Ratseal Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Dr. D!!! W00t- awesome to see you! PM en route... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpabrams Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Talking of future PC additions to SB, I'm hoping for older western IFVs of cold war vintage, such as M2A1 brads or Marder 1A1s. (even noncrewables would make me so happy):Couldn't agree more! There are serious gaps in TO&E and strange additions. It is very difficult to cover some gaps in time in the sim. It seems that circa 1989-1991 is about the only gap that is reasonably closed. EXAMPLESuppose a chap wants to do a scenario in Western Europe say 1982-84.US: M1........check M113……check M901……check Hummer…..check Bradley……..Nope as there is no M2/3 Vulcan……….Nope Dragon/ Stinger……….NopeBundeswer: Leopard 2A4…….check Leopard 1A1/4 series…….Nope Leopard 1 series…..nope Jaguar 1……..nope Marder 1A1/2…..nope Luch’s…….Nope Fuchs………check Gepard……NopePACT: T-72……..check T-55/62……..check\ T-64……..Nope BMP1/2……..check BMD-1………Nope BTR60/70……..Nope BRDM2……check BRDM-AT……..check ZSU-23-4…….check MTLB…….check Sagger various AT4/5…..check Grail…….NopeI would much rather see gaps in “time” filled with non-playable vehicles than a playable IFV. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted December 22, 2011 Members Share Posted December 22, 2011 M2 Bradley can be approximated by M2A2ODS with LRF damage.Leo 1A3/4 can be approximated by Leo 1A5-DK with TIS damage.Dragon can be approximated with one of the short range Russian missiles.Jaguar 1 - is there. Add TIS damage and you have it in pretty much perfect 1981 condition.Jaguar 2 (you didn't ask for it, but still: ) - use M113/TOW. Same principle, similar protection, same weapon.Gepard: Use a Tunguska with no missiles.Admittedly this isn't perfect, but as they say: Squint harder.T-64: Substitute with T-80 and no TISBTR60/70: All that is different from the BTR-80 is the location of the troop exits, the rest ist superficial details with hardly any relevance to its combat value. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDevice Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 T-64: Substitute with T-80 and no TISWasn't it mentioned that the T-80U that is modeled didn't have TIS anyway, so the feature was removed in 2.640? Or am I just fabricating that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted December 22, 2011 Moderators Share Posted December 22, 2011 Wasn't it mentioned that the T-80U that is modeled didn't have TIS anyway, so the feature was removed in 2.640? Or am I just fabricating that? Right, keep in mind that we have so many vehicles now that ever we forget about the details with them. We have something like 110+ vehicles now in SB. :biggrin: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDevice Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Oh, that wasn't a criticism. That was a "hey...we already have a reasonable approximation, so, bravo for us." Like I said...I only recalled with some degree of "did I dream that?" I spent some hours updating my spreadsheet for vehicles, so I truly do appreciate the scale of the motor pool! The whole reason I did so was to keep track of things like amphib capbility, crewable units, etc. It's no mere "remember X" task...there are a BUNCH. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted December 22, 2011 Moderators Share Posted December 22, 2011 Oh, that wasn't a criticism. That was a "hey...we already have a reasonable approximation, so, bravo for us." Like I said...I only recalled with some degree of "did I dream that?"Ah, yes, I forgot to answer the question. :shocked:Correct, the T-80U is now the T-80U so it doesn't have thermal anymore. For now, if we want a T tank with thermal, then we use a T-72M4 (which is currently the most advanced T tank). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted December 22, 2011 Members Share Posted December 22, 2011 Wasn't it mentioned that the T-80U that is modeled didn't have TIS anyway, so the feature was removed in 2.640? Or am I just fabricating that?Yes... but not every reader may have upgraded to 2.640. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpabrams Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 "Admittedly this isn't perfect, but as they say: Squint harder.""the rest ist superficial details with hardly any relevance to its combat value."I am very superficial and shallow if you must know. At least that's what my ex-wives say.The M2A2 is much better protected than the M2 but you know that. I just can't do approximations, I am too anal. I will forever fight small engagements with the M1, M901 and M113 with US infantryman armed with stolen, yes stolen AT-4’s against T-72’s, BMP-1/2’s and BRDM2’s . I just can't throw in a damaged M2A2 to simulate a M2 for armored warfare in 1984. That's the contrary of arming the Colonial Militia with M-14’s to simulate the first US Marines, deployed to Vietnam. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted December 23, 2011 Members Share Posted December 23, 2011 Where's the "can do attitude" that the US Army is so proud of? Look, don't get me wrong. I understand where you're coming from. But things like these have to be made from the "SB Pro PE" development time contingent like so many other things in the recent upgrade. Eventually we'll get around to do it, but it may take us a while before someone with your attention to detail will be satisfied. In the meantime you'll have to make do with what is there, and our main focus will be on contemporary elements rather than the two decades after 1970. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpabrams Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 Eventually we'll get around to do it, but it may take us a while before someone with your attention to detail will be satisfied. In the meantime you'll have to make do with what is there, and our main focus will be on contemporary elements rather than the two decades after 1970.I get some of what you are saying and I appreciate all that the team does for us "hardcore" types.My shrink says I lack "suspended reality", which is why this is the only sim I can play. I have an affinity for 1982-1988 PACT vs NATO, that’s all.I wonder though why there are some seemingly “out there” choices for the units in the sim.For example, why the Centurion? Talk about the 70's. It’s a great model and all but where is its place in the sim? Dutch reserve units? A small IDF scenario in which you can’t even operate the unit? I suspect it’s a hobby unit from one of your artists and that’s great but it seems out of place at times.The Challenger 2 is awesome but it has no “real” supporting units that are British to round a proper unit. No Warrior’s etc. For all that development, gaps could be filled; the skirts and extra armor stripped off an existing M2A2, to make a M2/M2A1 or “kit bashing” an IPM1 from the M1 and M1A1. Adding extra armor to existing BMP-2’s for a BMP-2 obr. 1984. Stripping down the Marder 1A3 for a Marder 1. Just some ideas. It was great that the M901 was finally used to make the FISTV, for example.I am just wondering out loud but you seem to indicate that SB Pro PE will be an ever growing and expanding sim far into the future. I am hopeful that these developments continue and count me as a loyal supporter.PS; I would have paid 25 bucks for 3D infantry alone. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanPatrick Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 ...I would have paid 25 bucks for 3D infantry alone.I second that. 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.