All Activity
This stream auto-updates
- Yesterday
-
Steel Beasts: Content Wish List
lavictoireestlavie replied to Azure Lion's topic in General Discussion
Official documents from national archives will not get much more primary when it comes to sourcing. As i said earlier, i am looking at the protection schemes of a couple of vehicles that seem to be a bit off if we follow recently revealed sources. I want to address those. -
Great video and good job π. Really enjoyed the mission
-
i will add something else because it still blows my mind that there is a nostalgic following for m1tp2- if you do an image search for m1tp2, the same stock photos tend to pop up- opportunistic camera shots at the right time give the impression of complex combined arms behavior and urban combat, but that never really happened at all in m1tp2 for the reasons that infantry couldn't occupy buildings or the impassable forest blocks, or that the computer ai didn't deploy mech infantry and move them around away from their vehicles, they always stayed right next to them exposed in the open, or that in reality there weren't complex urban areas but a few scattered buildings and these areas never really served as an objective to hold or attack. there is no comparison with steel beasts.
-
Video from this past weekend's Kanium session:
-
my impression of m1tp2 and steel beasts are the reverse of what you describe- m1tp2 gave the illusion of continuity through cut scenes amd preservation of crews in the campaigns, but that's where that ended- if you played single missions and took those parts out (and the single missions were usually a mirror copy of what the campaign missions were like, arcade action), the gameplay was fairly weak. there are no ambushes in m1tp2 because the terrain was flat, simple, didn't have much information content to obscure vehicles and lines of sight (vehicles could spot and engage each other across the map at 8km, AI could see and fire missiles through trees), and units were as a result in each other's lines of sight and aware of each other all the time; furthermore, the game gave you a loud signature of atgms firing on you at several kilometers away, so you always knew they were coming, not to mention they would seem to lock on to the player's brainwaves or something through the tree 'fences'. still, it was more convenient if you didn't want to set up your own missions, because the computer did that for you in the campaigns. however, if you haven't explored steel beasts' mission editor, the random variables are the key to what you seem to be requesting- you can create random spawns of units so you don't always know what's coming
-
I know these sources that are floating around. None of them are verifiable in a way that they count primary sources. On the few point where I have access to said primary sources, they are wrong. So maybe there is some truth in some of them...esp. of most german gear and ammo, they are just of the mark. So again, the values SB gives/uses are not "true" in a way to satify the crowd fighting over vehicle stat-cards and "balance"(or other rivet counters). But they produce what IMO is sensable results. Shooting DM33 at a T80 front should be a frustrating experience...and in SB it is ;-)
-
βArmy Picks BAE, GD For MPF Light Tank Prototypes: Upstart SAIC Is Outβ
-
Thanks
-
Steel Beasts: Content Wish List
lavictoireestlavie replied to Azure Lion's topic in General Discussion
I will create a separate thread on this in the tactics forum so I do not clutter or sidetrack this thread. There are many private SB customers that like to research these kind of topics on their own and do not see a burden in that. I myself am glad to maybe help imrove Steel Beasts. If there are multiple independent and verifiable sources that point in a different direction, i will most certainly take a second look at my original data if there is a discrepancy. Just because the information is posted in other forums does not make the information any less valid if the information is properly sourced. I am also trying to be objective with the information i collect,prepare and present without going into the "muh game/tank/style/opinion/preferences/whatever is/are better than yours" arguments. Also, the information is over 25 years old, some of which was recently declassified or at least partially declassified. I will not make a big fuss out of any "secret" document unless lives and limbs directly depend on it. It is save to assume that the 'Russians' (or insert any country) are more or less aware of the range of realistic protection levels of the tanks of other nations. -
Well I'd suggest attending the proposed Summer Camp sessions as a start:
-
Well, this is the 3rd time I get an annual license, yet it's the same as before: I find myself reluctant to join MP since it's not an easy affair (time and knowledge wise) and only mess about with the editor but I could never design a satisfying instant action scenario the way M1TP2 used to offer me for many years. No element of surprise, hard to get ambushed etc. Is there a better way to get one's money's worth?
