Gamer vs Military

[general billy]

Alright, i brought up this question because I wanted to know who would actually be best at winning games i.e. on TGIF or H2H games.
Alright, as a experience gamer myself, I leant alot on how games are played and the strategies behind them, I can easily get straight into any game and learn the controls and stuff and become a expert.

Now the question is, as a gamer I like to exploit the game and to use whatever it means to win a scenario. Even if its unorthodox in manner. You get players that go charging in by themselves, you get people to block bridges by destroying a tank and blocking the bridge and many other strange things. i.e Greevil and his Hum-v's. All which are valid, since gamers consider sb to be a game. Ive seen games won with just good players without any communications happening.

A military guy however follow procedures in which to follow, i.e maybe a chain of command, set procedures and some great communications.

However what Ive noticed is that most gamers usually win, maybe because they have more gaming hours, or they use strategies which gamers use to win. Where a military thinker will act to slow and will think in more of the lines of how it would be done in real life, with unlimited time and intelligence and hours of planning behind them.

What do you think?

[dejawolf]

"greevil tactics?" well technically, since people are so obsessed with the ability to block bridges, you should adapt your scenarios to that, and employ bunkers, steel beams, dragons teeth, deployable minefields etc, to give them defensive capabilities.

[Wahrborg]

May be, if the military had access to the same amount of information as we have, in a similar very simple format, and don't have to worrier about coordinating every thing from fire boundary's to air support etc etc, as we don't, they might act different. May be even more in the way that we do.

The by far main thing though, is still, that losses means little or nothing in the majority of scenarios played on sb.com ol.

[stalintc]

I suppose it would compare to a group of freedom fighters or guerillas vs an organised combat force. In which the freedom fighters etc will use un-orthadox tactics and such, which an organised force can have trouble dealing with due to the way the two opposing forces choose to fight.

They do not fight on similar grounds and in *war* the enemy cannot be expected to play fair or to anyones rules.

[chappy]

a group of gamers will win almost every time versus a group of soldiers/officers in a game environment (this sim can either be a game or a sim, and it depends how the people using it want to treat it)
a group of soldiers/officers would kick the living shit out of a group of gamers in a wargame (r/l training scenario).

I would rate a military group versus a gamer group likely to win IF the sim was played AS A SIM. and that meant the gamers would have to exhibit simulated fear of death (something i think they're fairly incapable of doing)

[BloodOrk]

The by far main thing though, is still, that losses means little or nothing in the majority of scenarios played on sb.com ol.

Once upon a time in a Galaxy far far away a little boy (me) gets his first Tank Simulation called M1TPII. He was also thinking that he was a good Gamer and win nearly every battle against the AI Enemy. But when he gets out that he can rename every single Soldier in his Unit and give them Names of his best friends and family members he learns that the loose of any single Person realy hurts himself. So he learnd that to crush the enemy is also important as bring as much of his Boys home save. (and let them fight another Day)

What I am trying to say is that a military Co normaly knows most of his men personaly. He knows that in every Tank are 4 Soldiers with a Family, a wife and or some children. Would you in RL write a letter to the Family like:"Sorry Mam but WE kill your husband (Or Son) because we need to block the bridge with his Tank"?

A Gamer will call it a win when he has the last Tank standing. A Military will call it a lose if he lost 20 % of his Unit even if he gets the Mission Goal.

[CharlieB]

Once upon a time in a Galaxy far far away a little boy (me) gets his first Tank Simulation called M1TPII. He was also thinking that he was a good Gamer and win nearly every battle against the AI Enemy. But when he gets out that he can rename every single Soldier in his Unit and give them Names of his best friends and family members he learns that the loose of any single Person realy hurts himself. So he learnd that to crush the enemy is also important as bring as much of his Boys home save. (and let them fight another Day)

What I am trying to say is that a military Co normaly knows most of his men personaly. He knows that in every Tank are 4 Soldiers with a Family, a wife and or some children. Would you in RL write a letter to the Family like:"Sorry Mam but WE kill your husband (Or Son) because we need to block the bridge with his Tank"?

A Gamer will call it a win when he has the last Tank standing. A Military will call it a lose if he lost 20 % of his Unit even if he gets the Mission Goal.

Blood ork is spot on. When I used to play M1TPII I also use to get really annoyed when I lost a Veh, especially when I had managed to build them all up to proffessional!!

The commanders assesment of losing CE against the success of the msn is always one that is difficult in real life. Those of us who have been there are the only ones who can really make that judgement - even simulated warfare like that in BATUS or I assume Fort Knox is not the same. I have known of a number of TES Heros who are just not quite so keen when it comes to the real deal. You can't take real lives for granted.

However, until there is a way to conduct a reserve demolition task on bridges then it will always be the case that people will blow up vehs on bridges. Alternativly plan a FASCAM msn in advance!

[dejawolf]

if its stupid, and it works, its not stupid.
in WW2, 60 million men and women with families lost their lives.
if setting up a roadblock using a very heavy tank works, i'd put it in the "not stupid category"
although in reality, you'd probably try and strip the vehicle for spareparts first, before leaving it.
spare crewmembers are always handy, in case a trigger happy TCs or loaders gets shot.

[CharlieB]

Spare parts - absolutly. Spare just don't exist

[ShoutingDog]

In a game like SB any group that works together will almost always destroy the folks who play as singles.

Working together in an online game takes practice. Without it the appearance of teamwork that doesn't actually exist can actually work against a group. In other words the singletons can beat a team that's poorly coordinated more easily than other singletons because the team will actually work against itself.

Does that make sense? Probably not but at least I know where I'm coming from... :biggrin:

[Lone*star49]

...

I'm on your team SD.. umm, I'm confused :D

To borrow a great signature: I'm lost, but making good time.. lol


LS

[Floydii]

In SB as it currently is, Gamers will always have an edge over 'Military types' (myself included) in H2H situations. This extends to pretty much any other sim or 'tac shooter' on the market.

Why?
As Wahrborg alluded to earlier, Games give a player a huge amount of processed situational information that is presented in such a way that it can be absorbed on the go. It's been my experience that a player who utilises this wealth of 'where and who' will often times beat a group who insists on okaying every move through a chain of command or something similar. Basically the Gamer has a faster Boyd Cycle which allows them to adapt and respond faster and in a more useful manner than the team they face.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyd_cycle )

I've noted that military types will do better in Co-ops against the AI often (most often in Offensive scenarios) as the linear nature of enemy responses better represents an opponent who doesn't have omnipotence.

Try Gamers Vs Military on a SB scenario with map updates off and I think you'd see the Military side start to prosper.

As far as the 'perfect player' it's probably gamers at the Vehicle/Platoon level. The ultimate team would be a hybrid of both employing mission command where pl/sect leaders would be given a task and some general outlines:

'assault that hill marked on map, engage at will, objective cleared no later than 15min from now'.

Or

'move to support by fire position marked on map, stay quiet, engage on my signal, in position in 5 minutes'.

These two elements are tied together by a quick overview:
'1A will assault the Hill while 2A will provide support by fire. CO/A will coord Arty and smoke to coincide with 1A's assault.'

Of course, assaulting hills seems to be a silly idea in most H2H matches as it seems that enemy casualties are what are being sought. In that case, the gamer will always win because it is effectively deathmatch.

mm, getting of soapbox now.

[Ssnake]

Day before yesterday I finished a workshop on scenario design with two sessions of the Evil HESH scenario, me against six others. I managed to win both times without losing a single Leo, but that was to be attributed to superior gunnery skills simply because none of the participants was a tanker, and of course because of my developed skills of handling the software.

The HESH scenario is designed for quick and short multiplayer fun, not because of its sophisticated tactics. Here a gamer can win, not the least because I probably fired a gazillion of rounds over the past ten years which alone gives you a skill level that someone who has a time consuming real job simply cannot achieve. Had the other guys been marginally better in gunnery and software handling, they would have won.

I also agree that if you switch off the map updates, the balance is heavily tipped in favor of teams with strong communication skills. If you don't communicate, you are lost without regular map updates.

[Ssnake]

Oh, one last thing: It's up to the mission designer to set up the scoring in a way to reward force preservation over any other mission goal. Typically 50 to 75% of all score points should be allocated for the survival of own forces. It would then show that combat usually is an activity where both sides can lose easily.

[Lone*star49]

I also agree that if you switch off the map updates, the balance is heavily tipped in favor of teams with strong communication skills. If you don't communicate, you are lost without regular map updates.
...

You magnificent Bastard, I read your book!! (meant in a good way) :D

That was the one of the best one-word communication devices that all the winning teams I was CO of, or XO of, or just a teammate, was "Map".. on the chat board to read. Anyone that wasn't tied up, and saw it, went to the map and gained the update, and it made for far more team victories and great memories than loses..

It was one of my pet-technique's that I hated to share, but it found its way around and the competition got stronger for it..

Communications, make it short, to the point.. speed wins.


LS

[Reload]

A number of people here have touched on the heart of this issue but no one has really driven a stake through it so... give me a shot at it...

Yes, the wild ass-hair on fire tactics of a "Gamer" combined with the intimate workings of the program will allow a "Gamer" to have an edge over an honest to God "Tanker" in most cases... and they may even beat them soundly and often.

However... for the "Gamer" to take pride in this is folly. A "Gamer" is just that and a respawn is but a click away.

For a Warrior in a tank... it's not a game. No compairison...

Wow... heavy...

[chappy]

thats quite true... a gamer does take pride in 'winning' and their definition of winning allows for loss generally speaking (last tank standing mentality)

and i agree with above comments re map updates, if you want to see who wins based on teamwork and communication, turning off map updates is the way to go.

[12Alfa]

In SB as it currently is, Gamers will always have an edge over 'Military types' (myself included) in H2H situations..

Well that quite a statement for a person with the vast SB time you have :shocked: .

I would if i were you rethink that statement.:remybussi:

While this may seem to be the norm, it is not as simple as that.

Mil players given to proving a point would most often kick your ass. They have real life training as well as real gunnery and sim gunnery, a command and control mindset that gamers think they have.And dare I say have developed this sim for the most part, afterall Ssnake is armoured trained, GO,Volocano,WB and on and on.
Generally have much more sim (and SB time) than most gamers when it comes to the above.

No, i think you may have to learn the hard way my younging.:luxhello:

But hey!! a good try.....

[GaryOwen]

Anyone with just a basic understanding of the mission editor can design a scenario that will favor one style of play over all others. (Generally the style that the scenario designer prefers and is best at.)

Taste doesn't prove anything.

