jazjar Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I believe this scenario's route structure was rather poorly made. When the platoons get to their battle positions, they seem to have this sturctured position system that works good in theory, but works very poorly in the game. It is set up so that once the platoon comes under fire, it retreats back to some other waypoint and then moves to a different position close to the original BP. This is good in theory ( never stay in one spot etc. etc. ) but bad in SB because SB AI driver AI takes about a minute to figure out what it is doing ( especially if you are moving as 4 tanks ). Thus, when they finally get to the second position, the platoon has about two T80 platoons firing on it, and the platoongets massacred in no time. ( I specifically mentioned the M1A1 scenario because of the M1A1's weak frontal armor ).The only way I seem to get the scenario to work is to completely delete the second BP, get the M1s not to pop smoke (inhibits LRF) within the first two seconds of combat, and control embarking of routes myself. I believe Steelbeasts has a great tank simulation, but many of the offline scenarios need some fine tuning from the devs, or work from a third party. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted July 7, 2011 Members Share Posted July 7, 2011 Keep in mind that This may actually be intentional to encourage you to come up with a better plan. It's called "explorative learning", and the Planning Phase was added to SB Pro for a reason. This particular scenario was one of the very first ever developed for Steel Beasts - around autumn 2000 or so. The underlying model of tanks, their mobility properties, the ammunition, some aspects of the low-level computer control logic - they have all undergone numerous changes, tweaks, and revisions. The fact that such a scenario from eleven years ago still basically works is actually a big compliment to the robustness of the script as well as a compliment to the validity of the first Steel Beasts versions, all things considered. If every scenario came with a perfect plan, SB would degenerate to a rail shooter with tanks, and I would rather leave the team than to let that happen. Disinformation in the mission briefings can be deliberate and intentional, and in an ideal world a preconfigured battle plan is good enough to let a lazy but skilled player barely win while a clever player with little talent for personal shooting skills could win a scenario by changing the tactical disposition of his forces. For a perfect win, you are supposed to do both - refine the plan as well as hone your gunnery skills. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazjar Posted July 8, 2011 Author Share Posted July 8, 2011 Sorry about my initial rant, When I first played the scenario I thought that it was bad that I had to make modifications, but now I realize, thanks, Ssnake! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanPatrick Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 The underlying model of tanks, their mobility properties, the ammunition, some aspects of the low-level computer control logic - they have all undergone numerous changes, tweaks, and revisions. The fact that such a scenario from eleven years ago still basically works is actually a big compliment to the robustness of the script I can attest to this. I tried playing a mission I designed just two years ago and had a traffic jam at a bridge. A search of the forums revealed that the behavior of the AI crossing bridges had been changed to make them less timid. I'd say it worked Now I just need to adjust the scripting of the scenario. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarball Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Sorry about my initial rant, When I first played the scenario I thought that it was bad that I had to make modifications, but now I realize, thanks, Ssnake!Jazar, in light of what both SeanPatrick and Ssnake said, it might be a good experience for you to update that scenario (which was a classic in its day). I don't know if you know much about the mission editor, but remaking that classic will be an education. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazjar Posted July 14, 2011 Author Share Posted July 14, 2011 I Just remade the leo 2A5 version, the trick seems to be taking out those secondary BPs and taking away the retreat route, so I can have more control over my tanks when I play. I am wondering wheth to move the BPs themselves, but so far, they seems to be working just fine for the Leopard 2A5. not sure about the other versions of the scenario however... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scowlmovement Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 I remember the original scenario (for Steel Beasts) not even having pre-plotted routes, thus allowing you the freedom to plot your own. I'm not sure who decided to "update" the scenario. You also have to remember the idea behind the scenario is correctly identifying the enemy element you are facing, capturing as many of the eastern bridges as you can, then worrying about whether you have enough combat power to defeat or destroy the enemy. Pretty intense, and James Sterrett is an old pro at it IMHO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarball Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 I remember the original scenario (for Steel Beasts) not even having pre-plotted routes, thus allowing you the freedom to plot your own. I'm not sure who decided to "update" the scenario. You also have to remember the idea behind the scenario is correctly identifying the enemy element you are facing, capturing as many of the eastern bridges as you can, then worrying about whether you have enough combat power to defeat or destroy the enemy. Pretty intense, and James Sterrett is an old pro at it IMHO.Yeah, in SB1 it was hours of family fun with that one - I always liked it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scowlmovement Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Yeah, in SB1 it was hours of family fun with that one - I always liked it.AND the infantry rode in M113s! I may to revisit this great scenario... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scowlmovement Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 I Just remade the leo 2A5 version, the trick seems to be taking out those secondary BPs and taking away the retreat route, so I can have more control over my tanks when I play. I am wondering wheth to move the BPs themselves, but so far, they seems to be working just fine for the Leopard 2A5. not sure about the other versions of the scenario however...Do tell. When you talk about having more control, do you mean micro-management to some degree? As a company commander, I suppose it would be nice to jump into the TC's position on all of your tanks. Sadly, reality says otherwise. Perhaps you, as the commanding officer, could locate your tank with one of your platoons, and influence THAT platoon. Perhaps your "orders" for the other elements under your command could be tied to triggers you've set for specific actions or battle plays? Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazjar Posted July 15, 2011 Author Share Posted July 15, 2011 I just removed them so that the tanks would not pop smoke and leave after a simple shot whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooshed over their heads. That's why I removed the retreat routes. I removed the BP's because They weren't necessary without a retreat route. About micro-management, I know, it's a little problem that needs to be fixed yes, but 3-4 tank platoons and a co tank are not all that hard to manage. And by the way, no, I am still thinking about what to do with enemy arty. I might put the original two BP system and retreat routes back in, and set conditions for "embark if under indirect fire" for them. This way, I could have the tanks stand and fight the T-80s, but if ICM comes, they disappear, then reappear where they are not taking fire.( I wouldn't use the guard tactic, because they would have to waituntil the arty stops to start firing again ). Just my thoughts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazjar Posted July 19, 2011 Author Share Posted July 19, 2011 Hello, is anyone looking? Anyway, I was a little frustrated that I never to got to face the forward detachment because of my ever wonderful luck, so I basically took away the "spawn if" option for the rest of the units (red) and played the scenario in the ME, from which I could play from both sides. I did this little scenario I created around three times over. I put my units in the farthest back positions from the outset, and this is what happened: Trial 1; Took around a minute for the southernmost platoon (4/A) to be eaten up by combined indirect and direct fire ( T-80 ), the bradley platoon was destroyed instantly, 1/A (northernmost platoon ) was half dead in a minute, the rest lasted the longest, about 1 min. 30 sec.. My CO took one round from a T-80 and had a monstruous damage list, but "survived" about a minute from that. Final results, Blue 13 destroyed, red 18 destroyed; Second and third trials were so similar to the first that I won't waste my time typing them out. These are the default results when just viewing from the map doing nothing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted July 19, 2011 Members Share Posted July 19, 2011 You may want to tweak the ammunition settings. The balance of a scenario can be influenced massively with it. Likewise, the battle results will change substantially with different visibility settings (be it fog, or dusk/dawn time of day). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazjar Posted July 21, 2011 Author Share Posted July 21, 2011 Will try. Anyone else have ideas or on how to improve this scenario? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.