Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. It looks good but I’m confused. Are you after 8 players to playtest this and if so, when are you intending to run that playtest?
  3. GRANTIGER LÖWE 2012 Day 2 - counterattack Grantiger Löwe ( grumpy lion ) is an exercise in germany in the area of Bergen-Hohne. You can even find videos about this exercise on YouTube. The BLUE party is here in the left side and RED on the right side. On the 1st day, the RED party was in the offense with a mixed Mech Inf Btn (BMP3 & T90). BLUE delayed succesfully and lost only a few vehicles. RED lost around 65% of his tanks and is now in the defense. On the 2nd day (now), BLUE will start the counterattack. The target is to destroy the left red tanks in this area or force them to avoid to the north east close to MUNSTER. The Brig.Commander of BLUE plans his main efford ("LAWINE"-"ERDRUTSCH") of the counterattack in the centre of the combat sector with 2 Gren. Companies. A side attack ("VULKAN"-"FEUERBALL") from the south will be done by OUR mixed tank company and will support the companies of the main attack. We will follow the ride side of the combat sector until our final battle position 10. Two reconnaissance sections (AI) (Fennek) will scout the area before the counterattack will start. One tank company is the Btn Reserve and follow the attack in a distance of 2-3km Our mixed tank company has: CO - Leopard 2A6 KEO(Xo) - Leopard 2A6 ALFA - 3x Leopard 2A6 (lost 1 tank on the day before) BRAVO - 4x Leopard 2A6 CHARLIE - 4x Marder 1A3 ( with 2 MILAN 3ER* Trps) 1x ARV , 1x Medic We also have engineers and ammo trucks with us (AI) they will following us. It's also possible to call them and get used by players. 1x Mine-clearance tank (Wisent AEV) , 1x Bridge layer (BIBER) , 1 Engineer Section (2x TPz FUCHS) Our planned battle positions are "2","4-right","6-right","10" For this scenarion we need minimum 8 players. This scenario takes minimum 90min. It's ending automatic, when the OBJECT has been taken.
  4. btw, I don't expect every detailed aspect to be documented. I play relatively complex games like Command and Combat Mission and the documentation is somewhat limited. But in both of those games, if you ask a question about how something works, someone eventually comes in to explain it. While the wiki is a good idea, I find it only partially helpful, difficult to find quick answers, and has a number of gaps. It is also not up to date. That is the risk in depending on the community to support documentation.
  5. So how do you get something this somewhere that players can understand it and figure it out? There is obviously some demand for it. If even you devs don't understand it, how is a player supposed figure it out, let alone document for you?
  6. Yesterday
  7. Yes the devs know how it works, now granted none of us are perfect though - I have misstated some things myself from time to time (actually I did this in the Support Forum about six months ago and had to correct myself). Its a natural possibility when the software is so complicated, and continuously developed for two decades. Feature X works one way originally, then over twenty years, out of feedback, bugs fixes, or expansion, the behavior might be disconnected, or completely changed in subtle ways (with tacked on variables or conditions) into something else, many times over. That is why, very often, when a detailed question is posed in the forum then there are three bad choices for us: Don't answer, ignore the question - easiest thing to do, but is not helpful Answer the question from memory - this is quicker, but risks an incorrect answer Investigate, look it up, research, or have someone sift through code to see how it works - this is the most accurate, but most time consuming, and worst of all: spends vital time and resources that are needed for development (so its impractical) All three options are equally bad. And also, as I have seen myself first hand, when trying to not get "bogged down" in explaining precise detailed answers to very detailed questions (because it takes valuable development time to do this) then this is often met with negativity in the forum that we are ignoring the customer and the like. Then its a matter of 'why isn't it documented?'. Well, in that regard, its a question of what to document in the first place. Sure, it would be nice if everything was documented, but that isn't practical, so when it comes to documentation (for anything), its always a question of "how much?". This is where is the SB wiki comes in, which is intended to be all the 'extra documentation' that could never fit in the manual. A perfect example are the vehicle pages: some of them ARE a manual in themselves. But even with all that information, some vehicles aren't documented very well, or much at all, and some information might be missing or even no longer correct. It's just a reality, unfortunately. That said, the great thing about the SB wiki is that the community can contribute to it (I think the user has to be approved by Sean though, but if someone sends a PM then I am sure there would be no reason why they wouldn't be approved - its more to keep spambots from getting access really). So, if suppression is missing from the wiki's infantry page, then it can easily be added.