[chappy]

i think u misunderstood floydie there gary, floydi IS a mil player and DOES get his ass kicked regularly by 'gamers' ;)

[GaryOwen]

If that's true, then I'd wager he's playing scenarios designed by 'gamers'.

[flyboy]

Going off on a tangent here slightly.A couple of years ago when I was practicing hard for a Flight Sim online War I had an oppurtunity to go one on one with a mate.He was more experienced than me and it showed with me hitting the silk or burning a hole in the ground a lot of the time.He could see I was getting frustrated and gave me a word of advice that I have kept since.If you get shot down..you "DIE".In other words I had to get it in my mindset that every bullet fired at me was meant to end my life and I had to fight back to survive.Consequently my reaction time increased,my situational awareness became a finely drawn map and I fought a hell of a lot harder.Try it guys and see what happens.

[[panzer]]

I find its a combination of both types of play that win the day as well as a thorough understanding of what th SB engine is good/not so good at doing.

Generally military tatics work well up to a certain point. Flanking, breaking through and all the cool stuff does work however u cant move a full platoon of tanks through a dangerous situation(even if u think you have the upper hand) and expect the AI to step up to the plate and kick arse for u. This is usually how entire platoons get decimated in 10 seconds.
There is a flipside to that coin however in that the AI can often spot and plug targets that u couldnt see let alone hit in a million years.
The really good players(Warborg and Sean both with 5+ years of experience with SB) know when to man tanks and how to micro manage the AI when it needs to be.
Watching the really good players and asking for tips goes a long way also. Each and every player has his own way of doing things.
1 thing that will improve your game play over night is a good sound set up especially when it comes to LEOS. You can clearly pin point exactly what direction they are coming from at long distances(2km often) when they are at full speed.
Im far from any kind of expert at SB but ive found that this kind of stuff really helps in HTH missions

[JamesT73J]

I remember a couple of years back when I was learning multiplayer - had a few matches with Stumpy and Lonestar involved, really good fun and educational. What was most interesting was that I had to re-learn the game; the style of play was totally different to single player.

I recall some players being absolutely awesome singleton tankers - Nikatori, Stumpy etc were just so adept at using one tank really effectively. I also recall some debate about the relative merit of 'Guerilla tanking' as this method was known. One thing was for certain - the only way to defeat such a style is strong coordination.

[RecceDG]

Some real tankers are also gamers.

DG

[Vati]

In my opinion such questions are unnecessary. It simply does not matter who kicks someone's ass, but where can I, as a user, find each group playing style, so I can join them and enjoy the same way of playing.

Personally, I rank skill of a player, not upon how many killz he can produce in 3 seconds, but how is he disciplined and capable of cooperation as a part of the team.

To each his own...

[ShoutingDog]

Oh, one last thing: It's up to the mission designer to set up the scoring in a way to reward force preservation over any other mission goal. Typically 50 to 75% of all score points should be allocated for the survival of own forces. It would then show that combat usually is an activity where both sides can lose easily.

:luxhello: What a novel idea...

If players truly are into Victory/Winning, vice just blowin' stuff up, then making victory levels contingent upon force preservation would most assuredly manage the behavior of those "fight to the last man, it's only a game and its not like they're real troops or anything" guys.

That said: I have to wonder how often any MP scenario designed with victory conditions as described would get played?

I for one would love such a scheme but then I prefer the type scenario that is more suited towards a military training exercise than the more common, and ostensibly more popular, shoot 'em ups out there.

If I had to guess I'd predict that the shoot 'em up types would just ignore the aforementioned victory condition scheme and just make up their own and decide who won after the game's finish - assuming they even cared about who won.

[tarball]

90% of my online experiences with SB Pro PE have been where the software is being played as a game. That's okay, you spent your $$ and you can do what you will with it.

Chappy hit the issue squarely when he mentioned cost and consequence.

In SB, there is no cost when you die or when things are destroyed.
In SB, there is no consequence to your actions.

Militaries train extensively on coordination as lives and equipment are costly when they are destroyed.

Gamers don't give a shit.

Gamers don't care if they wreck a tank, or get their units killed. What gamers look at is the kill number at the end of the scenario. Want further testament to this? How many TGIF games that you've played in the last 6 months had a score? Of those that DID have a score, did the score really matter? What people look at is, how many times did they get behind the gun and KILL (pwn, whatever idiom is now in voque) the other guy. The "good players" are those who KILL the most. By any means.

Tactics, command and control, communications, doctrine - NONE of these things matter in most online egagements. These things may help, but only if they serve the outcome of maximum kills. Is this at odds with reality? Yes and no. Please let me elaborate.

Some answers in threads like these will invariably go back to mission quality, mission design and scoring. Personally, I've found an inverse relationship between the amount of effort I spend on creating depth and nuance in a mission and the degree to which it is well received. The missions in which maximum enjoyment is found are those where an individual receives the maximum opportunity to gun and kill. Getting killed only matters if it exhausts your opportunity to re-enter another tank to kill more.

Create a shoot-em-up slug fest where the sides are carefully balanced (and, incidentally, where one side is loaded with lots of M1A1s)? You've created a masterpiece!

Create a multi-phased, graduated and evolving scenario with storyline? *yawn* is what you'll get if it is for the MP arena.

Some will assert that the gamey-ness is a new "x generation warfare" reality to which we should adapt - fine, ok, perhaps it is. However, the only "forces" on the planet that I see acting as the gamers do in this game are the Jihadis and they aren't scarificing anything more than Toyota pickups and their own lives.

However, lives and equipment are costly and losing them has consequence.

Will a modern military behave wrecklessly with a $5 million to $10 million per unit tank? Probably not. It might be fun and "interesting" to use our simulated tanks as roadblocks or battering rams or any other number of non-standard uses, but reality dictates that these things cost money and are not to be foolishly squandered - ditto for life.

Sure, you'll use your gear by any means if it means victory, but non-standard uses are the exception. The history of war and battle has many exceptions where lives and equipment were lavishly and foolishly squandered to achieve victory, but these are still exceptional and not normative. Every game in SB Pro PE MP is under exceptional circumstances. Losses have no consequence, units have no morale factor at all, and last-man-standing is okay too.

Game and Tool

SB Pro PE (and Pro) is a GAME and a TOOL - it is a game in that it is only a simulacrum and a tool in that it can be wielded in any fashion.

You want to introduce the aspect of cost and consequence into the GAME? It can be done. Sure, some have mentioned scoring, but I've noticed that 3 out of 4 don't give a rat's ass about scores as most scenarios don't even report score tabulation (the responsibility of the designer to be sure). A score represents the rules of a scenario and engagement, but scores don't really govern how people play THIS game.

If you REALLY want to introduce the effects of cost and consequence...

Make death count

How?

Use the dongle. One day of dongle deactivation per kill. You wanna see how fast the gamers disappear? Are you "game" to put your money where your mouth is?

One day of dongle deactivation per unit that you own that is killed

Of course, this won't work...

Why won't it work? Because nobody would be left to play the game. Despite the long discussion we have here (with wonderful ideas on how to improve the situation), nobody will willingly submit to consequences which curtail their use of the software. Even the most hardcore among us know this is a game and won't take it so seriously as to willingly deactivate the software. However, these are the stakes, so to speak, that REAL militaries are training against - losses have costs. Most western societies want to minimize the cost and consequence of loss and spend big time and money on that end.

If you associate meaningful costs (scores on missions don't matter) with one's in-game actions things will radically change.

If I go running into that forest and throw a track, I could be killed, if I am killed, I can't play the game for a day.

In lieu of dongle deactiviation, we have pride - but pride in this game is generally attached to kills. The best players, those who are always lauded in posts like these, are the guys who KILL the most. These guys KILL by any means and are NOT overly fussed with tactics, doctrine, Command and Control and the like. Don't believe me? Ask them somtime.

Cost and Consequence is the difference between gamer and the military. SB Pro is useful and valuable to militaries as they can learn from virtual death to create tactics that stave off the cost and consequece of REAL death. "Kick ass" SB gamers do die occasionally, but those deaths have no cost and only allow them to learn how to deal more death. While I realize that "deal more death on your opponent" is the point of REAL military training, a lot MORE of the training is about managing the costs and consequence of your OWN death.

To conclude, another way to see this might be to propose this question:

"Just how much more costly is the death of one of your own units versus the advantage of inflicting death on an opponent?"

To answer this we need to speculate about the nature of conflicts of the present and future...

What evidence exists from experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq which might shed light on this question? For reflection, use the data on this site http://icasualties.org/oif/ (I have no idea how partisan the site is, casualties are somewhat a matter of record, so use whatever site suits your political proclivities).

COST and CONSEQUENCE is what it is all about.

P.S. Yes, I would submit to the dongle deactivation system I propose ONLY if it prevents Head to Head MP for a day per kill. MP Coop and offline single play would NOT be effected.

[RecceDG]

War story time; helmets and ballistic eyewear on.

Back in the day, me and a couple of my college buddies were really into the Battletech board wargame (state of the art computer-wise was a CGA XT, so there wasn't much in the way of computer wargaming)

We would play for a couple of hours every day, and more than a little part of class time was spent mech designing and coming up with scenarios. One of my friends worked out this mech design system that mathematically optimized weapon array design based on average engagement range and probability of hit... hardcore stuff.

And because we were in a military college, we had access to all sorts of reading material on strategy and tactics.

We wound up developing a combined arms doctrine for Battletech tied very closely to the game rules. I'll spare the details, but it combined recce, close assault, and indirect fire tactics into a tightly-knitted system.

And then we went to a wargames convention.

We went through the competition like a scythe - not only did we not lose a single battle, we didn't lose a single *mech*. At the end of the tourney, the organizers pitched our team against every single player willing to participate, and we *still* slaughtered them.

Our analysis of our success was that we acted in concert, according to an overall plan and with a set of rigorously developed tactical drills - where our opponents were effectively a collection of individuals. Even grossly outnumbered, we were always able to isolate them and defeat them in detail.

There is no doubt in my mind at all that a group of real tankers, especially with gaming experience (as most of my kids have now), given sufficient practice to work out tactics, would whallop a group of uber gamers in SB - even if the scenario was just a Quake-like deathmatch. Actual overwatch, mutual support, the assigning of troop arcs, the use of the Leo2 hunter-killer sight in the manner intended, flanking, fire and jockey... they wouldn't have a chance.

You don't see that so much now because it takes time to build that level of co-operation and co-ordination and I don't think anybody has gone very far along that path yet (myself included) But if anybody ever does....

DG

[3Star]

That said, back in the days of ICP, the rare times we got together, if I say so myself, we were pretty tough to beat. Not only did we know the simulation, but many of the ICP types were military types and we knew what we were doing tactically as well.

