SB Pro PE as Wargame

[IrishHussar]

I have been out since 1992 and at that time there was nothing available for the individual soldier. Can any of these be loaded on a PC and used off line by the soldier? Also what are the price points for these games in comparison to what you get in SB Pro PE at $125?

Always room for improvement eh?

Bil

The majority of these platforms are server based so they are not really for individuals. Also the setup ie a training HQ using lower controllers (Locons) to provide constructive simulation does not lend itself to the individual. I would stick with SB Pro PE but break into the multiplayer scene its totally immersing.

Irish

[MAXMAN]

For us retarted, what does G4 stands for?

Kingtiger, G4/S4 is logistics and support (S4 (Battalion and below) is more appropriate to SB Pro). I think IH was referring to the fact that there is little to no warning when a unit is running low on ammo/fuel. A Platoon level supply status report would help here.

Bil

[IrishHussar]

For us retarted, what does G4 stands for?

KT I would not, in any way, call you you retarded. Perhaps when you get a little brighter, maybe. LOL

The term G4 is used to indicate admin and resupply issues or CSS (Combat Service and Support).

Irish

[Kingtiger]

KT I would not, in any way, call you you retarded. Perhaps when you get a little brighter, maybe. LOL

Crap that will take a while den

lol

[Ssnake]

IRodrigo, time to upgrade. There is no comparison between versions IMO, the engineer tools alone are worth the price.

He meant to say that they have the classroom version of SB Pro, not the Personal Edition.

[Ssnake]

...however in return SB Pro PE falls down on a few G4 reporting issues.

That might change within the next three months.

[Ssnake]

I thought we had 80x80km^2?

Well, in PE the limit per scenario is 20x20km²; the map editor can handle up to 120x100km² (but we're very close to the 2GByte RAM limit per application in 32 bit operating systems; besides, at that size the map deviations of a flat earth model become quite significant, so it doesn't make much sense to simply switch to a 64 bit compiler and inflate map dimensions as if nothing had happened. We'd also have to consider to switch to a round earth model in such a case.

And I haven't even begun discussing video texture space. What good is a 200x120km² map if you can load only a quarter or less of the ground texture into video card memory and have to page the rest as you approach the limits of the current portion.

[Zipuli]

We'd also have to consider to switch to a round earth model in such a case.

I may have a solution for you there Ssnake:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum//

Zip

[Vati]

What good is a 200x120km² map if you can load only a quarter or less of the ground texture into video card memory and have to page the rest as you approach the limits of the current portion.

ROTFLOL.... no comment.

[tarball]

Well, in PE the limit per scenario is 20x20km²; the map editor can handle up to 120x100km² (but we're very close to the 2GByte RAM limit per application in 32 bit operating systems; besides, at that size the map deviations of a flat earth model become quite significant, so it doesn't make much sense to simply switch to a 64 bit compiler and inflate map dimensions as if nothing had happened. We'd also have to consider to switch to a round earth model in such a case.

And I haven't even begun discussing video texture space. What good is a 200x120km² map if you can load only a quarter or less of the ground texture into video card memory and have to page the rest as you approach the limits of the current portion.

Okay, I didn't make the distinction between the map editor limits (which I somehow thought were 80km2 squares) and the limits of what you can select for a given scenario.

As for round-earth, it might be interesting if more aviation assets find their way into the title. Have you ever seen this article by Microsoft Flight Simulator developer Adam Szofran? http://www.fsinsider.com/developers/Pages/GlobalTerrain.aspx

It documents their approach to creating a round-earth model.

[Koen]

Hi MAXMAN,

Some questions, if you please:

* About Airborne Assault series:

Well, in my experience with the only game series that has realistic order delays, the Airborne Assault series (Highway to the Reich and Conquest of the Aegean) they are not maddening or frustrating at all.. they actually add to the immersion and realism and the experience is really top notch.

Often I play in SB the larger scenario's and thus I spend a lot/most of the time on the map,

just like it would be in the Airborne Assault series, I guess.

So the AA series would probably my kind of thing.

I didn't buy it yet, as at the same time, I think I might miss the 3D aspect of SB. Would I ?

* Which SB-scenario's did you like already as a wargame ?

* Plugging my own stuff now - this scenario might appeal to you: CPX Rothenkirchen

http://www.steelbeasts.com/Downloads/p13_sectionid/268/p13_fileid/1359

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=10278&highlight=rothenkirchen

Rgds,

K

[MAXMAN]

Hi MAXMAN,

Some questions, if you please:

* About Airborne Assault series:

Often I play in SB the larger scenario's and thus I spend a lot/most of the time on the map,

just like it would be in the Airborne Assault series, I guess.

So the AA series would probably my kind of thing.

I didn't buy it yet, as at the same time, I think I might miss the 3D aspect of SB. Would I ?

