTOH, this age group with its incredible patience, will usually play a game with sufficient depth, not very often, but over very long time periods.

Fine, but we already have something for these customers - SB Pro PE.

[DemolitionMan]

Owning SB1 for a short time but loving it(and drooling at the graphics of ProPE), I would buy SB2 anytime. But here´s what I´d love to see as the package that SB2 should present:
- Single player campaigns/missions: Something in the art of "You´re the newly trained commander/gunner, jump into your german/US/russian/whatever tank because WW3/Iran-War/Israel-Arab-War has begun." Tell a story. Animate comrades, inter-campaign-sequences. Setting plays an important part in my opinion. It´s one thing to read a briefing before action or being visually set into the action. The sim aspect of correct detailing of modern armored warfare gets accompanied by the play aspect of a story. No need to downplay any of the realism. Even SB1 has difficulty settings.
-Tactic lessons: Yes, reading long manuals can teach one some things. But being demonstrated the same lessons, maybe with historical examples, animated, will certainly be much more appealing. Learning can be fun. ;)
-Mods: I think all is said about that.
-Multiplayer: I remember the "A 125$ version of BF2" thread on here. Maybe SB2 should go that way? I dunno. When I go online with my game I wanna mess with others as well as coop with them.

Hmm now I can´t think of more...well so...go ahead and pick it apart.

[HotTom]

D-Man stated THE most important part: "Tell a story." If your missions and campaigns don't do that, they are boring and pointless, no matter how tactically accurate they are.

That should be VERY high on the list of "musts" for SB2.

I might also point out that in many sims, the vast majority of players never go online (Oleg claimed it was 90% in IL-2; pretty amazing considering there often are 1,000 players flying IL-2 on line in HyperLobby).

If you don't have a compelling offline story line, interest will die very quickly, no matter how accurate the vehicle models will be.

No matter how much we claim to be "simmers" (and I certainly do!) we're really playing a game.

HT

[Volcano]

Well, it depends on how it is done (IMO). If you tell a story, it is nice to do it, or limit it, to a background paragraph *before* the briefing. Then, follow the template provided with the scenario to fill it in and provide clear an concise information about the situation.

I have to say, I would rather not have any sort of story, just a briefing. But then again, the stories I have seen take the form of replacing the briefing altogether and come off cheesy or too confusing to understand what the mission or situation is. But, like I said, if they are done correctly such as a historical background to the scenario briefing, then it would be for the better.

I think by doing this you could merge both together. You would have a story of the situation and provide a realistic briefing of the battle to come rather than turning away either type of player.

[Ssnake]

Producing a good story is a challenge. Usually I find computer game stories cheesy and chlichéed at best, distracting or even disturbing at worst. Some RPG games do a better job (e.g. the Neverwinter Nights titles), but then again the whole point of them is storytelling and not simulating equipment and tactics.

I fully understand however the need for something to hold disjunct scenarios together, don't get me wrong. It's just much harder to do than people think. One must never underestimate the player's ability and intent to undermine the game developer's attempts to tell a story that follows the laws of creating suspense and driving the events to the story's climax.
Just telling a background story that doesn't reflect the player's experiences doesn't work. Instead you need a carry-over effect from one scenario to the next, and story snippets that can be assembled according to the performance of the player. What might be saving us is that in SB the player is always part of a larger team, so individual excellence still can't win the war. Then again, what's the point of being excellent if you can't make a difference?

So, yeah: I'd like to see a good story be told in SB2 as well, it's just that it isn't something that can easily be done as an afterthought to the game development but must be an integral part of it.

[dejawolf]

i'm not a big fan of stories. it usually entails a linear campaign that goes from A to B, where you have to do things X Y Z before the story progresses.

[RecceDG]

So do it like Wing Commander did then - an inverted pyramid of missions that leads to one of two "endings", with multiple paths that can be followed through to ultimately get to either outcome.

The missions are all effectively stand-alone (and some may be duplicates with different start and end conditions to reflect the different progression paths) so there's no new technology needed to implement them; we already have a scoring system in-sim.

Produce and render different cutscenes at the transitions between missions to fill in the story and provide the continuity. That's off-the shelf technology there that could probably be subcontracted.

Just need the glue logic that handles the play mission - pass results to glue - pick cutscene - pick and load next mission - play mission etc sequence.