Simply being military isn't enough to win in SB: You must be as familiar with the software as you are with the tactics. That's oftentimes an unfortunately small subset. I am still a firm believer in the use of military-style tactics in SB, just as much as I am a believer in the instinctive use of the game. Gamers will beat military. But military gamers (i.e. people who know the system, and are willing to work together with appropriate tactics) will, I thin, beat gamers.

NTM

[Jester_UK]

Interesting idea there Tarball. It would certainly add to the "fear" factor!!

The only problem is what happens to some poor player who gets TK'ed by some dick on his own side? Or gets drowned in a river thanks to the AI driver doing something unexpected?

[Kingtiger]

in IL2 online there are some servers that have deathkicks, so when you are killed 3 times you get booted out for 5mins before you can rejoin...

that stops you from making stupid things...

but a day sounds extreme. but a 10min ban?

[RENEGADE-623]

I think it depends on the scenerio also. I like the teamwork/military style games, after all, this is a simulator, not a game.

[ShoutingDog]

Super Post Tarbull - well written and full of interesting and thought provoking ideas.

Here's another idea: Use the Side End if design criteria and if one side or the other drops below a certain force level the scenario ends.

That could of course get very complex requiring multiple conditions to be true depending on the situation the players are put into by the scenario.

Having a scenario just end based on the assumption that one side or the other's force level has reached a point where the virtual troops/units just say "screw this" and haul ass might just work. Heavy emphasis on might - players may just say screw this and not run the scenario. It would also be encumbent on the designer to explicitly state in the briefing something to the effect that: "The quality of blue troops is such that if force level drops below 65% they will be considered as having routed and the scenario will end and you will suffer a decisive defeat regardless of the accomplishment of other mission objectives". Of course a similar definition would have to be provided for red.

That however, assumes that the scenario is one that is enough fun to play that the players don't want to be unceremoniously dumped into the AAR stage. An unintended consequence of such a scheme though might very well be that mission objectives are ignored in favor of killing enough of the other side's guys that the mission ends - but then that's pretty realistic in and of itself.

As another stated - having an option where if the vehicle a player is in gets smoked he can't move to another for some set time would be useful too thereby applying a penalty to dying in the game. You're not booted but you get a time out penalty. Personally I think this should go into the SB wish list of necessary features - assuming such a list even exists.

[Raploc]

Ok don't take this wrong way but............ this is a sim/game and there will always be people out there that will kick you're ass. You can put in dongle deactivation per time you have been killed, put people in special jackets that will zap you if you are hit, even then "real tankers" (reminds me of the "No true Scotsman fallacy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman) will still lose to the "Gamer". Years back when I liked to play Laser Quest we (me and my friends) played against a group of visiting soldiers, guess what? We put those guy's through a meat grinder. They did'nt stand a chance, because we knew every corner of the arena and played at least 2 hours a week. Were we better soldiers? Nope we were the better Laser Quest players. My message is don't bring in restrictions to the sim, just learn to play it better, and accept that there are people out there that don't have the RL training some of you do have and who will still kick your butt.

[GH_Lieste]

There are some serious distortions in how eg ground cover works right now..

For example if you have the TC fully exposed, and approach a ridgeline on the default 'grass' map even when not terribly thick, you will find that it is quite common to be engaged and destroyed by distant 'exposed' tanks that you have outflanked well before you can even see them through your local clutter.

The real situation would have the exposed & outflanked vehicles at a severe disadvantage, as the foliage would be equally obscuring to the distant vehicles, plus their arcs of observation would make it somewhat harder to spot even an exposed target.

This doesn't really apply to vehicles in woods, because here the horizontal extent of the target is greater than the individual sizes of the obscuring terrain, but for extensive, small scale, moderately high foliage, the obscuration should be at least as great at long ranges as it is for close ones and should apply to infantry and to tanks, and to both the AI and to all players.

The problem this causes is that a 'hull down' position on a ridge needs to be very high to obtain a LOS to the lower ground or to the next ridge through the ground cover. To the AI or to players with low/zero clutter settings your vehicle is completely exposed at this point. Real life would suggest that you would be exposed to fire, but might only have a small portion of the turret roof exposed to view. In this situation you are much better off parking fully exposed than to try to use folds in the ground and local cover..

[general billy]

Hiding behind a bush is pointless.
Thats why I'mm forced to play with zero graphics on ground settings in multiplayer, :mad3:

[Wahrborg]

Gamers don't care if they wreck a tank, or get their units killed. What gamers look at is the kill number at the end of the scenario. Want further testament to this? How many TGIF games that you've played in the last 6 months had a score? Of those that DID have a score, did the score really matter? What people look at is, how many times did they get behind the gun and KILL (pwn, whatever idiom is now in voque) the other guy. The "good players" are those who KILL the most. By any means.



Well, since my name has already been mentioned in this thread as being one of the "good" players, and since i do in fact end up with a decent number of kills more often then not, of the games, i do feel that this post is directed to me and ppl like me, so let me share some of my thoughts.

First of all, your first statement regarding "gamers don't care", well, i believe that you are entirely wrong, and on top of that, a bit offending to a big part of the on-line community that has a great deal of experience and understanding of tactics, vehicle strengths & weaknesses, terrain advantages/disadvantages, situational awareness etc etc :) .

You have to understand that this software does in fact have crew-able vehicles, which means that ppl will be in the gunners position. You make it look like ppl with high kills in the end of the scenario has done something bad, and that they have been "bunny-hopping" their way through the scenario just to get high kill-counts. Well nein i say. To be successful in this software on-line, you need to develop a very good sense of tactics, situational awareness, importance of terrain, vehicle strengths&weaknesses etc, and you also need to take any chances you get, to get to know and study the ppl you play with or against so that you can figure out what he will most likely do in any given situation. For an example i can mention that i today played Vacquero, which in my eyes are the most splendid gunner, and an excellent tactician, on "Bridge Contact Heavy", and not once did i think "ohh i hope im the faster gunner then him", instead i was fully focused on making sure i had the right number of units on the right places to stop his efforts on crossing the river, at the same time as i tried to position my reserves for a counter-attack. If you take your time to think about it, you will find out that the ppl you are talking about in most cases are in the same situation like me; i've played this game now for 7 years, had the honor to take a small part of the development of SB Pro PE and been in the army for as long, starting as IFV gunner, and currently recon/intel.

So when you say that ppl only cares about kills, thats wrong - the ppl you see with high kill counts, are those who have in fact read the briefing and understood the objectives and victory conditions, cuz they know where they need to be, and what they have to do to win the scenario.. Many times the scenarios them self are designed in a way that victory conditions, objectives, map size and force composition is highly un-believable, but that has little to do with the statement you made above.



Tactics, command and control, communications, doctrine - NONE of these things matter in most online egagements. These things may help, but only if they serve the outcome of maximum kills. Is this at odds with reality? Yes and no. Please let me elaborate.


I agree with many points there, but i also see the reasons behind them. On any given Friday, there are around 25-30 ppl online to play the big game. All from different parts of the world, with different language skills, different knowledge and experience with the software and with different hardware to play the game - i have a very hard time to see how anything more complexed then a basic plan of "who goes where, and when" can be implemented under those circumstances.

In smaller games, well, step up and make the plan, and do it however complicated you want - i dont think anyone would stop you. If they dont do as you say, then just dont play with him anymore :)

And as a side-note regarding communications and tactics. The most recent trend has been to divide up the players into Bat, and coy commander channels and prevent the rest of the ppl to talk during planning to save time. Well, where is the tactics and communications in that? Sure it's fun for the two co's that gets to make up master plans for all the little sheep's to follow, but for the other 95% of the players it's quite not interesting. What we may be would need to do is extending the planning phase so that ppl that are interested in the more over-all planning/tactical part of it really had time to discuss their way to a good plan, and get everybody involved to understand it so that they can follow it?




Create a shoot-em-up slug fest where the sides are carefully balanced (and, incidentally, where one side is loaded with lots of M1A1s)? You've created a masterpiece!

Create a multi-phased, graduated and evolving scenario with storyline? *yawn* is what you'll get if it is for the MP arena.


Well, non of us have seen a "multi-phased, graduated and evolving scenario with storyline" being played on-line yet.

Which leads me to my final point. I strongly believe that to achieve all of the great doctrinal deeds thats being talked about in this and other threads, puts very high demands on the mission designer. Personally i would love to see all the great ideas and suggestions in this and other threads being put into actual scenarios that we can play, most often discussions like this have ended up with nothing around here - let's change that!

oh, and finally i'd like to quote the first row of the Swedish Armored Battalion Doctrine: "Only by attacking can we decide the outcome of a battle"
And with that i want to say, - there is a gunners position in most vehicles we use in online games here, it's there to use, and ppl will use it. However, it takes a brain to figure out where to position and use your forces, so that you can use that gun of yours without getting you self killed. The guy or team who can kill someone without getting himself killed will always prevail over the idiot who constantly loses his vehicle, cuz the fact is that killing is the deal when it comes to armored warfare.

May be we should rant a bit on the guys who gets killed alot instead of those who kills others, for a change? =)


:)

[stalintc]

May be we should rant a bit on the guys who gets killed alot instead of those who kills others, for a change?

I get killed rather alot, but then I am learning and doing my best to get to grips with things. And besides when I get killed your name appears on the chat bar more often than anyone else lol your a tough cookie to crack on the battlefield thats for sure!

I am more used to flight simming with modern jets using knowledge of how radar systems work etc to get first eyes and first kill on the enemy, im *still* finding it difficult to adjust.

[Vati]

Look guys... as I said earlier, the two camps of playing style are uncompatible. It's useless to argue who is da badest MOFO on the battlefield.

A realism player will say gamer is retarded as he uses F8 all the time and hops around, abusing AI advantage, etc.
A gamer will say realism guy is retarded as he is not using the full potential of the game.

Who is better? It depends what way you like to play. End of discussion.

[dejawolf]

you can disable F8 view in the mission editor. you can also disable map updates. all of a sudden, SB becomes painfully realistic, and what used to be sleek and effective engagements by Sbers, turns into a muddled, slo-motion army, where SB-tankers feel themselves forward, almost like in darkness.
this is where armies, with their doctrines and tight planning, shines.
you know where you're supposed to go. you know where everyone else is supposed to be.
in SB, you don't need to know this before the game starts. you can simply check the mapscreen, and adapt your tactics.

[tarball]

Disabling F8 does not work in MP game. Oh how happy I'd be if it DID, but it doesn't.

