BTR-70

[Scrapper_511]

I'm suprised it's not included along with the BRDMs and BMP-1s!

[dejawolf]

you got the BTR-80. its nearly identical as far as abilities go. only difference is a new engine, and some minor changes to the hull.

[Scrapper_511]

I know, but I'm trying to create scenarios with the newly available M1 where older Warsaw Pact vehicles are more appropriate I think. To me, the BTR80 doesn't belong in a scenario where front line US units are still fielding original M1s. Even the BTR60 would probably be more appropriate.

The BTR80 just looks too sleek and too new for me that it's awkward it's on the same map as an M1. I know, I know...nit-picking again...

[mp96]

Yes, BTR-60 and BTR-70 need in SB Pro PE. And UAZ jeep.

[dpabrams]

I'm trying to create scenarios with the newly available M1 where older Warsaw Pact vehicles are more appropriate

I feel your pain. Hopefully the gaps will begin to fill in the time scenario continuem. 1988-1990 is the sweet spot for the US-PACT thing. Would like to to see 1982-1988 shored up but that would require 4 or 5 more models. Could use an IPM1, M1A1, M2/3A1-A0, T-64B/BV,T-80B, T-72 and BTR-60/70.

Pete

[Volcano]

Well, as someone once said, "imagine harder". Just less than a year ago we didn't have the M1A0, M60A3, T-55, T-62. So, I guess what I am trying to say is: be patient and accept what comes along when it comes along. Most people around here have been playing SB for over 10 years now when you could count the vehicles in SB on two hands...

[Kingtiger]

And we only had 2 playable vehicles! (Leo2A4 and M1A1)

Oh those where the days

[dpabrams]

be patient and accept what comes along when it comes along....

Yep, have no choice here. My motherboard fried so I can't mod, or play and all I can do is think and post. Which is dangerous. But even the addition of one or two vehicles would close some gaps. Does the staff think in these terms or is there other plans and considerartions? From what I gather the addition of models is driven by military customers first and secondly the initiative of the models makers.

Pete

[Tacbat]

Most people around here have been playing SB for over 10 years now when you could count the vehicles in SB on two hands...

Now they use both hands and both feet.

[Mogwa]

Well, as someone once said, "imagine harder"...

Hey! I'm somebody!!!

[Volcano]

Now they use both hands and both feet.

Wow, how many fingers and toes does a normal person have? About 80?

[Tacbat]

Well, I wasn't going to directly mention RS. You know how sensitive he gets about his extra appendages.

[Ssnake]

But even the addition of one or two vehicles would close some gaps. Does the staff think in these terms or is there other plans and considerartions? From what I gather the addition of models is driven by military customers first and secondly the initiative of the models makers.

Artwork wise the emphasis is on 3D characters. After all, they're supposed to replace the sprites soon, and then go beyond the sprites' capabilities afterwards.

Later this year the emphasis will shift to civilian vehicles. We need more variety to populate cities and villages. Combat vehicles aren't the top priority I have to say, at least for the moment. If it were just me to decide I'd prefer to see a BMP-3, Leclerc, a couple of Chinese MBTs, and more T-55 and T-72 variants before working on a comparatively dull BTR variant. Which, besides looking differently, has the same dismount strength, the same general shape, the same armament, the same armor, and almost identical automotive performance. To sum it up, BTR-60 and BTR-70 are pure eye candy, and my gut feeling is that there are other areas where artwork development would add a lot more to the tactical versatility of SB Pro than adding more of the same.

[Companion]

Artwork wise the emphasis is on 3D characters. After all, they're supposed to replace the sprites soon, and then go beyond the sprites' capabilities afterwards.

Later this year the emphasis will shift to civilian vehicles. We need more variety to populate cities and villages. Combat vehicles aren't the top priority I have to say, at least for the moment. If it were just me to decide I'd prefer to see a BMP-3, Leclerc, a couple of Chinese MBTs, and more T-55 and T-72 variants before working on a comparatively dull BTR variant. Which, besides looking differently, has the same dismount strength, the same general shape, the same armament, the same armor, and almost identical automotive performance. To sum it up, BTR-60 and BTR-70 are pure eye candy, and my gut feeling is that there are other areas where artwork development would add a lot more to the tactical versatility of SB Pro than adding more of the same.

Digressing further for a moment:

Whenever esimgames finds some time and resource to spare for extra works, I, for one, would like to see more cold war era IFVs (such as pre-ODS Brads) and ammunitions (50cal. ball, more 115mm, etc) to have at least a single "complete pack" for a given cold war decade and theater - say, Fulda Gap of 70s, rather than new tank variants.

Yes, BTR60/70/80s are more or less interchangeable, but IMHO western IFVs and some ammunitions (esp. 50cal SLAP) are too improved to be really interchangeable with their older counterparts.

[mp96]

Artwork wise the emphasis is on 3D characters. After all, they're supposed to replace the sprites soon, and then go beyond the sprites' capabilities afterwards.

Make playable shooting RPG, Panzerfaust, AT4, Javelin, Spike etc. Very necessary!

Edited March 10, 2011 by mp96

[Ssnake]

... I ... would like to see more cold war era IFVs (such as pre-ODS Brads) and ammunitions (50cal. ball, more 115mm, etc)

No fundamental objections from my end here, although technically you just asked for an entire new (playable) Bradley.