Also need the ability to save a game in progress and resume it later.

None of this is really all that tough - and the ability to build CAMPAIGNS based on this model should arguably be part of SB Pro anyway - it would let you build home study packages that teach concepts based on successful completion of earlier modules.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that this mythical "SB2" is really just ProPE with the bugs fixed, some extra eyecandy, all vehicles playable, a campaign editor, and a homegrown campaign. It is SP ProPE++, NOT a dumbed-down version of ProPE at all.

DG

[Ssnake]

Heh. Origin learned after the first Wing Commander that players would rather repeat a mission over and over again in order to avoid having to follow a "loser path" in the mission tree. So much of the work on a branching campaign is for naught if only a tiny minority will actually play it.

Now, I concede that our audience may be the same people that played the original Wing Commander (at least I did), and that we all matured over the past decade and a half (yes, it's been that long ago!). Still, even if you have some sort of a mission tree you still need to embed scenarios in an operational context which needs to make sense.

Again: I'm not saying that it can't be done. And I am saying that I'd love to see just that. But whether we have the resources and talent to do it remains to be proven. We will certainly attempt to do something in this direction, but it will only be made public if the result isn't going to be a disgrace for the team.

[dejawolf]

quality above quantity.
obviously, you've got something quick. cheesy, and dirty in mind.

[Paladin]

The ability to "save game" will alleviate the agrivation of lost progress in the scenario which seems to be Part of the problem people face on SP campaigns.That way people who wish to repeat the scenario can do so and the rest can return to there previous save point which can cut down on the time spent and frustration incurred. As to a Campaign story line perhaps an option within the editor to link the scenarios of the end users choice into a campaign of his own creation may be a viable option. Adds a little R+D for those that are interested in a realistic approach and for those that aren't links scenarios that they enjoy playing.Another advantage of that is when the SB2 community gets up to speed and user created scenarios start to appear the campaigns are expandable.

[RecceDG]

Still, even if you have some sort of a mission tree you still need to embed scenarios in an operational context which needs to make sense.

Agreed - but you've got two problems here:

1. SB needs to be expanded (the physical codebase) to be able to support campaigns; and

2. Somebody needs to design and playtest the campaigns.

Now the GOOD news is that Problem 1 is actually VERY doable:

1. Define a file format that describes a campaign - that's easy:

-------------------
Campaign_name='Bear at the Gates';
Intro_movie='BatG0.bik';
Start_ID='BatG0.sce';
Win_movie='BatGW.bik';
Lose_Movie='BatGL.bik';
Scenario( id='BatG0.sce' win_movie='BatG1.bik' win_id='BatG1.sce' lose_movie='BatG2.bik' lose_id='BatG2.sce');
Scenario( id='BatG1.sce' win_movie='BatG3.bik' win_id='BatG3.sce' lose_movie='BatG4.bik' lose_id='BatG4.sce');

...etc...
--------------------

See? This defines a mission tree - play the intro movie, play the initial cutscene, start the initial scenario mission, and then based on win or lose, play a cutscene and go to the next scenario.

2. Modify the code to be able to load and parse Campaign files. (simple)

3. Modify the code to add the scenario launcher/catcher logic, along with saving scenario tree state at each launch/catch (simple)

4. Modify the code to add cutscene support (simple to complex, depending on if you buy off the shelf or develop your own)

5. Modify the code to allow Save-in-scenario (dunno complexity here; depends too much on state of current codebase)

And you're done! You've got Campaigns! Promotions for everybody!

OK, so I'm handwaving away the work that comes with defining a compelling campaign, developing the individual scenarios, playtesting, and generating the cutscenes - but here's the thing: NONE OF THIS DEPENDS ON AL. As such, once you've got the little bit of technical glue in place to support campaigns, all this work can be done in parallel WITHOUT detracting from the main effort of supporting your military customers.

And I'll bet that "save game within scenario" is already on The List from a military customer perspective - so that work is billable against SB Pro, not SB2.

Man, the more I think about this, the more obvious it is. THERE IS NO SB2 - it is SB ProPE with campaign support and a good "official" campaign. You could have this very quickly and with little to no impact on the military customer work if you wanted to.

Now if you want to get REALLY innovative... allow the Campaign engine to talk to multiplayer as well. I'm playing the campaign in Single Player, and 12Alfa drops by with his laptop? He should be able to hook up to my machine and jump in to one of my callsigns and play co-op with me... but that's a lot more Al-work and so not as easy to do.