[tarball]

Well, since my name has already been mentioned in this thread as being one of the "good" players, and since i do in fact end up with a decent number of kills more often then not, of the games, i do feel that this post is directed to me and ppl like me, so let me share some of my thoughts.


May be we should rant a bit on the guys who gets killed alot instead of those who kills others, for a change? =)


:)

Not directed at anyone in particular. It is obvious that guys who get killed a lot have many reasons to stop and figure out why. I still believe that a lack of penalty for losing stuff is a problem. It is clear that causing more pain that you receive is how you win - but what costs are acceptable?

Cost and consequence aren't entirely up to the individual soldier, the decision is also embedded within the individual soldier's training and indoctrination.

In SB, and in any game, everyman is his own army - with his own ideas and values about what acceptable loss is.

Full circle to Billy's original point and Wahrborg's more fleshed out point: those that make full use of the game, practice and play for a long time AND use sound tactics and doctrine will be the best. These tactics and doctrine may borrow from reality but aren't strictly applied to reality - they are applied to the "reality" within the game. Fair enough. In SB, cost and consequence becomes a personal choice and perhaps a function of the mission designer's intent. It's a game, so you are free to respect and follow the designer's intent or not.

[dejawolf]

Not directed at anyone in particular. It is obvious that guys who get killed a lot have many reasons to stop and figure out why. I still believe that a lack of penalty for losing stuff is a problem. It is clear that causing more pain that you receive is how you win - but what costs are acceptable?

Cost and consequence aren't entirely up to the individual soldier, the decision is also embedded within the individual soldier's training and indoctrination.

In SB, and in any game, everyman is his own army - with his own ideas and values about what acceptable loss is.

Full circle to Billy's original point and Wahrborg's more fleshed out point: those that make full use of the game, practice and play for a long time AND use sound tactics and doctrine will be the best. These tactics and doctrine may borrow from reality but aren't strictly applied to reality - they are applied to the "reality" within the game. Fair enough. In SB, cost and consequence becomes a personal choice and perhaps a function of the mission designer's intent. It's a game, so you are free to respect and follow the designer's intent or not.

for almost the whole TGIF, i was sitting in my single IFV killing 3 STRV-122s,
2 leopard 1s, and 1 leopard 2a4.
nearly all, minus 3 ASLAV-25 that was in under my command, but in AI control, however, got lost.
should i be penalized for not taking care of my AI APCs, and instead focus on not getting my main ASLAV killed?
should the penalty be less if i die in an aslav vs tank scenario?
i know that AI ASLAV-25s are completely unable to kill a tank,
and any APC more heavily armoured than the aslav picks it out easily.
i think the main reason theres so high death tolls in SB, is because of the AIs absence of self-preservation,
not the players rushing in and getting themselves killed with inane and suicidal tactics.

[tarball]

Good points Deja. My dongle disable idea (and the rest of my post) was to prove a point about how the cost and consequence of losing units is not entirely grounded in the considerations of reality. It is a simulation, it is a game, it'll be different - I agree with you guys.

[Ssnake]

Not everyone is using SB Pro for training. It is perfectly legitimate to just play Steel Beasts and have fun with it. In fact, I may sometimes be amazed that there are people who can actually have fun with it in the state in which it is (but so much the better!).

Self-preservation: The fourth of the four cardinal questions that need to be answered when creating battle positions is often forgotten: Where is this platoon supposed to be? When is it supposed to be there? What is it supposed to do, once that it arrives? How the hell do they get out of the battle position (and under which circumstances)?

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of the implicit embark conditions as listed in the manual on page 28. Without an egress route, computer-controlled units will default to Hold (=die in place) orders.
You therefore want to add a retreat route from each and every single battleposition that you ever create. This should be SOP. Without unconditioned egress routes the choice of Defend or Guard as BP tactics becomes irrelevant.

[IrishHussar]

Perhaps if the crewing could be modded to something like that in M1 Tanks, whereby you can name individuals and the longer they serve the more competant they become, people would then have an incentive to look after their crews. Just a thought!!


Irish

[Hedgehog]

Indeed I had a gunner move up to TC then Pt Ldr then pearly gates, was annoyed to say the least.

my idea for SB MP is this:
Short scenario: die = game over
Long scenario: 3 or so lives then game over

Be interesting to see how the Coy handles a dead CO

your thoughts please...

[Vacquero]

i think the main reason theres so high death tolls in SB, is because of the AIs absence of self-preservation,
not the players rushing in and getting themselves killed with inane and suicidal tactics. Not to mention the fact that most games or simulated engagements, whatever you want to call them, does not have one side fighting against a bunch of un-trained rabble in antiquated equipment with poor recon. Most of the battles we see online are between two very well equipped, and very well informed forces. It's no wonder the casulty rate is so high, when the enemy is firing top of the line ammunition back at you, and is behind top of the line armor. In the end is the cost worth the gains? Sometimes yes. If you are still able to carry on and accomplish your objective, even though you took losses, it is. Especially when you are forced to drive around the smoking wreckage of the enemy. As far as I'm concerned, the first doctrine of war is to kill the enemy. If you can do so without bleeding yourself white in the process, so much the better right? It seems to me that the guys being called gamers, are the one's that most of the time are more successful in a given scenario. So have fun, lose a bunch of stuff and learn from your mistakes. Isn't that the way military's established their tactics and doctrine?

[ShermansWar]

I think it is a basic corruption of military thinking to sacrifice victory for force preservation. Of such thinkers are conquered peoples made.

[GaryOwen]

Very astute point, General Pyrrhus.

[Cobra2]

in any conflict each side has to determine its ultimate objectives and the price to be paid, or what hes willing to sacrifice.

simply defeating the enemy is the usual objective, but it seldom translates into total destruction. lets suppose eliminating 60% of the enemy forces fulfills primary objectives. also preserving 90% of forces is to be achieved if possible. falling to 50% strength is considered failure.

with this template we can draw a graph of what is acceptable, unacceptable and desirable.

in this regard, it is your own force preservation that counts. what ever damage done to the other side is acceptable, while over 60% damage is desirable.

in this context, you cant play SB at all. attrition is usually too high to stay above 50% losses. the gimmick here is to provide you with area-oriented objectives. this means that all you have to do is hold arbitrary locations to win, disregarding your losses.

you think that SB has nothing to do with real life combat. think again. in real life there is a concept called 'replenishing the ranks'. this is a widely held practice where long term attrition is expected. the best place to look at this is WW2. the forces that started the war are completely different to those that ended it. that is how long running conflicts are maintained.

so you could have a hundred SB-type engagements where losses on both sides are higher then 50% but losses do not count for loss or gain to any one side.

if force protection/preservation is not a major factor, then what is? the objective from SB. it could be translated in real life to industrial, military or civilian zones. here trying to think about it in pure tactical terms is near useless. if they come into arty range, then you cant help it if they get shelled/bombed. your military force may not be damaged at all but its counted as a major failure. so the actual objective is a perimeter around the objectives that you try to protect.

offensively, this becomes getting to the other side's objectives.

this is the essence of long term wars, including 4th generation warfare. objective seeking, not force preservation. all you need to maintain force-wise is enough muscle to achieve mission goals even if you have to replenish your ranks after each military operation.

so every battle drill in SB multiplay, where the victory condition is a designated area on the map, is 4th generation warfare training. though SB is armor centric, while most 4th gen conflicts are not so easy to identify.

[Volcano]

It is all in how you play the game. IMO, the problem is mainly that there are too many vehicles involved in MP scenarios. Gamer or not, if you are given > 3 vehicles then you are going to naturally consider some or most of them expendable. With less vehicles and everyone establishing early on that no giving of vehicles would be done, then you bet people will be a little more careful and you wouldn't have people doing silly things like killing your own vehicle to block a bridge.

How many times have you jumped into a game only to have someone on your side burn through their forces in a few minutes by doing something unorthadox or foolish and then come begging for more units from you, who carefully husbands your forces?

I said this before but perhaps people just do not think it is "fun": use less vehicles, turn map updates off and then you will have a realistic sim. I would say platoon vs. platoon engagements of a player in each vehicle. Death results in observation only, lock the vehicles unless someone began in the gunners position to begin with. It might be reminiscent of the H2H or 4 v 4 scenarios but there is nothing wrong with this *if* it is done right. With this format, (map updates off) then "Tank Quake" (tm) should not ensue unless you wanted to be picked off one at a time. Many times in IRL at CMTC or at FTA we did quick platoon on platoon engagements, so there is indeed some training to be had from doing this as well.

Another alternative is to have one blue tank platoon of three or four players (depending on Leo or M1 platoon) and OPFOR with three platoons of one player per platoon of lesser tanks. With no map updates then OPFOR would be force to reslistically operated as platoon units with no splitting and bounding.

But the real thing that would make "gamers" be more cautious is if, one day, there was a sort of pool of AI soldiers each player had to manage. At the start of an MP scenario you would assign them to your own vehicles and they would be entities that you would groom throughout engagements (with promotions and awards a la M1TP2). Not assigning anyone would result in a basic caveman intellect being auto assigned to the crew slot. Death would actually mean something unless you managed your AI troops like some kind of communist tyrrant. Just an idea... but, then again, if something like this was done then we would have said gamers quitting the game early before the end so they wouldn't loose their AI or some other such cheating going on.

[ShermansWar]

Very astute point, General Pyrrhus.

Say what you want , it doesn't change the fact that , at the end of most scenarios I play, I have more assets left than most of my teamates, and that's not for lack of aggressiveness or not attacking on my part. Often as not it is me rolling into the objective at the end.

There are many players who say they want to play realistic scenarios, and what they really want is a scenario where they dont have to compete, or gun in. Scenarios where the elements of Tempo, Initiative, Shock, Friction, and any attempts to break your opponents will to fight or get inside the opposing players decision cycle are removed. These are the basic elements of armored warfare, and of a good scenario.Not rote rehearsed movement.

Case in point: the frustration among many who consider themselves realistic simmers with the fact that they cant lock the gunners position. Why do they want to lock the gunners position? Because they don't want some hotshot gunner tearing up their columns, as they move ever so ponderously towards the objective. It fucks up their excercise.I have played with these guys. Their comms are worse, if anything. They hardly speak during a mission, their planning is sketchy, and when they hit opposition they stop. Many are professional military men.Trying to raise them during a scen on TS, either by callsign or unit designation is like trying to raise the dead. Half the time they snap and say they're busy. Do they do this IRL? I doubt it.

