Leaderboard

As usual, the topic is complex. In every war, there will be screw-ups. At the tactical level more or less on a daily basis, but arguably, if you have a learning culture you'll eventually master the tactics for any given theater. These make you lose engagements more often. Then there are operational decisions that are wrong - like, based on false assumptions about the nature and disposition of the enemy (e.g. the first battle for Fallujah during the Iraq war); these make you lose you battles. To name another example, the decision of President Johnson and his SecDef McNamara to preferentially draft low IQ soldiers to keep the public perception of the US involvement in Vietnam low. And then you have strategic mistakes that make you lose wars. Like, mistaking an anti-colonial struggle for national identity as a communist uprising (Vietnam), or believing that all people of Ukraine save for a few malcontents are basically Russians, led astray but a few misguided people, and that you have subverted your neighboring country so thoroughly and at so many levels that it's going to be a cakewalk. Or, to paraphrase an infamous Austrian with a questionable taste in moustaches, "one thorough kick at the door and the whole rotten edifice will collapse". Right now, there simply aren't enough Russian soldiers to take, and then hold occupied a fundamentally hostile country of the size of France and Germany combined. 200,000 simply aren't enough. 600,000 aren't enough when the defender is motivated and as 700,000 at his disposal. The Wehrmacht needed millions to conquer Ukraine, and to keep it occupied. So, this was an unrecoverable strategic blunder, based on flawed assumptions about the nature of the conflict. So the question is, how do we set up training. Do we prepare for the worst - a competent enemy that is highly motivated and also highly capable, or do we prepare for the optimistic scenario. It's much harder to successfully recover from going in too optimistically.

Maybe you overestimate the power of your persuation.

These kind of posts about the failings of western equipment and capitalism can only be made by someone who lives in a capitalist country protected by western equipment.

When your hobby consists of posting stuff that no one will read.

Here, King, you dropped your crown:

Yes, tactical outcomes can be incredibly granular. But even a casual glance at military history will tell you that - 400 malaria-ridden Spanish conqistadores with less than a handful of rather pathetic field guns win a battle against 30,000 Aztec warriors - how likely is that if you apply attrition logic? Or 100 Fallschirmjägers attack the Eben Emael fortress with 5,000 troops ... and the 5,000 defenders capitulate (and in this case, there was no major technological gap between the two forces). Psychology can play a huge role, different training levels, material advantages, they all compound on each other - and yet, sometimes they don't for the most bizarre reasons. That's why I don't think we'll ever have predictive quality from wargames, no matter how sophisticated. But we can hope to generate useful talking points for a post-exercise review.

...again: SOME WAY TO SHOOT THE RIFLE TEAM AT WEAPONS as this is som frustrating to manouvre the team into a near perfect shot positions, and then nothing happens except that the infantry refuses to fire and the tank picking them off. tanks move to easy in forests because of that here

I am a man. A man with a plan. The plan is to do the CO thing.

The first full test was a success. Changed a very few little things. RED has over 650 paths and waypoints. It's very difficult to find good positions for our 9 tanks in this entire sector, they can overwatch the main areas. But it's possible. If we cant make it on 6th, we'll try it again on "FRIDAY the 13th" ^^ ..😨 uuuuuuh! ^^😅 We'll see.

Oh my gosh I'm so embarrassed.... I'm using a template where the first mission it came from, like 3 months ago, was an offensive mission where I wanted Red to defend and I attacked. They were all set to defend. <sigh> Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

surviving dismounts do....

Yeah. Just played a game for five hours. Wanted to blow some stress so it was a non-realistic "To The Death/Last Man Standing" battle. Needless to say, I now have my own Jeeps Disease to get over. Here's a couple beauty shots of my mech infantry company a soldier who refused to get back in the Bradley when we withdrew. As the Sun was setting. Note his 1,000 yard stare, effectively modeled in sim.

My longest game is 651mn...

They've been in game since like....2012

You know there are multiple drones already in Steel Beasts, right?

Apologies for the delay, just had a moment to try to test this-- unfortunately I wasn't able to reproduce your issue, and I was able to use MouseCrank with the BMP-2 ATGM without problems. Is it possible one of the critical keys was rebound on your end? My steps to fire are: 1) From the gunner's seat, F4 to switch to the ATGM optics. 2) Shift-B to unlock the ATGM sight door. 3) Use powered (normal) traverse to find the target azimuth. 4) Hit V to activate the ATGM. 5) Turn on MouseCrank (with whatever hot key you use; for me it's Caps Lock per the default). 6) Space to fire the ATGM, then use the mouse to put the ATGM on target with MouseCrank.