DG

[Ssnake]

Now you have uncovered a large part of my plan why I am still optimistic about SB2 seemingly against all odds. You are right: Once that the campaign framework is in place, much can be parallelized and therefore bypass the bottleneck of Al's programming hours.
:)

[Awac835]

I would be very sad to see the realism of SB Pro PE dumbed down in SB2. Ofc it could be a option to go from amored fist style gameplay to realistic.
Actualy all SB Pro PE needs to smack SB2 on the cover is a campaign, dynamic if possible. And then some more scenarios, maybe a bit easier editor, or some more AI so that you dont have to babysit the AI like you have to do now in the editor. Ofc leave in the features there. But give the more casual people are better option.
That would be my 2 cents anwyay.

Ive saw someone mentioned the graphics are out of date. Well, yeah maybe if you compare it to modern days FPS games. But are the graphics effective and immersive? yes, i would rather see the time spent other places then on the graphics.

Oh and yeah will amored combat and tank sims ever get mainstream? well one would doubt it. But UBI just released Silent Hunter 4. And it seems like a pretty good succes for em. So dont give up hope.
Edit: my point there was that if tank sims are alien to people, then imagin a submarine sim :)

[BlackDeath]

Sb editor is not hard at all to understand. only logic
Try OFP editor and you won’t think it anymore.

[Volcano]

Speaking of SB2, the problem is that SB2 cannot simply be SB Pro PE with the addition of X or Y, it must instead be SB Pro PE with X but minus Y and Z. Otherwise there would be little incentive to purchase SB Pro PE. SB2 must logically be "SB Pro PE lite" to fall within the $49.99-59.99 price range. I say "lite" not so much in terms of difficulty or realism, but in terms of features. Of course the more bells and whistles thrown in the better it would compete with other sims.

Just something to keep in mind so we don't all think that SB2 will be SB Pro PE++.

[RecceDG]

Cart before the horse, have you.

If many more copies sold there are, lower price can be and still make more money.

High price for ProPE is reflection of low volume sold (with sufficient demand) NOT expectation of quality or feature set.

Yoda DG

[Ssnake]

While I agree with RecceDG, I still think that SB would be a better game without someof the more unwieldy elements of SB Pro. You're all socialized with army background or year-long expertise in the handling of SB, so you don't realize how much of an expert you actually are.
:)

[HotTom]

Volcano's responses are hardly encouraging.

First, when he says he would rather not have any story, he's just telling me he doesn't have a clue how to build a good dynamic (NOT linear) campaign. Or maybe he doesn't know what one is.

The campaign IS the story and you live it mission by mission. You become a part of it. It's what draws you in and keeps you in.

If your platoon (and I would keep this at platoon level within a larger battle in the background) takes Hill 305, the campaign branches off in one direction. If your platoon fails to take Hill 305, it branches off in another. Eventually, there is ultimate victory or ultimate defeat,

Want to see how it works? Go buy Falcon 4. It's almost 10 years old and still has the best dynamic campaigns I've ever seen (along with the most accurate aircraft simulation, the combo SB should be looking for). The sim's promotional concept is: "What if they had a war and dropped you right in the middle of it?"

The campaign is a novel and each mission is a chapter and what you do (or fail to do) in your mission won't win the war but it will determine what the next chapter will be.

Second, it's really easy to say as Volcano does, "Speaking of SB2, the problem is that SB2 cannot simply be SB Pro PE with the addition of X or Y, it must instead be SB Pro PE with X but minus Y and Z."

Why you would add Y and then delete Y baffles me, but what is important is what SPECIFICALLY X, Y and Z are.

Similarly, when Ssnake says, "I still think that SB would be a better game without some of the more unwieldy elements of SB Pro," what, exactly, are the unwieldy elements?

The main drawback to most SB missions (IMO) is that I am given too many vehicles to command/control and I end up spending the whole mission with my head down staring at the map and too litle time maneuvering and fighting my tank.

I enjoy planning the mission. But once it starts, I don't want to have to keep moving units and vehicles around, other than my own three or four tanks in my platoon. Beyond a span of control of four or five, SBP becomes a board game, not a sim. And THAT is boring.