Koen, no, you would not miss the 3D. The reasoning is that you are in command of up to a Corp in the AA series.. it really is more of a map exercise. I had always thought that it was the closest thing to being back in a TOC that I have experienced yet on the computer. Although SB Pro PE i now getting all of my attention, I guess I'm more of a tactician at heart. Let me know how you fair if you decide to get it.

* Which SB-scenario's did you like already as a wargame ?

My favorites so far are the LtHenkel scenarios included with the game. I really love commanding a Company while having friendly AI controlled Companies on my flanks, or that need my support, etc. They are very immersive scenarios. I also prefer the scenarios that force me to create my own plan.

* Plugging my own stuff now - this scenario might appeal to you: CPX Rothenkirchen

That sounds great. I'll download it, play it and let you know my thoughts.

Bil

[Dragon6g]

I may have a solution for you there Ssnake:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum//

Zip

That web site is the most ridicules thing I have ever seen . I can't believe that intelligent people get on there and debate that. I hope I'm not stepping on toes here.

Hell , My wife thought I was waisting time playing steel beasts for hours . That website is waisting time.

D6g

[dejawolf]

That web site is the most ridicules thing I have ever seen . I can't believe that intelligent people get on there and debate that. I hope I'm not stepping on toes here.

Hell , My wife thought I was "waisting" time playing steel beasts for hours . That website is "waisting" time.

D6g

i "here" you, that website is "downwrite" terrible.

theres also people out there who believe earth is only 6000 years old...

[MAXMAN]

* Plugging my own stuff now - this scenario might appeal to you: CPX Rothenkirchen

Koen, I took a look at your scenario.. sorry haven't played it yet as I'm away on business and I forgot to bring my code key. I do have some intial thoughts though:

... why does the player not get the opportunity to give orders to his force before hitting start? I don't like that at all.. not really what I'm looking for as I want to be able to do the planning myself for my command.

... In your scenario it looks like I mainly get to react to the enemy, instead of being proactive... are you trying to simulate the enemy getting inside my decision loop? Where is the command if all the work is already done? When reading the briefing I feel like I inherited a plan from another commander and am being asked to somehow make it work, without really knowing where they are on the map... its tough to get a sense of my capabilities.

... your graphics represent the player controlled force as being in a Company zone, yet he is actually in charge of a Battalion. I think your approach to using triggers to command the force is good.. but I don't think the game is ready for a Battalion command controlled by one player. I think it needs to stay at the Company echelon with the other Companies controlled by the scripted AI.

Not sure when I'll get to it.. but I am interested in this type of scenario and it is truly unique so I will definitely give it a try.

For playing as a Commander I still prefer the layout of the LtHenkel scenarios... does anybody know if he has created any new ones? I would love to get my hands on them.

Bil

[bobsmith]

Well, in PE the limit per scenario is 20x20km²;

Actually, thats an idea...

Ssnake - Any chance that in the coming update you could increase the PE map sizes to match the Pro version? I can't imagine that it would lose you any of the Pro customers, and it would be a nice way to sweeten the upgrade deal with ( assume) minimal coding effort.

[Koen]

Hi Maxman,

Thank you for your interest and feedback !

... why does the player not get the opportunity to give orders to his force before hitting start? I don't like that at all.. not really what I'm looking for as I want to be able to do the planning myself for my command.

... In your scenario it looks like I mainly get to react to the enemy, instead of being proactive... are you trying to simulate the enemy getting inside my decision loop? Where is the command if all the work is already done?

Well, I wanted to make things easy for a player to handle what is indeed, a battalion:

A lot is preplanned, so no micromanagement by positioning many many units on the map - just set a trigger and the tiring work is done for you (by me).

At the same time, I wanted to give the player still some freedom to take initiative, to command:

* There is the initial decision to defend in depth or have a concentrated defense.

* If the choice was made for a defense in depth, the player additionally must choose between 3 lines of defense:

- Dittlofrod - Kornbach - Betzenrod (D-K-B)

- Unterstoppel - Steinbach - Rossbach Forest (U-S-Rf)

- Dittlofrod - Steinbach - Betzenrod Hill (D-S-Bh)

* When playing, you will discover that once the Red attack is on, you can reposition Teams B, C and D:

To retreat or to reinforce each other (B can reinforce C or D and vice versa for C and D) or to reinforce a team and then to retreat ... Again easily done by triggers.

* And you decide when your tanks get out of their hidepositions and when and where you will insert the para's (+/- 8 possible choices, IF your helo's make it alive to the LZ !)

* Lastly, if the preplanned setup is not working out, you can make all or part of your units playercontrolled and change whatever needs to be changed.

I agree, that the choices I gave you ARE limited.

I wish I could do better. But I used up ALL Events and Conditions of both the Blue and Red side.

So giving more choices became technically difficult ...

Also, preprogramming Blue completely, makes it possible to play the scenario from the Red side as well. In that case, the AI takes over Blue.