-
TGIF 2018: scenario list, discussion, and house rules
Assassin 7 replied to Volcano's topic in Multiplayer Engagements
Your welcome, always willing to help. Just glad to see that Cav is able to join us in TGIF and Kanium missions again. -
BG ANZAC - 20 DEC 0830GMT (with TeamViewer support)
MAC84 replied to Gibsonm's topic in Multiplayer Engagements
Mark Please be aware that Mac will be available for Thursday night Training/activity. All the best -
Steel Beasts Tutorials sessions / "Summer Camp" Poll
Gibsonm replied to Gibsonm's topic in Multiplayer Engagements
A bit of a "progress score" so people can plan: 4 votes received to date Most Popular choice for Session 1: 03 JAN 2000 GMT https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20190103T2000 0700 Fri 04 Jan for me (4 votes) Most Popular choice for Session 2: 04 JAN 2000 GMT https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20190104T2000 0700 Sat 05 Jan for me (2 votes) Most Popular choice for Session 3: 05 JAN 2000 GMT https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20190105T2000 0700 Sun 06 Jan for me (3 votes) - Last week
-
TGIF 2018: scenario list, discussion, and house rules
TSe419E replied to Volcano's topic in Multiplayer Engagements
After playing the Kanium session yesterday I asked Assassin if I could test it again and it failed once more. Very frustrating. I uninstalled everything, again, then reinstalled it and just got finished testing it (with Assassin's assistance again) and it worked. I then made all the changes, one at a time with retesting after each, that I had made Saturday evening trying to try to localize where the issue is coming from. It did not fail so I haven't a clue as to what was causing it. Thanks again to Assassin for his help. -
TGIF 2018: scenario list, discussion, and house rules
Gibsonm replied to Volcano's topic in Multiplayer Engagements
I just overheard snippets but I think the issue was some mods (no idea as to which ones) in the Application area "C:\whatever\Steel Beasts" as opposed to in the User area "C:\Users\account name\Documents\eSim Games\Steel Beasts\" Doing a vanilla install (no mods) worked then adding the mods to the user area provided the desired outcome, while retaining the ability to download. -
TGIF 2018: scenario list, discussion, and house rules
Volcano replied to Volcano's topic in Multiplayer Engagements
It works now? Wohoo! Awesome. Trial and error until the problem gets (usually accidentally) fixed, that is my experience with PC issues. Yes, thanks for helping him out Assassin. It would be interesting to know what the problem actually was, but it seems like a freak thing, and if it is gone now, them maybe we won't see it again. As for the mission, it was very close. We thought we were done when the south broke through (we said as much at the time), but was able to scrape together just enough tanks (who were all low on ammo) to try to stop the breakthrough. It wasn't looking good, but we managed to hang on, just barely! Good game on both sides, its a tough/gut wrenching scenario, for sure - usually always a close one. edit: And nice job by both COs for stepping up, its one of the toughest missions to CO, due to size of forces. You can CO anything if you CO that one. -
I think they are from War Thunder / World of Tanks forums and other "authoritative" sources. I caused a bit of stink when I said if they were authentic, I was reporting them as a security breach (esp. as some of the files had "Secret" happily written on them). The agency I sent the report to didn't get back to me as to whether they were authentic or not (but then again I never expected they would).
-
One should not confuse most of the files and graphics floating around the internet a 100% credible sources ;-) Given what I see in the SB "game" values: -are each of them correct? No... -do they produce correct (or rather Β΄...sensable) results? yes I'm happy with SB's armour/weapon/damage model in 9 out of 10 cases.
-
Have to say that I would be somewhat surprised if the armour capabilities have been released... I would also not mind seeing the links to see where they have come from and whether they are any good - i hope not.
-
Yes please!
-
Can you point me to those sources? Obviously, we'd rather fix our models than to offload that responsibility to our customers.
-
-
If I`m not mistaken it is "Π’Π°Π½ΠΊΠΎΠ²ΡΠΉ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠΊΠΎΠΏ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠ°Π½Π΄ΠΈΡΠ°, ΡΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΠ΅Π½Π½ΡΠΉ"- e.g. "Tank periscope, commander`s, shortened."
-
Steel Beasts: Content Wish List
lavictoireestlavie replied to Azure Lion's topic in General Discussion
1) A crewable Leclerc (Serie 1, Serie 2,etc.)! 2) A crewable Merkava and/or just another Merkava (e.g: Merkava III, IIID) 3) Adjustment of the KE protection levels of various tanks to realistic KE protection levels. Im looking at Leopard 2A5 type vehicles and Challenger 2 in particular. Given the recent revelations some of the KE values seem to be off by literally 100% For instance, Challenger 2 turret cheeks are around 600-650 mm RHAe KE if we follow recently declassified British government documents. In Steel Beasts it is around 1250 mm RHAe against KE threats. The Leopard 2A5S turret cheeks were given a KE resistance of 750-850 mm RHAe during the Swedish tank trials vs. 1380 mm KE given in SB.
.thumb.JPG.6139bfcaf419dd2ad8ba5a440e0492f0.JPG)