The solution to that, again, is to give the player nothing larger than a platoon to control. The other units should all be scripted (although the player should have the ability to amend the script BEFORE the mission begins).

This assumes, of course, that the AI is a whole lot smarter than it is now and can react in a tactically sound manner to events in the mission. But that is highly doable (again, see Falcon 4).

I really believe the pieces are all here except for the campaign (and maybe the AI).

HT

[Ssnake]

HotTom, you're closer to my vision of how SB2 should be like than you may think. :)

[flyboy]

Hmmm your on manouvers when you hear the call.Invasion!!!!Most of your capitol cities are nuked..Get back to base,defend it or fight your way to it and get on the move to throw the hoard back into the sea.A good Jericho story line maybe....Are the Chinese good or bad...?

[RecceDG]

Col. Tom has hit the nail squarely on the head.

If the "official campaign" is Troop sized at max (platoon, bah! Bloody Yanks) then you solve all the C&C complexity issues for the campaign.

But there's nothing to say that follow-on (or community-developed) campaigns couldn't be larger in scope.

I've been sketching out what a Troop-sized campaign could look like. If the player gets to "inhabit" a couple of different units for different missions (or we hold our realism noses a little bit, and allow the player's "character" to be simultaneously trained as Recce, Sabre, and Infantry and lead different platoons/troops in different missions) there's actually a lot of potential there.

But to reiterate, there's very little in the way of technical work needed to get this working - most of the work is in the writing, chaining together, and playtesting of the campaign missions themselves, not the core engine.

Al is the bottleneck in the core engine, and with all the contract military work on the list, he will not have much opportunity to modify the core engine (either way) for SB2. But the beauty part is that he isn't needed for 90% of the stuff that has to get done for SB2, once it is decided that SB2 *IS* ProPE + the campaign engine + an official campaign. Writing/developing/testing the campaign missions is an Al-free activity.

DG

[Volcano]

Well, I am glad that someone here knows what I don't know and knows everything I am clueless about. HotTom, your opinion about how important a story is is just that, an opinion (just as it is my opinion that a story is a not esssential). Do not make the assumption that I do not know what a story is or how to design a good campaign; I simply said that I care to not have one (a story) if it crosses the line into the realm of "cheese" or if it makes any such campaign feel like some kind of Hollywood foray into the dramitization of war. Sure, you need to have an objective in a campaign, a "plot" in the sense of how it began and how it ends, situation reports throughout the process of its execution and there is nothing wrong with a little RPG element where applicable, but I am getting the sense that you think there should be some kind of dramatic story like in a novel. If the latter is true, then you must realize that not everyone likes that sort of thing and that the world does not revolve around HotTom. If, on the other hand, it is not true then fine, I am all for it. But I had thought that I made this clear in a previous post.

Lastly, you specifically mention several games (Falcon 4 and IL-2) that have absolutely no story in the sense you describe. IL-2 does have a generic lenear story and some add on packs that add a linear story line but both games have dynamic campaigns. I am all for a dynamic campiagn mind you and Falcon 3.0 and Falcon 4 had the best such campaign in the business. They managed to do that with absolutely no story line as well, which is quite a feat considering that, according to your logic, they fall into the "don't have a clue how to build a good dynamic (NOT linear) campaign" as I do.

[Volcano]

Cart before the horse, have you.

Exactly, and this is an excellent summation of this entire thread. ;)

[HotTom]

Well, Volcano, perhaps we're not that far apart and it's really a matter of semantics. I apologize for any personal insult. We are talking about two different things, I believe.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I'm wrong, but when you say "story," it's what I would call a "back (background) story." That can be kept very minimal: North Korea invades South Korea. Syria invades Israel. That's it. (I'm not sure what constitutes "cheese." I thought that's what Green Bay Packers fans wear on their heads :) )

As far as campaigns go, IL-2 (which I played for many years on-line) campaigns almost ALL were linear, whether they were the ones that came with the game (truly awful!) or the third-party ones (not much better).

The only exception was Paul Lowengrin's DCG (Dynamic Campaign Generator), which was the only way I flew IL-2 off line.

The only flaw in DCG was that it didn't work very well with low level missions. Fly an Avenger or Mossie NOE and you were dead meat. Still, the air superiority campaigns were quite good.

For a free third-party add-on, DCG was very cool and fairly dynamic (if you failed to take out an AA position, it would keep hammering you in future missions).