Reliable info about 115mm ammunition is extremely scarce. What's in SB Pro at the moment is all that we could squeeze from the notorious web sites and Jane's Ammunition Handbook. What would be needed are firing tables of the T-62 and some accurate measurements of APFSDS rounds, if there are actually a few more than those that we already covered. I suspect that the Soviets actually didn't spend that much R&D time on the 115mm caliber and I wouldn't be extremely surprised to learn that, by and large, our collection of rounds may actually be almost complete. It's just a hunch. Maybe the T-62 is just neglected in internet coverage, and nobody bothered to inform Jane's about the wealth of different munitions for 115mm. Of the lack of information is actually an indicator that there is indeed not much more.

Cal .50 rounds - yes, duly noted and on The List.

[dpabrams]

Cal .50 rounds - yes, duly noted and on The List.

All hail the list. Ssnake, I appreciate the replies. I will take what SB Pro gives me. 3D infantry would be great. I agree with more variants for the T-72 and T-55 and will gladly take them as with Chinese MBT's. The problem I see is at least having a representation of a group of AFV's that represent a certain era and army. The addition of a LeClerc I am sure would be welcome but how about a French APC or two, same goes for the lone Challenger 2. As for the Bradley, it would help to have a A0 or A1. The ODS A2 could be stripped down by removing the additional armor, laser range finder and including the older ITOW. I know nothing of making 3D models so I may be talking out of my arse here. Obviously there would be changes to the armor protection and motive power. All I can do is hope and offer to skin it for you.

Pete

[Ssnake]

I know that from a wargamer's perspective it would be great to have "packages" of equipment of the same force and time period, and I'll try not to forget about it. Warrior, FV430 - they would certainly make good additions. But their addition would have to be credited to the "PE development budget". But we already are committing a disproportionate amount of development time to things that are primarily for the PE community. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining; but given this background I simply can't afford to make any promises here.

[BaLrOg_70]

I'm suprised it's not included along with the BRDMs and BMP-1s!

Clearly you haven't lurked around this site long enough :1:

[Scrapper_511]

Clearly you haven't lurked around this site long enough :1:

Trust me...I have.

[mpow66m]

Trust me...I have.

8 YRS THATS PRETTY LONG:biggrin:

[Hedgehog]

Wow, how many fingers and toes does a normal person have? About 80?

I have, though some of them are virtual.

[BaLrOg_70]

Trust me...I have.

Ahh then why so surprised

Fear not there is a rock over there with my name on to which I am headed :biggrin:

[12Alfa]

Ahh then why so surprised

Fear not there is a rock over there with my name on to which I am headed :biggrin:

Take care, It's a crazy place.

Find it odd that a vehicle like the BTR-70 can generate so much posting. After all it's a between afv, the 60 was produced in far greater numbers and sold abroad, not even the 80 has the number of customers as the 60, or for that matter the number of variants.

I wounder what other AFV will generate a large number of posts here?

[Scrapper_511]

My original post about the BTR-70 (and should've added BTR-60) is borne from a long standing desire to play a modern tank sim pitting NATO against the WP in what I imagined they would be from books read and games played in years past. I can't emphasize enough how badly this desire has largely remained unsatisified despite how well SB has progressed in the last decade.

At one point, M1TP2 was the epitome of this realization, but it's now long-gone along with the 3dfx add-on card I played it with. I loved the original SB for it's stability, fidelity, sounds, and support, and with the graphics finally updated gloriously in SBProPE, it became that much closer to perfection (yes, we also got tons of exoctic hardware). The only thing that's been missing are official campaigns and scenarios.

I'm sorry to say, but thus far, the scenarios available have left plenty, plenty to be desired. The best way I can describe my dissatisfaction is probably to say that generally the scenarios feel generic. When a briefing reads blue vs red instead of actual NATO and WP units this results in complete lack of immersion for me. And then there is the lack of uniform format of said briefings and maps, different writing styles, poor grammar, and so on, and all that is left for me is a desire for something more in this department. I apologize to the scenario creators who I know took great time and effort to get them submitted.

Alas, there is a mission and map editor! When time actually permits I mess with it and test a quickie for instant gratification which is then all too short and sweet, since even my own creation succumbs to the aforementioned failure of being generic.

To add flavor, realism, and ultimately, immersion, I look to the books I've read and games I've played (namely HPS' modern campaign series w/ custom artwork no less) for inspiration. My hope being that I can put together a thought-out scenario along with a decent briefing that actually mentions real units like 11th ACR or 3d MRD as opposed to just Blue or Red, and actual place names instead of goofy politically correct fictional ones. Of course, the OOB's accuracy being limited to what are written in the books and units included in the wargames, but I can do no better. That said I'm left with two excellent sources to create scenarios to my standard. Too good to be true I'm afraid. Enter the BTR-70.

You see, the very books and games that I'm using as sources, are relegated to a certain time period. The problem with force mixture and availability comes painfully to play given the vehicles available in SB. For example, in certain books, the BTR-60 or BTR-70 is mentioned numerous times, for the most part I can recreate this scenario only to find out that certain vehicles, even common ones like the BTR-60/70 are not available. I can fast forward the time line a few years and I run to the same thing: there's a Challenger 2, but where's the Warrior? Add to my dismay when I also learned that I cannot create maps from scratch.

So, like many here, I love SB and stand behind it, all the while I'm also frustrated by the lack of certain vehicles and scenarios which is only compounded by the addition of exotic vehicles in the upgrades that I have no desire whatsoever of using. I sincerely understand the reasoning behind it all, Ssnake is very well read and I'm by no means contesting him, anyone, or any logic. It's just when all is said and done, I'm just surprised there is no BTR-70.