Members Ssnake Posted October 3, 2016 Members Share Posted October 3, 2016 If you think you're smarter than the commander, become the commander. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisWerb Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Ssnake said: If you think you're smarter than the commander, become the commander. I don't. It took me about 100 goes on the gunnery range to figure out that it's main purpose is to teach you not to sit on a ridge in full view of the enemy. Once I realised that, my CV9030FI went from taking out an average of 3-6 enemies to 35. It would have been a few more if I hadn't decided to take a peek over the crest of the ridge at the end of the scenario (the end for me that is). I think some of the AT-4s/5s probably coillided in mid air on their way toward me. I seemed like a lot of them sharing the same airspace. Edited October 3, 2016 by ChrisWerb 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Froggy Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 On 03/10/2016 at 11:51 PM, ChrisWerb said: A handgun for the gunner to shoot his commander with if he keeps pulling his sights off the BMP-2 that's stopped and about to launch an AT-5 at him in favour of a truck, jeep, bridgelayer or other less immediately pressing target. press T key and the TC will let you engage your current target. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted October 5, 2016 Members Share Posted October 5, 2016 Dial T for Taser. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejawolf Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 (edited) well, some of the armour values in the wiki are for the old models. when the models were updated, most of the armour values were updated as well, but the wiki doesn't reflect this. also bear in mind that the values are LOS from the front. at different angles, the armour values would be different. so the M60A3 which is designed to defeat 200mm in a 60 degree frontal arc would at + and -30 have only 200mm protection on the turret chins, which from direct front is increased by quite a bit. Edited October 5, 2016 by dejawolf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisWerb Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 (edited) TOS-1A Edited October 5, 2016 by ChrisWerb 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev2go Posted October 6, 2016 Share Posted October 6, 2016 (edited) On Wednesday, October 05, 2016 at 9:33 AM, dejawolf said: well, some of the armour values in the wiki are for the old models. when the models were updated, most of the armour values were updated as well, but the wiki doesn't reflect this. also bear in mind that the values are LOS from the front. at different angles, the armour values would be different. so the M60A3 which is designed to defeat 200mm in a 60 degree frontal arc would at + and -30 have only 200mm protection on the turret chins, which from direct front is increased by quite a bit. yes I am aware its los. and I think its the ufp that's less Los. 109mm at 65 degrees equal 257mm of los. and the gun Manlet that is too powerfull from everything I've read it's supposedly Los + gunshield give it a max of 254mm, not 354mm. also I think the t62 armor overview is one of those that's dated as its reflecting the t62 1962 - 1967 armor values. not the mod 1972 which had a thicker frontal turret, and the ingamr model in 4.0 I don't get why half of the left side of its ufp is 30mm thicker when most sources state 100-102 mm thick upper front plate all across. hopefully this wiki overview is updated. Edited October 6, 2016 by Kev2go 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jartsev Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 15 hours ago, Kev2go said: also I think the t62 armor overview is one of those that's dated as its reflecting the t62 1962 - 1967 armor values. not the mod 1972 which had a thicker frontal turret, and the ingamr model in 4.0 Only armor around opening for TSh was reinforced actually, because original design had very nasty gap there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt DeFault Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 17 minutes ago, ChrisWerb said: I'd like to see a detailed breakdown of vehicles killed in a scenario, by whom and with what. That's all in the AAR/report already. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisWerb Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 (edited) Thank you Sean, but how do you access it? All I see is a short list giving the base numbers. For example. https://postimg.org/image/ms2k1lidb/ Edited October 7, 2016 by ChrisWerb 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jartsev Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 (edited) 53 minutes ago, ChrisWerb said: I'd like to see a detailed breakdown of vehicles killed in a scenario, by whom and with what. Check My Documents\eSim Games\Steel Beasts\reports folder for detailed AARs in .html format. BTW, this folder needs to be purged from time to time... Edited October 7, 2016 by Jartsev 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenny Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 14 minutes ago, Jartsev said: Check My Documents\eSim Games\Steel Beasts\reports folder for detailed AARs in .html format. BTW, this folder needs to be purged from time to time... You remind me about something here ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12Alfa Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 New math 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 1 hour ago, ChrisWerb said: At the risk of derailing this thread, the summary says 34 enemy vehicles were destroyed, but counting the ticks in the Destroyed column gives 43. What might be the reason for the inconsistency? How many did you lose. did you use arty against your opfor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirzayev Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 To add my requests to the Wish List: 1. Model the Active IR Searchlights (already been said, but I would love to have fights at night with older Warsaw Pact vehicles) 2. Include the Ratel IFV family. There are plenty of variants, and it would add some interesting vehicles for a Border War-style Scenario. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bond_Villian Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 Crewable PT 76 and BRDM 2 AT's (even if only partially internally modeled) would be a nice addition, especially for multiplayer head to head events like TGIF 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejawolf Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 (edited) @Kev2go half of the "upper front plate" (i assume you mean glacis/front hull) is thicker due to the fuel tanks behind the armour. although in the latest update there has been some changes to the fuel tank layout to a more realistic one, because i managed to get some fairly good drawings of the fuel tanks. the new layout is similar to the one on the new T-55, which is the blue/red area in this attached drawing. thickness was also reduced from 296 to 277mm. fuel provides decent protection, as long as the tanks don't burst from the hydrostatic shock, and the tank is not fully penetrated. in a full tank, as long as most of the penetrator is stopped by the main armour, the diesel will be able to stop the remaining penetrator fragments, and even work as an ad-hoc spall liner. diesel is for example used as armour to good effect in the abrams tank. the scenario is different however, if you hit an empty tank, or completely penetrate the tank. in the first case, the fumes might ignite, and you get a fireball, possibly bursting the tank