Armored warfare comprises 2 main elements, firepower and mobility. There is little mobility in these supposed realistic scenarios. The forces are generally confined to a very narrow frontage, and, for the most part, the AI could just as easily run the mission as well as human players. I have found that I have learned little or nothing playing these scenarios. Doesn't mean i wont play them, I will and I do.This does not apply to all realistic scenarios. Many of them are some of the best scens out there, but there is a definite schism in the community, and most of the scenarios coming out of the "realistic" camp are no better, and no more realistic then those made by "Gamers". Many of those scenarios suck as well, are unbalanced, and unplayable. It just seems to me there is more of an emphasis on order in realistic scenarios,unfortunately it is usually followed by an inability to do anything with that order if it is acheived.This isn't the fault of "Gamers" but of those who, while they may be active duty military, they don't have a clear concept of just actually how to run a battle, or any idea as to how to practice the ART of war. You guys may be hot shit in your units and at what you do, but that doesnt mean you implicitly have some tactical ability to excercise the ART of war.I have come to the conclusion that the majority of those who complain the loudest about the lack of realistic scenarios have neither the ability to create them, or the ability to run and win the mission if someone else where to create it for them.

I will expound on the reasons why i think this is so later, and it has nothing to do with individual skill, in the Army or with your vehicle, knowledge or expertise. I have nothing but respect for the men in the various uniforms that inhabit these forums, and their skill, professionalism and dedication. I am NOT taking a piss on them. I do NOT think i could do a better job myself.

Warfare is both an Art and a Science. Clausewitz says warfare is an act of violence to compel your enemy to fulfill your will. Therefore, you win wars, and engagements, largely by destroying your enemies will to fight.This is the most commonly overlooked fact about an SB game, particularly by those who call themselves "simmers". They are the most likely group to quit in frustration if the enemy doesnt cooperate with their preconceived notions of how they should be fighting.

If you dont believe me, look at what the guys who want it played as a sim are saying. The main point is that once something like 20% casualties are reached, then the mission should end, and you lose. we tried this, and what you get is a bunch of games that stop after the first engagement. Not because the one side or the other is beaten, but because casualties have been sustained.


When we play these scenarios, after our mouths are watering at the prospect of a "real" game, we plan , we move, we shoot, we get hit, we stop and start over. run it 10 times in a row, and no difference. nothing is learned, there is no winner, and we spend our evenings driving around in single PCs looking at the pretty landscape without firing a shot in anger. This is called realistic. if they can they break the guns and the sights so noone has any chance of getting hurt. Hey, I know, lets give both sides crap ammo, so that even if you do figure something out, and get the drop on the other guy and put 2 rounds into him( that bounce off) he turns , finally, and kills you with a lucky shot. What has been learned? Nothing. The mission never comes to fruition, it stops. This isnt wargaming,it's not a sim, it's playing politics, assuming that any operation that sustains significant casualties will be halted.We run Hourlong recon missions,missions where we escort the convoy, or rescue the downed pilot, or chaperone the "VIP ".none of these require the commitment of Major assets, and the VIP better hope we dont take more then 20% casualties getting to him, otherwise he and his pilot buddy are screwed.What is the message here? That we will fight and win wars only on the cheap, with techno gizmos that we ourselves dont actually have to gun? Hell, it's well known the next planned generation of US AFVs are to be 2 man vehicles, and that only as an interim step, before these same chassis are converted to unmanned vehicles.

I play with a group of player that we will call MP players, the guys that are actually in TS playing multiplayer every night, competitively.To a man they will all say they want to play realistic scenarios.We dont really care what the scenario is, we prefer a realistic scen, but we will play what each other has to offer, and test it, and play it, as we fight to win.

When we play, we use good comms, it may not be a military system, but it has it's own structure, and is intuitive enough for non military types to use.
http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=5642 .
we utilize military concepts, like the ones i mentioned earlier, such as dictating the tempo of the battle to the enemy, and disrupting his. we fight for the initiative. We seek to create friction for the enemy while reducing our own.We seek to capitalize on any opportunity and exploit it. We use indirect approaches.We advance by bounding overwatch, we execute single and double envelopments, We establish our base of fire, designate the maneuver element and attack. We utilize the terrain to seize the BPs with the dominant lines of sight over the main evenues of approach to restrict our enemies mobility and constrain him.We recon. We mass.At all times we seek to dictate the terms of the battle to the enemy, and destroy his will to fight as he sits behind his computer console. I think thats what really happens, guys get beat by someone who is dictating the battle to them, and they cry sour grapes and complain the other guy isnt playing realistically. Maybe we are. maybe we're just better in gun, or at routing or splitting units. We do not run map edges or ditches or break any rules the scen designers has laid out.We take what the program gives us, and we play it as it is,not as we wish it was.We play to win, becaue, it is, when all is said and done, a wargame.
One thing i will say, is that with realsitic players, there is never any discussion whatsoever of any of these isdeas or concepts. just complaints about incomplete breifings and too many units and players who, well, i'm not sure just waht the complaint is with the players, beyond that it's not " realsitic" It's not realsitic becaue we didnt spend an hour dicking around with a recon mission, read the map, rushed and seized the dominant NBPs and then totally restrcted your forces mobility and poured fire on them from hull down positions and you got creamed? it isnt because we played unrrealisticlally, it's becaue you surrendered the initiative and the best BPs and let us dictate the tempo of the battle. ?

In the games we play, there is a high demand for good comms, and command and control. the fact is, the side that reacts better usually wins. Not by gimmicks, but by sound tactics. .

Yet , many call us " Gamers" .I do not consider myself a "Gamer".Ithey are around, I will play with them, just as I will play with those who consider themselves simmers, or military, or realistic players or whatever you want to call them. I play to explore ideas and tactical concepts, and then implement them to see if they can bring victory. These are the same reasons I have played any wargame( i must own and have played at least 50 board games). for their educational value, and for the fun of competition against like minded individuals with the same interests.I dont even Know what tank quake is. SB is the only PC game I play, or have played.. it is the only game I play because it is the only game i feel is realsitc enough to hold my interest. it allows for the study of both the art, and the science, of war.

We are the people you are calling gamers, yet you yourselves show little talent for war yourselves beyond Knowing the jargon, how to hold your frontages and how to use proper military radio comms. people that think they can reduce war to a pure science , whilst removing the art of war, and the human element, arent realsitc players IMO, and they arent getting the best of what SB has to offer.

[tarball]

I am starting to dislike this "gamer" vs. "the rest" schism the more it develops - I am sorry to have participated in the division.

Sure Sherman, seizing the initiative and winning do matter - but our battle field and battle world within the software lacks many constraints which must be accounted for in reality. I bantered on about cost and consequence as they are critical missing elements of the reality of waging war. I agree on some of your points on the art of war, but some critical elements of the science are missing from the simulation - thus making SB Pro PE incomplete in some sense.

This reminds me of this old epigram:
"Amateurs talk about strategy, professionals talk about logistics"

Of course, the sim never intended to portray any of the costs and reality of placing a $10 million vehicle onto the battlefield and the lives required to run the thing - the sim models fires and manuever for the purpose of tactics (and strategy). Sure, we have some logistics in the game, but it is not the main point.

We all have our tastes and reasons for playing the game (and a great game it is). I have likely been too derisive against the gamer but we are simulating equipment which are not toys and are not foolishly deployed in most modern armies. But, the history of battle is littered with exceptions and departures from trained doctrine.

Read up on the 1973 Arab-Israeli war and the fight in the Golan (http://info.jpost.com/C003/Supplements/30YK/art.23.html) and you'll see many examples of the Israelis doing "whatever it takes." Specifically, read up on Zvika Greengold and his one-man 20-hour stand, often times in one lone "sniper tank." Despite this, nobody trains to operate wildly and most of the military guys spend the majority of their time in the service training to doctrine. I am not privy to how experimental doctrinal training is but I suspect that as militaries adopt simulation software like SB that their quotient of "what if" and other non-standard exercises are on the rise. Even if most military training is "by the book," I can't fault these guys for wanting to stick to the book - the book is likely a culmination of many years of experience. Conversely, I also can't fault guys for using SB as an easel to illustrate armored warfare in a way that suits them.

The software has definite limitations and yet is is open enough to be what you want/need it to be. We can either be tolerant of different styles or fragment further. We won't all sing kumbaya and get along, but sinking further down the spiral of "your style sucks" wont likely get us anywhere either. We could just keep to the status quo and generally run as birds of a feather - occasionally getting together for the public events.

Whatever.

[ShermansWar]

I dont remember the last time i saw someone burn a vehicle to block a bridge.or do any such stupid shit.

[stalintc]

On the point in one of your paragraphs to do with people on TS not saying much. Sherman, I must point out, that you may have noticed I can be quiet during games on TS... the reason being is that im shy and can be quite a nervous character, I honestly cant help that. I just dont want to make a dick of myself infront of SB vets, because I know I shouldnt be, but I feel quite intimidated, and I really dont want to make a dick of myself by saying something stupid, or something which turns out to be a mistake.

I know its not aimed at anyone in particular. But I felt the need to explain why im like that, and im sure there are a few others too.

Cheers man.

[dejawolf]

i think a lot of players dont say a lot because they dont know what to say.
sherman has lot to say. in fact, he could probably write a 1000-page book about all the things he wants to be said, and sell it.
to start with, asking what you should do next is a good point to start.

[ShermansWar]

Please, dont be afraid to speak, Stalin.I have played with you a few times and i had no problem whatsoever. Anyway, i doubt anyone can make a bigger dick out of himself than i did when i first joined. I used to get laughed out of games. I used to get tonguelashed by 4 guys at once in AAR,sometimes for 20 minutes or more.anyone with half an ounce of self respect would have quit right then and there. Half the reason i stuck around was so eventually i could beat the bastards, or at least put on a decent showing.

My point is not that I have a particular problem with anyone, or their playstyle, i'm just tired of the guys who play in MP regularly getting shitted on as " Gamers". especially when i dont see the product that anyone else is turning out is any better, or their play any more coordinated.Honestly, it was meant more as a defence than an attack. If I blew my own horn, or denigrated anyone else or their playstyle, I regret it, i'm just tired of guys I never see in MP talking about all the "gamers", when i've never seen most of these guys in game themselves.

Getting called Phyrrus didnt help.

[flyboy]

My squad in online flying used to get our butts kicked regularly due to the other more experienced side having better team playing skills and comms.They had the ability to talk each other around so our arses passed in front of their wingmans guns.We got better but it was a long road.
Having done a little bit of Martial arts I was taught that you get into a fight then you have already lost.Also it is hard to have a form of fighting when your opponent has no form.You are ready for that punch so you can counter it with that block and then counterpunch sort of drill.Humans are an ingenious species.Imagination, skill and a lot of luck along with the desire to survive no matter what will prevail.