  8. SITREP: I'm currently deployed as part of CJTF 646 on Operation Bushfire Assist 2019-20. The Battle Rhythm on the HQ, which I can influence, means I'll be able to host a session this Wednesday). I'm away from the SB machine. I do have a 4G WiFi dongle (achieving only a 3G connection) to connect my laptop back to the machine at home. Accordingly I can host an activity from home, but my participation will be limited (no 3D world shooting, and I expect Map updates will be slow). Therefore I'll be effectively hosting but not participating. We'll "Field Trial" (suck it and see) this setup on Wednesday and if successful that's what I'll have to offer for the duration of the deployment. As part of the continuous improvement programme we are going to try a Wednesday evening session to see if more locals can make it. If it doesn't make a difference we'll revert to Thursdays. Australia has moved to Daylight Savings and accordingly our Time Zones have bomb burst (since not all states adopt it). By now most readers will already know who BG ANZAC is, so I'll put the information relevant to this week in first, then background, etc. If you are new to the Forum, feel free to read the entire post. IMPORTANT: As a serving Officer, I am not allowed to make "public comment" about topics without clearance. This is why my signature block says what it says to cover written comment. Recorded audio on YouTube = "Public Comment", especially if I were to express a personal opinion (without knowing someone was recording). In addition recording people's voices in Australia is illegal without their permission or a Warrant. If you want to record a session, ASK! We maybe about fit you in (I maybe able to play the OPFOR, etc.). If you don't ask: a. Expect me to ask you to remove the YouTube (or other media). b. Don't be too surprised if you aren't welcomed back. BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front): Your Local time: Click on this link for the Local time in your part of the world Count down: Time remaining until Meeting start Mission will start promptly at 0830 GMT. If you want a pre game "chat" then by all means come on line at say 0800 GMT, but so that the Kiwi's aren't after Midnight, the Mission will commence promptly at 0830 GMT. Agenda: If you did not attend last week, arrive a little early so we can get you the required map package. Based on the recent sustained good attendance, we are embarking on a more structured approach (only sustainable if the attendance is maintained). Planned Agenda: 1st meeting: Teach / Discuss a topic (Attack, Defence, Convoy Escort, Reserve Demolition, OPs, ...) using a scenario / map as the basis for discussion. As to what we cover, that will be will be determined by the response to the related email "newsletter" for this Wednesday sent to regular attendees. 2nd meeting: First volunteer develops a plan for the tactical problem and we see how they go. There will be a brief debrief at the end looking at strengths / weaknesses of their solution, which the person COing the next week is free to incorporate into their solution. 3rd meeting: We play the same scenario with a different CO (each able to improve / adjust their plan based on their predecessor). 4th meeting: We play the same scenario with a different CO (each able to improve / adjust their plan based on their predecessor). 5th meeting (if there is one in a given month): Q & A - You need to supply the questions or a "player's choice" determined by responses here / to email. As always, visitors (apart from one individual) / first timers / spectators are welcome. Current Standard: 4.162 (either download from scratch or download and install 4.156, then patch to 4.162) Please use the new Calendar RSVP function or post here to facilitate planning. Background: Who is BG ANZAC? https://www.bganzac.org Described here: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=21753 A couple of examples of the BattleGroup at work: Multi Player session: Training session: Timings: Wednesday evenings, Australian East Coast time. Next meeting: 0830 GMT on Wednesday, January 29th. 0930 in London 1630 in Perth 1800 in Darwin 1900 in Adelaide 1830 in Brisbane 1930 in Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra 2130 in Auckland In game chat / Communications: You'll need access to "Teamspeak" to communicate with us. The Teamspeak software is available here: Download Teamspeak client software How to connect and use it is detailed here: Steel Beasts Wiki Entry - Starter Pack Remote Access / Screen Sharing / Whiteboard Sessions: We continue the use of TeamViewer so people without the Steel Beasts software can connect and see and hear what we see and hear (looking over our shoulder if you like). Team Viewer available here This maybe a suitable vehicle for people to see what the software is all about (you can even use it on a Mac), without having to invest in even a short time limited copy. Anyway we'll see how it goes. So if you are interested, visit our web site https://www.bganzac.org and sign up.
  9. I don’t think that is actually in Chris’s map pack. I’ve installed it previously and I don’t have any “delta” maps for “NTA Bergen” Also can you confirm that the unzipped folder name is “NTA Bergen_neu_delta 1”? Sometime Discord, etc. adds underscores that aren’t supposed to be there.
  10. Just in case someone didn't install chrisrebs map-pack, or doesn't have the map for other reasons Here to Download: NTA_Bergen_neu_delta_1.zip
  11. When used as a training tool (i.e. its real role in life) there are usually other individuals controlling those other platoons. In a Battalion setting you might have 12+ players. Alternatively once you gain an understanding of routes, waypoints, etc. and the fact that units not quite doing exactly what you intended is often a good reflection of real life then you can pretty easily manage larger formations. If you want to spend 80%+ of your time in the Gunner’s sight, then sure maybe pick only the smaller scenarios.
  12. Very cool. But i am saving for this. LoL
  13. Alright and done: You will sort out who will command tomorrow
  14. Holy crap if that fails while inverted, there's no parachute or pararescue to save one's head!
  15. My interest in Steel Beasts has always been learning what it is like to operate the machines themselves, the same way I enjoy DCS. Learning the details of various fire control systems and their use is my favorite part of the simulation. I appreciate the strategic aspects, but find less interest there. Real Time Strategy games simply aren't my cup of tea. I have to admit that I find managing more than 4-5 units feels more like work than fun. I prefer focusing on the responsibility of one tank, or one platoon at most, to managing a company or battalion of troops. It would be nice if there could be a commander AI for both sides so that a player could enjoy solely managing a smaller element within the larger battle without the need for micro managing all the elements of a battalion size force.
  16. Another wishlist item is in AFVs with large windows, being able to craze the window and reduce visibility.
  17. I have read through those before. What I'm curious about is that nowhere is anything really mentioned about suppression. It took some pointed questions here to get an even partial answer. Is it that SB is so complex now that not even the devs know how parts of it work?
  18. SORRY ! I did not mean to be funny: I switched you but must not have saved with the change. 😋 Its correct now
  19. What I wrote above on Dec 7th is still valid. I don't know how good DirectX emulation has become under Linux but I suspect that it's still not a simple thing to get working, not to speak of working well,
  1. Load more activity
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up
×
×
  • Create New...