and setting things on fire. in the second case, you get a spray of diesel fumes that are easily ignited. generally in russian tanks, the external tanks are drained first, then the tanks near the engine, and last the front fuel tanks. of course we don't simulate fullness of fuel tanks in SB however, or fuel leaking from the gashes created by a penetrator in the tank. so the second hit in the same area would be far deadlier in real life than it would in steel beasts, as the armour is literally leaking out, creating noxious fumes in the interior, not to mention flammable fumes in the empty tank. we do however simulate overpenetration of fuel tanks, so if your round penetrates the fueltank, there's a higher chance of the tank catching fire, than if you're just penetrating pure steel. Edited October 8, 2016 by dejawolf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisWerb Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 (edited) Probably already added but I'm thinking of stuff that currently exists and will do for some time yet and might have a significant effect on the battlefield and would affect gameplay positively. I am leaving out things that were short-lived or would have marginal effect. GMLRS - Standard unitary and "Alternate" warhead versions, former in point detonating, fractional delay and airburst, latter in airburst only. SMART/BONUS/SADARM/Russian equivalent twin submunition skeet type 152/155mm projectiles. You could make one version and use it for all. Systems like this are in service with at least Australia, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Greece, France, Sweden, Finland - it seems likely that Russia has something similar. Excalibur - both the initial version and the one that adds SALH mode (Excalibur S). Minus GPS/INS this could double as Krasnopol. 120mm guided mortar rounds. GPS/INS, GPS/INS+SALH and pure SALH modes depending on model Hand-held thermal viewer for commander (if issued) Ability to lay mines, other than RAAMS/ADAM, in game - simulating the US and Russian FASCAM systems - infantry, truck/PC and helo laid would be great as well as infantry planting indivicual AT mines Off route EFP mines like the one used by Finland which features remote activation. IR and dark ignition tracers and IR illum rounds. (sorry, I know I mentioned these before) Illum rounds generally. Spike N-LOS/Tammuz/Exactor. This could be implemented by increasing the range and warhead size of Spike-LR. It's already been involved in at least three conflicts and is likely to feature in any conflict including the UK, Israel or South Korea. Ability for snipers to shoot vehicle commanders. Thermal vision systems/weapon sights for infantry (or at least IIR). Laser guided 70mm rockets for Apache and Cobra as a speculative option. Boiling vessel for UK tanks for a hot cuppa between battles. Edited October 8, 2016 by ChrisWerb 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpow66m Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 how about when personnel surrender the NATO icon turns to a different color when they re IDed as surrendering.A base color thats the same for all sides,say,white.nothing worse than calling that HE barrage on troops only to find out they were reachin' for the sky. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ht-57 Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 @ the risk of being redundant, The ability to adjust the contrast when using tis. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejawolf Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 (edited) this reflects the armour values in Sb currently Edited October 8, 2016 by dejawolf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisWerb Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 All vehicles that should have a visible crew/driver/pilot, to have one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev2go Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 (edited) 16 hours ago, dejawolf said: @Kev2go half of the "upper front plate" (i assume you mean glacis/front hull) is thicker due to the fuel tanks behind the armour. although in the latest update there has been some changes to the fuel tank layout to a more realistic one, because i managed to get some fairly good drawings of the fuel tanks. the new layout is similar to the one on the new T-55, which is the blue/red area in this attached drawing. thickness was also reduced from 296 to 277mm. fuel provides decent protection, as long as the tanks don't burst from the hydrostatic shock, and the tank is not fully penetrated. in a full tank, as long as most of the penetrator is stopped by the main armour, the diesel will be able to stop the remaining penetrator fragments, and even work as an ad-hoc spall liner. diesel is for example used as armour to good effect in the abrams tank. the scenario is different however, if you hit an empty tank, or completely penetrate the tank. in the first case, the fumes might ignite, and you get a fireball, possibly bursting the tank and setting things on fire. in the second case, you get a spray of diesel fumes that are easily ignited. generally in russian tanks, the external tanks are drained first, then the tanks near the engine, and last the front fuel tanks. of course we don't simulate fullness of fuel tanks in SB however, or fuel leaking from the gashes created by a penetrator in the tank. so the second hit in the same area would be far deadlier in real life than it would in steel beasts, as the armour is literally leaking out, creating noxious fumes in the interior, not to mention flammable fumes in the empty tank. we do however simulate overpenetration of fuel tanks, so if your round penetrates the fueltank, there's a higher chance of the tank catching fire, than if you're just penetrating pure steel. but that image is irrelevant i wasnt talking about the modernized variants with armor addons such as the T55AM or T62M , i was referring to the standard T62, now the model 1972. Also i dont see why fuel tank should be accounted as armor, as it is not armor plate itself but a component of the internal vehicle. ASFAIK when reffering to armor we mean the plates, IE the chasis or turret. I am aware that the fuel tank could block framgements, but you can count components as armor. Edited October 8, 2016 by Kev2go 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted October 8, 2016 Members Share Posted October 8, 2016 In all the pictures in the Wiki we give the aggregated, effective protection value. So we'll stick to that method. The purpose of proterction values is to give you an idea at which point you can effectively hurt the crew (and other vital internal components. Whether that protection is created by pure armor plate or as a composite involving fuel tanks is of secondary importance. All that said, do not get obsessed with these figures. Steel Beasts is not a simulation designed for analytical purposes, but for education and training. The model is far better than what's needed for that purpose, but will never be good enough for quantitative statistical analysis. Developing target fixation on armor plate values distracts from the by far more important parts, combined arms combat tactics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billman Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 I wold love to see more Infantry fortification to destroy. Things like fox holes, trenches, sandbags walls/bunkers and maby even concrete fortification. I think it would make fighting enemy infantry much more interesting, and a bit harder as ingame bunkers are easy to shoot and kill everyone in side. 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.