[Ssnake]

I'm against a mandatory kill-count-to-boot rule. First of all, it would make it impossible to follow a ruthless tactic that is willing to sacrifice one human wave after another. This may not be our way of thinking, but a simulation tool should not dictate our way of thinking anyway (or at least try to minimize it, even though there are always tacit assumptions in the design phase that do impose a limit of what you can do with a simulation software).

Not that I don't appreciate the thought behind that suggestion. The perceived price of making mistakes does influence the way how we act (or fail to act), so obviously a threat to deny a player of having fun is probably an effective way to mitigate certain disruptive behavior.

As far as the lack of urge for self-preservation is concerned in computer-controlled forces, there is some truth in it, but it's only half the story if the way how we implemented computer-controlled behavior isn't properly utilized. I'm talking of the implicit embark conditions as described on page 27 of the manual. Keep in mind that if an egress route isn't available the computer will follow the only viable alternative in a simulation that is designed to maximize the degree of control that a player has: It will fight to the death.

A large degree of tactical control incorporates a large degree of responsibility on the player's side to provide his computer-controlled minions with suitable alternatives to dying.

[[panzer]]

I'm against a mandatory kill-count-to-boot rule. First of all, it would make it impossible to follow a ruthless tactic that is willing to sacrifice one human wave after another. This may not be our way of thinking, but a simulation tool should not dictate our way of thinking anyway (or at least try to minimize it, even though there are always tacit assumptions in the design phase that do impose a limit of what you can do with a simulation software).

Not that I don't appreciate the thought behind that suggestion. The perceived price of making mistakes does influence the way how we act (or fail to act), so obviously a threat to deny a player of having fun is probably an effective way to mitigate certain disruptive behavior.

As far as the lack of urge for self-preservation is concerned in computer-controlled forces, there is some truth in it, but it's only half the story if the way how we implemented computer-controlled behavior isn't properly utilized. I'm talking of the implicit embark conditions as described on page 27 of the manual. Keep in mind that if an egress route isn't available the computer will follow the only viable alternative in a simulation that is designed to maximize the degree of control that a player has: It will fight to the death.

A large degree of tactical control incorporates a large degree of responsibility on the player's side to provide his computer-controlled minions with suitable alternatives to dying.


Sounds like you want to put on that fire proof suit of yours and play some TGIF with us Nils :)

[PzGrenOffz]

@bloodork - thats it exactly.

just keep in mind, that in SB the mission is over, and you start it again you wil be at full strength again. In Real Combat you will always have to do the next mission, the next combat etc..

One of the main goals in Combat is to keep the initative. You can only do that, when you keep your strength. Keep your men alive. Keep your machines working.

There is always another goal.

[RecceDG]

On the point in one of your paragraphs to do with people on TS not saying much. Sherman, I must point out, that you may have noticed I can be quiet during games on TS... the reason being is that im shy and can be quite a nervous character, I honestly cant help that. I just dont want to make a dick of myself infront of SB vets, because I know I shouldnt be, but I feel quite intimidated, and I really dont want to make a dick of myself by saying something stupid, or something which turns out to be a mistake.

Don't worry about this *at all*. Everybody was a newbie once, and anybody who can't remember (and act accordingly) is a dick.

These days, my job is the Sqn Battle Captain. Part of that job is to be a ruthless prick on the radio, verbally flogging the troop leaders to keep the flow of information coming, keep up the rate of advance, keep radio traffic to a minimum, follow correct radio procedure, etc. You learn to speak volumes with just tone and inflection.

I wouldn't act that way on a SB net for love or money. My troop leaders know better; they've been trained in the job, they know (most of the time) what they are doing and what is expected of them, and they know *ME* - they know it's tough love with the ultimate aim being a higher level of performance from the squadron.

On an SB net, we're dealing (mostly) with amateurs, and even the pros are usually not 100% familiar with all the quirks of the program - not to mention the quirks of individual vehicles, different doctrines across different nationalities, or operating at a level far above their normal comfort zone. It's a massive learning experience for everybody, and that demands a more tolerant approach.

There really are no stupid questions.

As far as a kill lockout goes... in the SIMNET in Knox, I used to ROUTINELY commandeer junior callsigns if I got brewed up - which meant physically exiting the sim cabinet, running to the next one in line, and kicking the crew commander out. *I* am the troop leader (or was, *sigh*) and my job is to LEAD. Unless somebody told me that I was dead/wounded, it was my DUTY to get myself back in the fight.

Sometimes this resulted in the virtual "me" running dozens of km in a couple of min, but whatever. ;)

I am in favour of scenario points that heavily reward force preservation though. It's great to scream "L'audace, toujours l'audace!" and follow a strategy of continuous, all-out assault - and if you've got a hotshot gunner or two (and a lot of newbies) you can get away with this in game. In real life, that'd be suicide.

But neither do I consider the presence of a hotshot gunner "gamey", nor do I think gunner slots should be locked out for humans. There are hotshot gunners in Real Life too - if you are being outshot, learn to gun!

DG

[3Star]

Also it is hard to have a form of fighting when your opponent has no form.You are ready for that punch so you can counter it with that block and then counterpunch sort of drill.

A case of "The greatest swordsman in the world does not fear the second-greatest, but the complete neophyte as he doesn't know what is a 'mistake' and thus is highly unpredicatable"

NTM

[dejawolf]

A case of "The greatest swordsman in the world does not fear the second-greatest, but the complete neophyte as he doesn't know what is a 'mistake' and thus is highly unpredicatable"

NTM

sun tzu.. know your enemy, and yourself, and you will be victorious in every battle.

[flyboy]

sun tzu.. know your enemy, and yourself, and you will be victorious in every battle.
Correct..How do you "really" know your enemy if you have never met him personally.Only his tactics and strategies would you know.To know his personality,skills and his decision making thinking would make you a Psychic and a target for the FBI..Sorry really getting into "Heroes" at the moment...Flying with my mates online we know everyones favorites counter move in a fight.Familiarity breeds contempt.

[koga]

Greevil tactics falls under both gamer and military stuff :) i mean who wouldn't wanna ram a humvee into a tank and the front end of the humvee has C4 strapped on hehehe!or lets say...use a BMP and position it so that it covers the width of the bridge.the AI needs to set to "BLind"$ on the crewable tanks so that way i can sneak up onto your tank and blast your GPS and pretend i blow up and kill you with me.i'm in a humvee and i sneak up onto it lol its cool and then the dumb patch came and now my humvee gets killed whenever i hit anything.there NEEDS to be an option to put explosives on the humvee or make the TOW humvee crewable lol that'll be funny you die in your Leo2A5 from a retarded missile humvee

i'm the name that's runnin tha game!

[general billy]

As Shermanswar always says, fight to break the enemy will to fight, if you can use hum-vee's as a potential way to knock out your enemy tanks, why not, if its enough to make your opponent hit his fist on the table and quit because of it, 'Greevil tactics shall prevail' Welcome to the 4th generation of warfare in steel beast pro :men_ani:

[tarball]

As Shermanswar always says, fight to break the enemy will to fight, if you can use hum-vee's as a potential way to knock out your enemy tanks, why not, if its enough to make your opponent hit his fist on the table and quit because of it, 'Greevil tactics shall prevail' Welcome to the 4th generation of warfare in steel beast pro :men_ani:

Part of me says "that's a load of horseshit..."

However, since you can play the game how you want, then it's all relative.

Right?

[[panzer]]

Part of me says "that's a load of horseshit..."

However, since you can play the game how you want, then it's all relative.

Right?

All of me says thats horseshit

[Volcano]

Well, every game is only as good as the opponent that you play it with...

[ShermansWar]

As Shermanswar always says, fight to break the enemy will to fight, if you can use hum-vee's as a potential way to knock out your enemy tanks, why not, if its enough to make your opponent hit his fist on the table and quit because of it, 'Greevil tactics shall prevail' Welcome to the 4th generation of warfare in steel beast pro :men_ani:

When he's right, he's right. Can't very well champion unorthodox tactics, call it 4th generation warfare, or examples of friction, and then squawk when someone else figures out how to shove it up your tuckus.

I dont see what the difference is between asking for a rule against helicopters or their heights and making a collision model to suppress greevil tactics.What's good for the Goose has to be good for the Gander, no?If we gonna tell people deal with the friction, it's part of the immersion, then we must do likewise.

Some guy figured out how to exploit the helicopter model. Good for him. Now figure out how to counter it.

I guarantee it's nowhere near as much trouble as dealing with an enemy with air superiority.

[general billy]

Im surprised that this forum allows one word statements, like horseshit?
Actually I was refering to 4th Generation warfare in steel beast as something compared to whats happening in iraq now. Fighting an enemy that isnt using conventional tactics. And greevil tactics aint the usual stuff. The thing is military guys in SB Pro think, yeah we know tactics, we can win and do this and that but infact they have no idea of 4th generation warfare. And get their ass handed to them by a nobody(Me). ShermansWar has a number of threads regarding this so I dont know why my statement was horseshit.

[RENEGADE-623]

war is not fair, in war you do whatever you can do to gain the advantage. If it means flying your choppers high to get the ai to fixate on them and not your ground forces, then so be it. It acts two folds, number one, it distracts the enemy so I can get to them easier, number two - it tells me exactly where the enemy is at so I know where I need to go, or avoid going. You want to talk unrealistic, it isnt realistic for a humvee to ram a tank and detroy it, but that seems to be an ok tactic. In real life a humvee rams a tank, only thing that is going to happen to the tank pretty much is scratch the paint and maybe damage a side skirt, but thats it. The humvee you can bet would be toast.

[general billy]

If you think its okay for helicopters to disrupt the enemy(online) then you're taking steel beast pro as a true gamer because it aint going to happen in real life either. There is really no counter for the exploiting of the helicopter so you're just get a bunch of people just flying helicopters around spoiling the other sides fighting capabilities. I think that sucks big time and I have other things better to do in game. Regarding hum-v's crashing into vehicals, Ive never seen it actually work, but ive heard people complain so much about it and according to greevil a patch was done purposely to stop him using that tactic. Last night I and others complained about the helicopter and posted a thread regarding it, and I hope it be fixed in the near future.

[Brun]

[QUOTE=general billy;132331]If you think its okay for helicopters to disrupt the enemy(online) then you're taking steel beast pro as a true gamer because it aint going to happen in real life either. There is really no counter for the exploiting of the helicopter so you're just get a bunch of people just flying helicopters around spoiling the other sides fighting capabilities.