I would be thrilled if a third party designed a DCG for SB! If I had the programming skills, I would certainly give it a go. Maybe a Paul Lowengrin (who did the enormous task of designing, upgrading and providing excellent support for DCG absolutely without charge (Free is good!), is lurking out there in our community)

Falcon 4.0 (which I still play, often more than SB because it does have campaigns) would still be my model: Excellent sim, excellent dynamic campaigns.

We already have the excellent sim! That's at least half the battle.

Again, the campaign IS the story (in my definition). If I take an objective, I want to be able to "continue the attack." If I fail, do I fall back or attack again? Well, that's the next chapter. And if I'm sucked in by the campaign story, I'll come back to find out.

Individual missions are fine but repeat playability is limited. Zip's missions, for example, truly are great (the best, actually!), but, by now, I've bashed into every virtual tree in Finland. After awhile, it just isn't fun to keep playing the same missions over and over.

Sorry for any offense. My sarcasm (the lowest form of humor, I concede) sometimes comes off more harsh than I intended.

Aloha,

HT

[Volcano]

Ok, then perhaps it is simply hair splitting the semantics of the word "story".

In that case, I agree to what you are saying. :)

[ShermansWar]

Kafungala

[ShoutingDog]

Falcon 4.0 (which I still play, often more than SB because it does have campaigns) would still be my model: Excellent sim, excellent dynamic campaigns.If SB had a dynamic campaign of the same quality as Falcon 4.0 I'd probably never have to buy another computer game as long as I live - well - at least until SB3 came out that is.

Unfortunately the nature of SB's scripted AI will IMO preclude that from ever happening <sound of game publishers everywhere breathing a sigh of relief - I buy a lot of computer games - much to the chagrin of my wife>

[Boomer]

Complexity is what attracts folks to the sims and not the opposite. The focus should not be on making things less complex, but how to present this complexity to the user, if you understand what I am trying to say.

I'm new to SB ProPE and I decided to try it because I appreciate complex simulations. I am a hardcore flightsimmer using MSFS9 and fly 90% realistic heavy's for a virtual airline (United) that uses realistic operations and flight schedule (it is sponsored by the real United). The complexity is the attraction, since it allows a kind of vicarious experience that would otherwise never happen.( flying a 747 or driving a Leo 2A6 into battle)

Over the years, I've played Squad Leader, Tobruk (Avalon Board Games), lead scale miniatures on massive terrain tables with huge rule books and all these things had a degree of simulation and a steep learning curve because of there complexity.

I'm looking forward to learning and simulating my role as a tanker using SB, knowing that what is offered is as real as it gets.

[stalintc]

Welcome aboard boomer! :biggrin:

Coming from flight simulation myself (although more the modern combat sector *Falcon 4.0*) I can say it is one hell of a new ballgame to learn, and the combat is well gritty, quite often you will not see where that shot came from that knocked you out. A totally new form of SA is required.

Worth the learning curve and thankfully we have a very helpful community to steer users in the right direction. Just DONT mention the word *T-72* and *crewable* in the same post\thread.. it creates a 13 page flame-fest lol

Good hunting!

[Ssnake]

Everybody is free to express his desire to have a crewable T-72. It's the way how some demands are being worded, and ignorance of explanations that have been given numerous times why everybody agrees that it is desirable, but still just not possible at the moment.


I mean, the horse has been flogged to death several times. Reviving the issue is not going to yield new insights as long as the fundamental situation remains unchanged. We're working on this, to create a situation that would allow us to address this. I also think that one leads a happier and healthier life when concentrating on what's there instead of what's missing.
(Yes, happy people tend to live longer with fewer ailments).

[stalintc]

Everybody is free to express his desire to have a crewable T-72. It's the way how some demands are being worded, and ignorance of explanations that have been given numerous times why everybody agrees that it is desirable, but still just not possible at the moment.


I mean, the horse has been flogged to death several times. Reviving the issue is not going to yield new insights as long as the fundamental situation remains unchanged. We're working on this, to create a situation that would allow us to address this. I also think that one leads a happier and healthier life when concentrating on what's there instead of what's missing.
(Yes, happy people tend to live longer with fewer ailments).

Well said :)

I was only informing on the basis that the subject tends to cause alot of angst between people on the forum, which is not needed and best avoided.

I agree with your above post on all counts.<