I thought it would be interesting to see the same battle from the Red perspective.

But here too, with some limits in choices as Red commander.

Still, while I don't think that I beat "Conquest of the Aegean" in simulating a battalion command, there is still a chance that you might enjoy this scenario somewhat.

... but I don't think the game is ready for a Battalion command controlled by one player.

Theoretically that is absolutely correct.

SB was not designed for this.

But in practice I see myself often playing as Single Player the large COOP missions. This involves hours of planning etc ... but I enjoy it.

If one uses enough ALL of the possibilities of SB (e.g. give retreat routes at waypoints with defense tactics) then it is not impossible anymore to babysit such a large force.

Admittedly, it requires a lot of effort.

(and IIRC, some armies are interested in enforcing the possibilities of SB in this field = good news!)

When reading the briefing I feel like I inherited a plan from another commander and am being asked to somehow make it work, without really knowing where they are on the map... its tough to get a sense of my capabilities.

Yes, I might have pointed that out more in detail in the briefing.

But I wanted to give this scenario some gamey flair e.g. by avoiding a very lenghty briefing.

For playing as a Commander I still prefer the layout of the LtHenkel scenarios... does anybody know if he has created any new ones? I would love to get my hands on them.

I don't think he made any other ones - which is unfortunate because they're pretty good indeed.

(and I certainly don't like just the battalion-command-scenario's ...)

Best regards,

Koen

[Ssnake]

For playing as a Commander I still prefer the layout of the LtHenkel scenarios... does anybody know if he has created any new ones? I would love to get my hands on them.

He got a couple of new assignments in the Bundeswehr over the past years which have kept him pretty busy (as if he weren't already while he was in charge of his company). I hope that he'll manage to return for more goodness, but I can't blame him for his current absence.

[MAXMAN]

He got a couple of new assignments in the Bundeswehr over the past years which have kept him pretty busy (as if he weren't already while he was in charge of his company). I hope that he'll manage to return for more goodness, but I can't blame him for his current absence.

Yes I too hope he comes back in a creative mood someday. In the meantime I am enjoying some of Zipuli's offerings. There is some great stuff out there to be found.

Koen said:

I thought it would be interesting to see the same battle from the Red perspective.

But here too, with some limits in choices as Red commander.

Koen, I would like to see more scenarios created specifically from the Red perspective.. including scenario briefing. Would be a refreshing and unique to play from the other side of the hill... I understand this wouldn't be too popular because of the lack of a playable Red vehicle.. shouldn't bother those of us who approach this game from a higher perspective than vehicle command though.

Bil

[Ssnake]

The HoH scenario has a complete briefing, and blue is completely scripted, so you could give it a try. However, since Blue is deliberately put into a difficult situation so that the players' actions are the tie breaker, chances are that you will whoop Blue ass rather easily. You may want to beef up the Blue defense for this, or decide to shift your main effort to the left.

[Pillar]

The two big missing items are detailed terrain (better mesh and more ground objects, look to OpFlash but add foxholes/trenches etc.) and the infantry model. I think they've already got the afvs, artillery, and command interface done pretty good.

[MAXMAN]

Agreed (this is Adam right?) though I hope with the first patch that it will be improved greatly.

I am sure they will add more fidelity to the infantry model over time... though I really hope they give us Platoon level commands for them, as I hate the prospect of giving orders to every single infantry team and squad.

Bil

[Pillar]

Yup, hi Bil, good to see you

[IrishHussar]

Having read this thread with great interest I think quite a few of the comments are way off mark.

For a start SB as a simulation (and it is a simulation) is but a tool, how it is used and for what job that is, is up to the end user.

I work on a simulation that is at least one command level up from SB ie battlegroup and above, prior to that I served in the British millitary for 24 years on armour. Between what I do now and the individual crew trainers there is nothing for the Crew Commander, Troop Leader or Squadron Leader to train on. Even the mighty CATT with all the millions that has been spent on it is not readily available to the lowley Sqns and below. SB is and what it also is, is the sharpest tool available to do it with. If nothing else it is a game that young armoured crewmen should be playing and indoctorining themselves with the concepts of armoured warfare.

Todays modern AFVs have that much hitech equipment in them that the poor crew commanders are in real danger serving their equipment when it should be the other way around. Therefore any sim that can help in battlefield management techniques is a major weapon to have in your array of synthetic training sims.

Of course there are improvements that can be made. That can also be said about the female form and that was supposedly sculptured by him upstairs.

IMHO if you want to play games then play games, if you want simulated amoured warfare on a shoe string budget then play SB and I do not mean that as an insult to E-Sim in anyway.

Irish

[Pillar]

If nothing else it is a game that young armoured crewmen should be playing and indoctorining themselves with the concepts of armoured warfare.

There is where I strongly disagree. I hope sincerely nobody is under any illusions in that respect.