Alot of things happen in sb pro that will never happen in real life. European Leo's will never face off with m1's(I hope). That is the basis of 90% of the scenes used. Your Two choppers where giving us the same problem with high flying in last night's tgif as you complain about. I gave orders to hold fire on all units that where wasteing ammo trying to shoot down the choppers and concentrate on the ground battle. Problem solved. I knew the enemy would be able to see a good portion of my units with coppers. I planned for it and kept alot of units hidden in the forests. As for the enemy seeing what my forces where up to I just planned for it accepted it and carried on. If our one chopper disrupted your fighting capabilites so much as to ruin the battle for red side, then it is something You allowed to happen. Military minded players put their faith in their ability to adapt and overcome and deal with the scenario as it is. Gamer minded players put their faith in a new patch to fix what they don't like.

[general billy]

Brun, well done in a successful victory in last night game. Well played. Regarding the helicopters it goes back down to intentions. We used our helicopters for recon purposes only. Yes they were high, but the person using your team helicopter stated that it was his purpose to disrupt our forces with them and thats the difference. And basically that caused the problem. We had less players and we didnt have one player just didicated to flying a helicopter to cause disruptions. I personaly controlled the helo to locate your convoy and after that I other stuff to intend to. Ive played that scenario 8 times and have never seen such a wipespread abuse of helocopter recon.

[Brun]

Well next time I play with choppers I'll make an agreement with the other Co on chopper use. I'll order the use choppers to be kept at a reasonable height if the other side's Co does the same.

[general billy]

Yes, an introduction of house rules is one fine way to solve alot of problems before games start. Its a lesson learnt for me and I be doing that in the future. :men_ani:

[ChanceBS]

I have played many different "games" in my time and you run into bug abuses from time to time. Most of my experiences occurred while play against 12 year olds and mostly occurred in the xbox community.
I am disappointed to see it here in what I had perceived as a serious community.

[Ssnake]

There never was "lex greevil" kind of bug fix. Al introduced the collision thing totally oblivious to the exploit that was used in multiplayer sessions. With tongue in cheek, I may have created the impression that we did this specifically to counter this tactic, but we didn't. The motivation was a better representation of reality, and indeed all a Hummer does is a "door ding" in the fender. I know this, sadly, from an incident at a training area where a high speed Iltis crashed into a parked tank at blacout conditions. Even after the introduction of collision damage SB Pro is very forgiving here, actually.

There will be MANPAD missile teams later this year, and SAM vehicle. May I suggest the addition of CV90/40-C with unlimited 3P ammo as the currently best representation of Gepard/Cheetah/Shilka capabilities. One vehicle per company, and you have a realistic density of ground based air defense assets over a conventional battlefield. Suddenly, flying low becomes attractive again for helicopters since you can break contact much faster.

[ShermansWar]

[QUOTE=general billy;132331]If you think its okay for helicopters to disrupt the enemy(online) then you're taking steel beast pro as a true gamer because it aint going to happen in real life either. There is really no counter for the exploiting of the helicopter so you're just get a bunch of people just flying helicopters around spoiling the other sides fighting capabilities.


Alot of things happen in sb pro that will never happen in real life. European Leo's will never face off with m1's(I hope). That is the basis of 90% of the scenes used. Your Two choppers where giving us the same problem with high flying in last night's tgif as you complain about. I gave orders to hold fire on all units that where wasteing ammo trying to shoot down the choppers and concentrate on the ground battle. Problem solved. I knew the enemy would be able to see a good portion of my units with coppers. I planned for it and kept alot of units hidden in the forests. As for the enemy seeing what my forces where up to I just planned for it accepted it and carried on. If our one chopper disrupted your fighting capabilites so much as to ruin the battle for red side, then it is something You allowed to happen. Military minded players put their faith in their ability to adapt and overcome and deal with the scenario as it is. Gamer minded players put their faith in a new patch to fix what they don't like.

What Brun said.

[ChanceBS]

Horse shit...

[Vati]

ChanceBS, make that two :)

The gamer is easy to spot in mil games. They think they are genious tacticians and are always in front explaining how others are not been able to adopt to a valid game tactics :thelmut:

[RENEGADE-623]

If you think its okay for helicopters to disrupt the enemy(online) then you're taking steel beast pro as a true gamer because it aint going to happen in real life either. There is really no counter for the exploiting of the helicopter so you're just get a bunch of people just flying helicopters around spoiling the other sides fighting capabilities. I think that sucks big time and I have other things better to do in game. Regarding hum-v's crashing into vehicals, Ive never seen it actually work, but ive heard people complain so much about it and according to greevil a patch was done purposely to stop him using that tactic. Last night I and others complained about the helicopter and posted a thread regarding it, and I hope it be fixed in the near future.


In real lilfe helicopters can be used, and have been used to disrupt the enemy. So that tactic in SB isnt that far off.

[flyboy]

Those who forget history are destined to repeat it.I don,t play multi,yet but if I had an opportunity to get an edge on an opponent I would use it.It has been done countless times on countless battlefields since Ooog hit Iigg from behind with a club in cave man days.By the way didn,t the Soviet choppers get forced to fly high in Afghanistan after the Taliban introduced Stingers into the equation?Anyway thats what helos are for.Spotting the enemy from afar.Unless Ssnake has a Spy satellite mod coming up.If choppers are in the area,stay within the treeline,or use the platoon as bait.Choice is yours.Use a disadvantage to your advantage.Also with Greevil tactics aren,t some of the IED,s used today in Iraq cars filled with explosives and rammed into M1,s?

[Ssnake]

I haven't heard of VBIEDs employed against tanks (a fruitless effort anyway). The stupid Djihadists have had plenty of chances to remove themselves from the pool, leaving the smart ones behind. And they prefer soft targets - people standing in line, markets, civilian traffic, soft military convoys eventually. Against tanks snipers can be employed, and you can dig a hole and fill it with explosives and hope that a tank may pass by. There isn't much else at their disposal.

So, no: I don't think that "Greevil tactics" were ever an even remote recreation of real-world tactics, just an exploit of the simulation's model boundaries.

[ShermansWar]

I haven't heard of VBIEDs employed against tanks (a fruitless effort anyway). The stupid Djihadists have had plenty of chances to remove themselves from the pool, leaving the smart ones behind. And they prefer soft targets - people standing in line, markets, civilian traffic, soft military convoys eventually. Against tanks snipers can be employed, and you can dig a hole and fill it with explosives and hope that a tank may pass by. There isn't much else at their disposal.

So, no: I don't think that "Greevil tactics" were ever an even remote recreation of real-world tactics, just an exploit of the simulation's model boundaries.

I don't think greevil tactcs are a recreation of real world tactics either.That's not and never was the point.They are, however, representative of the TYPE of friction you will find today on an assymetrical, or 4th generation warfare battlefield.This is relevant because this is a SIM, not a game, and as such is used to train real troops in the real world.SB doesnt simulate IEDS, snipers, terrorists, or their various methods of engagement,or their refusal to engage when we want them to most.

It's your game, sir, I aint gonna tell you what you designed it for, or what you can do with it as a training tool.I will say what I think you can do with it as a training tool, and in fact, I think you sell your own product short.

John Boyd said war is fought on 3 levels, the Physical, the Mental, and the Moral.Of the 3, the Mental trumps the Physical, and the Moral trumps the other 2.When those who use the program as a training tool do so, they focus solely on the physical level,it seems, and approach the game and war in general as if it was waged only on the physical level.I think this overlooks the best of what the game has to offer, and the very reason why so many who do NOT use it to train for real service in the worlds various militaries play it. it is becaues of the immersion, and the chance to play a sim that offers a chance to wage war on the other levels. The point has been made that this is a tactical level sim.In my experience, whether it was designed for it or not, it can be played as a wargame, even as a boardgame is played, with all the elements of strategy involved in what I term the "operational level." This is the mental level.Guys who play from map. I dont know how the moral level can be apllied to SB, beyond the intent to gameplan so as to destroy your enemies will to fight. For me, this is more than enough.It's a great game, And I take issue with those who say it only should be used to train troops to do little more than learn the positions of the controls, or how to shoot, or how to stay in formation and advance to the next phase line.

If you are using it as a training tool in MP, and do not put an emphasis on destroying your enemies will to fight, or how you can outhink him, or exploit the other levels of war, the mental and the moral, then you may be training your guys how to drive a tank, or how to shoot the gun, but your doing nothing more than that, and this program can be used for much more .Besides, if you dont conduct your exercises in a manner designed to destroy your enemies will to fight, what message are you sending? What are you really teaching?

GsMcGamis once said the difference between SB and another game is, that after a good game of SB, you feel like you need a shower.If you've never slammed your fist down on the desk while playing, or turned purple with frustration, you've never had a good game of SB. And if at that point you got up and walked away from the monitor your not a real SB player. The will to fight, the moral level, the ability to plan, to execute, respond and adapt are what makes SB unique. Other sims have accurate vehicle models. Other sims have as good terrain models, and /or better graphics. None of them offer the ability to create, to respond, or experience the pressure that SB does.

War is both an art and a science.I believe that. To approach it solely as a science, and train for it only as a science is a mistake.The point isn't that I'm an artist, and whether I am or not is neither here nor there.the poit is the game offers the ability to excercise that sort of gameplay and planning. if all some guys want to do is drive around and shoot targets, fine.To me that's piss poor training and doesn't exploit what SB does and can do, whether you designed it that way or not, Ssnake.

I dont crash vehicles into tanks, I dont fly helicopters above the battlefield to distract the enemy ( which by the way, the guy who was doing it claims that wasn't his intent anyway), I dont block bridges with wrecks, run map edges, and havent spent 2 seconds in the several years i've been playing the game trying to find bugs or flaws to exploit. I take what the scenario designer , the map, and the OB gave me, and I make a plan using all my assets to maximum effect, however I can , to the best of my ability to satisfy the victory conditions with as few casualties as possible. This isn't being a "Gamer" it's playing to win.While the game may be useful to those in the service, whether they win or lose, simply to familiarize themselves with the various vehicles and the functions of their controls, Those of us who are prior service and already know the controls, or those of us who dont use those vehicles in real life because we are either civilians, or simply serviceman whose armies don't use vehicles SB doesnt offer, would have no reason to play the game/sim if all it did and all it was for was to learn to drive, shoot, and move as a unit.Others can speak for themselves, but I play it because it lets me explore concepts and ideas on both the tactical and operational level,to learn how units are supposed to be used, and to explore how they can be used, even if it isnt some armies SOP.To say SB is not for that sells the game short, and gives most of us who dont use it to train for real life usage of such vehicles little or no reason to play.

To be clear, it is my position that the game can played using concepts that fall under the "Art" of war, as well as the science of it, it can be played on the operational level( as I define it, meaning multiple company or battalion level, not just as a platoon or single vehicle level sim), and if played well, offers a worthwhile foray into both the mental and moral levels of war as opposed to simply the physical.

I write this, because it was, and is I who has been pushing this idea of 4th generation warfare, as well, as the ideas i just mentioned. Greevil didnt have a clue what 4th generation warfare is, or assymetrical warfare. Thats not why he did what he did. Nor was he exploiting a bug.( if there s a bug in the game that will let me sneak my tank right up next to the enemy, let me know, cause I'll just take the shot from 50 yds and kill the other guy as opposed to ramming him like greevil used to do.) the fact is, what greevil did, he did to embarrass older more experienced players, as he ankled them by sneaking a vehicle right up next to his opponent, which, to me, is fairly humiliating, and was, in fact, the whole point. Why? cause he got ignored and pushed around cause he's a 16 year old dopey kid who likes to talk like he's a gansta. noone wanted to play with him, or give him any vehicles, so he shoved it up their asses.

This entire debate isnt about gamers VS military.it's about different ideas in how to wage war.Most active serviceman are part of second generation miltaries , militaries who masquerade as third generation militaries, which they are not, in my opinion, and the opinion of the best military theorists my country has to offer, John Boyd( father of the OODA loop) and William Lind, who worked with Boyd, and who has strived for years to explain 4th generation, and assymetrical warfare to a military entrenched in a second generation warfare culture.

That this debate , which I myself have foisted on the community, is occurring here is both fitting and appropriate in a place where it's claimed that the best most realistic armor sim is played.If not here, where?

To those who think the ideas here are "Horseshit", I suggest you get your head out of the sand, look at real trends in the real world, and realize that the kind of shit that sometimes goes on in games, and is attributed to gamers has value in a training sim like this , because reactions, how you deal with pressure, how you react, how you adjust to unexpected situations, unexpected weapons used at unexpected times in unexpected places should all have a place in what is supposed to be the worlds premiere armored simulation thats available to a wide audience.

Point is not to use these "Gamer" tactics (I don't), the point is to be able to counter them, without losing your shit and walking away from the PC when someone sneaks a humvee up your ass, because this game will never be able to model all the shit some Jihadist, or insurgent, or rebel,can dream up, as he exercises his ability in the art of war, being as they have no science of war to begin with, beyond the fundamental ancient unchanging understanding that wars are won by destroying your enemies will to fight.

[GGTharos]

Against tanks snipers can be employed,


... and have been. There were even videos posted to YouTube on the subject, from the sniper's perspective.

[general billy]

In real lilfe helicopters can be used, and have been used to disrupt the enemy. So that tactic in SB isnt that far off.


Of course the tactic in using helicopters to disrupt your enemy would be done in real life, but in real life the TC aint going to force you to shot at a helicopter that you cant shot down when you have enemy tanks 500 meters away from you. :Crash:

[RENEGADE-623]

Actually vbieds have been used against tanks and brads, just not successful

[general billy]

@ShermansWar
Ive got to say Sherman, I hear alot of people saying we should use proper military tactics and play it more realistic and stuff but I havent seen anyone but you that actually talks about real tactics and strategy. I'm not a real tanker and have no real knowledge regarding armoured warfare but I have learnt alot from the many threads of yours. To win you need to break the enemies will to fight and Ive taken that to heart. One thing ive notice is, people want to play SB pro in a realistic way but they not actually stating or teaching people what is actually realistic? Maybe someone should post some real military manuals for us to improve our scenarios.

[Sean]

"Maybe someone should post some real military manuals for us to improve our scenarios."

You mean something like this?
http://www.steelbeasts.com/Downloads/p13_sectionid/250

Or this?
http://www.steelbeasts.com/scenariodesign//frame.htm

Theres also a whole section of marine field manuals in the PDF library, as well as a bunch of information in the documents folder of the steel beasts install.

Have you studied those yet??

[Ssnake]

Not to forget TacSOP.doc in the "documents" folder of every Steel Beasts installation, plus the field manuals in it.

[Captain_Colossus]

By the way didn,t the Soviet choppers get forced to fly high in Afghanistan after the Taliban introduced Stingers into the equation?Anyway thats what helos are for.Spotting the enemy from afar.

Well- it's not so simple as that; and the enemy wasn't the Taliban. Steel Beasts doesn't use spotters for the air units- they enter in 'blind.' Even though the player can attempt to simulate forward air controllers and such by marking preselected regions on the map for conditioned attack routes, this isn't quite the same as a spotter on the radio guiding the attack in, or marking areas with smoke, or the helicopter crews using experience, awareness and intuition to attack probable points of interest, or simply hitting a preselected target or area, regardless of visual contact- there's no recon by fire or suppressing fire in SB. Besides, the behavior of the air units now is fairly passive and probably not suitable for the assault role, but more suitable for transports, scouts, and the original purpose of air targets for some strange and nostalgic training schedule. ;)


The Mujahideen didn't have medium to long range SAMs in order to force the Soviets down low and expose them to Stingers and heavy machine guns- flying high or low wasn't necessarily a response to anything in particular, since they enemy relied on traps designed to bring in helicopters and ambush them on the ingress or the egress. Make no mistake though- the USSR airborne forces combined with artillery chewed these guys up pretty good, even with Stingers thrown in the mix.

[general billy]

Ah ha, you see, we have all this information and no body has pointed it out so far. I think what we are missing in this community is leadership, we all like head less chickens thinking we all right but nobody has actually stated or assumed a position to actually organise or bring some sort of organisation. As far as I know there is a number of clans and stuff but that just further seperates us. And there is no form or competition either. What we getting at the moment is just alot of people whining and complaining and then you get another group that complain about the whining and complaining and that doesnt help either. But nonetheless I'm glad to be part of this community and am still learning alot from it. Sean, I will look into those manuals and will try to implement what I learnt from them into any of my future scenarios just to make them just abit 'more' realistic.

[Ssnake]

Sherman brings up interesting points. I don't want to comment them for a simple reason: eSim's job is to provide a tool, a game. It's not ours to judge what should be or how you are supposed to play it. All we do is develop the framework and explain what are the boundaries of the model so that you will know what to expect from it (and to draw your own conclusion where and how the model will fail to portray certain things in a realistic way).

That doesn't mean that certain boundaries necessarily need to be perceived as shortfalls. If used creatively to achieve a certain effect, they may actually be useful. The question is, in which context is such an action placed; does it serve a (training) purpose, and if so: Which?

If the training goal is "mental agility" which is not necessarily a skill but rather an attribute, then even absurd action may serve a purpose. It's not the software developer's to pass judgement on what's "proper use" of the product. We describe the "intended use", but it's up to you when it comes to actually plaing with it.


I agree that especially the traditional, "serious" wargame school for which armies pay development dollars is focusing very much on physical aspects. It is impossible to develop a model of human psychological reactions which could be verified, simply because there is no yardstick against which you could hold the actual model and then start a comparison. It is much easier to focus on "top speed", muzzle velocities, ballistic calculations etc.

Then again, anyone who has been looking at military history at tactical level will ask, how you could possibly do without taking psychology into account. It's just that it defies traditional engineering methodology. To that extent the design of wargames is rather art than science. And just as much is its use in training and education a question of artful use of functions to achieve a desired effect - to create meaningful immersion.

Immersion in and by itself does not necessarily result in learning, and even then it is a question whether the proper lessons are being learnt. It is not enough to just hand out software licenses, it must be put into context. Without context immersion can actually distract from the lesson. Only when good design of a tool goes hand in hand with its clever application will the result be helpful, and not just entertaining.

The fact that we're actually discussing this is a part of the reflection process. It's a good thing. I have always hoped that this would emerge from the release of our software.
:cool:

[Stahlhans]

I used to play sudden strike (a rts game) a lot and it too had some bugs which were pretty annoying. e.g. you could make the planes fly off the map and enter it from behind elaving no chance for air defense.

everybody knew these bugs and you had to live with them. however when playing within a group of serious gamers one could make up rules about what would be allowed in this certain game. I never caught on of these trusted oponents using techniques which were not allowed for this game.

I guess it simply depends on how strong the community is and how much you can trust your oponent.

[Captain_Colossus]

I think it would be a good idea to code in an option for the attack helos to behave as if the mission were an arty attack- the player marks an area, say a target village, sets the boundary, and a strike package comes in after an amount of time, hits the area (regardless of whether they can spot opposing units) and then bolts out of there. Then for more precise control the mission designer can also use the current method of bringing in follow up waves to land Spetsnaz or whatever; or just to orbit on station for whatever reason.

That's really how they would behave under many scenarios anyway- as airborne artillery, as evidenced by their organization under the Soviet military system both as organic units attached to the ground forces and independent helicopter regiments, and also evidenced by the massive casualities inflicted on civilian targets in the Soviet-Afghan war from more indiscriminate and liberally defined targets designated for attack. Both psychologically and in the material and physical sense, these attacks were awesome and devestating- and we can easily surmise as to the probable conversion of sympathizers offsetting any miltary gain in the process.

[MatsW]

If you want to fight the 4th generation warfare, you probably have to extend the scenarios to weeks-months and with that, also implement your wife into the discussion. She is probably the one that have to loose her willingness to let you fight 24h/7d - week in and week out.

The 3rd generation fight, however, can be achived in SB. Manuever and avoid the enemies hard units - seek and destroy the enemies weak points as command/leadership, communication, logistics etc insted. This fight does need good commanders that can take decisions along the battle but sometimes, the AI in SB doesn't fully accomplish that.

Military training/fighting can of course be seen as something inflexible. Military units are often build up to have all necessary assets along with them. As an example - in real world, it can be a hazard to move along with a lonely tank cause of the simple fact that you might bug down in a swamp hole or what so ever. Causualties are needed to be taken care of. One wounded (or killed) comrade must be taken care of by several others. This is not fully simulated in most games and therefore, you don't have to bother about it. You can run along with your lonely tank or lonely platoon and if you are hit - just pick another.

If you want to act like military units the way you find realistic, well read some manuals, study or find out some good tactics, find some other who want to use the simulition like that, do some training and go ahead.

If you wish to use the game to it´s far borders and don't bother about more or less strict military doctrin, go ahead, find the people that will play that game and be happy with that.

SB and people here let you choose both ways.

[general billy]

Actually your post doesnt contribute much to this thread at all and have brought it down to a personal level by mentioning my name. If you want to talk about last friday game start a new thread regarding the matter. I didnt start this thread because of that game on friday, its been going on for a