Kanium Sunday 1st of OCT "The Adventures of Task Force Dagger " by Ben Where: Kanium TS : ts3.din-server.dk:10000 World Clock 1800 GMT (Same time as always in Europe - now adjusted for Summer Time: click the time below for your local time) World clock 1800 GMT IMPORTANT NOTICE: This SB session may be recorded with video and sound and uploaded, including to a public youtube channel. AS always, then we are running the session with the latest version of Steelbeasts. Everybody is Welcome: you don't have to belong to Kanium. We love playing with you all, the arranger and CO loves you even more if you sign up in advance 😁 The Adventures of Task Force Dagger v3.0.0 Author ben SITUATION: Enemy: Donovian forces have deployed SA-19 Tunguska air defense systems at three locations along highway 4. These air defenses are preventing freedom of movement for allied attack aviation in the sector. Defenders in the area appear thinly spaced, recent intelligence suggests a T90 company, BTR82A company and recon screens as templated. Own: Task Force Dagger; Leopard 2A5s of ALPHA squadron are reinforced with 2x mech infantry platoons of BRAVO. Light recon platoons have infiltrated to 'recon north' and 'recon south' as indicated. Logistics and support are attached. Reserve; 2 extra platoons of Leopards and 1 platoon of mech infantry are available on call by 'Trigger 1'. Mech platoons carry a mix of Javelin and MMG teams. Recon AMVs carry scouts with JIM-LR. Recon NZLAVs carry Javelin missile teams. MISSION: - Clear Objectives NORTH, CENTER, SOUTH, in order to neutralize enemy air defenses. EXECUTION: - At your discretion. FIRE SUPPORT: - 4 tubes 120mm mortar carriers with resupply. - 6 tubes off-map 155mm, total 1440xHE, 144xSMK, 72xICM. - 3x CAS Airstrike. SCORING: Clear Objectives NORTH, CENTER, SOUTH: -> 20 points each. (Occupy with your forces and destroy all SA-19 vehicles to clear each OBJ) Survival of your Leopard tanks: -> 30 points for 90% survival or more. 0 points for 30% survival or less. Did NOT need to call reserve force: -> 10 points bonus. Victory = 60% Major victory = 85% Thanks for testing and feedback Apoc, RooksAndKings. Test scenario: B25 The Adventures of Task Force Dagger v2.0.0 Test.sce

Manning A Coy Command SEC: A66 (Leopard 2A5): Higgs (Kanium,CH) F41 (M981 FISTV): Figmo42 (Tanksim,UK) A1 Tank PLT (Leopard 2A5) A11: Cavgunner (Kanium,US) A12: Badger (Kanium,CAN) A13: A14: Abelian (?,?) / Razgriz (?,?) A2 Tank PLT (Leopard 2A5) A21: Major Duck (Kanium,DK) A22 A23: Connaugh (Kanium,US) A24: Tankenator (Kanium,US) A3 Tank PLT (Leopard 2A5) A31: Los18z (LHI,US) A32: A33 A34: Leon Portier(Tanksim ,DE) A4 Recon PLT (XA-360, NZLAV) A41: Legodude9(?,?) A42 A43 A44: A5 Recon PLT (XA-360, NZLAV) A51: Hedgehog (Kanium/UKArmour,UK) A52 A53 A54 B1 MECH INF PLT (XA-360) B11: Kingtiger (Kanium,SE) B12: Snoggy(Kanium,CAN) B13 B14: Wiglif (Kanium,US) B2 MECH INF PLT (XA-360) B21 B22 B23 B24 Cant make it: Nike Ajax (Kanium,DK) Essah (,CZ/DK) Lusik (?,PL) Where Needed: Host: Assassin 7 (Kanium,US) / Badger (Kanium,CAN) ?

Here's something that would make infantry ops easier: When I group infantry together as an Infantry Task Force, they fall together under one icon with some little "provisional unit" designator. So from then on when I want them to move I dont have to nervously click around other units to give them movement orders... just click the provisional squad/task force icon and issue them orders together. The sergeant can relay the orders to the rest of the squad. Also, How about the units dismounting M-2s or M-113s (etc.) are just two teams shown by icon? Or just a squad icon? If I want them dispersed a certain way (micro-managed) I can divide group and tell machine gunner go this way and Javelin gunner go that way.

i was never going to attempt a 1:1 reproduction of the basra area, which would prabably take me several lifetimes. this is map is an amalgamation of varying urban and regional geography into a 10 × 10 km map are with the goal of also running smoothly (as such i already had to pare down details from my initial plans)

I don't think so. You'd have to be very close to do this reliably, at which point the question must be asked what the hell you're doing. Or you push your luck and hope for the best, which kinda reminds me of the fish slapping dance:

Yes, but do they have a "tactic"? If you told them to Defend, Stay, ... then they wont move until you right click and select "proceed". You need to ether: 1. Have no tactic or 2. A tactic and then "embark if ...." routes.

What is their original waypoint tactic? They will not embark on any route if their waypoint tactic is set to hold for example. They way to fix it is to give them an alternative tactic or to have a condition when to follow the route.

Didn't want to ruin your excitement over our great programming skillz...

Go take a look in the AAR. I've never seen this behavior nor do crews have ground models IIRC.

We all know about this, it's just nice to read about it from a different point of view. https://www.orau.org/health-physics-museum/collection/consumer/depleted-uranium/penetrators.html

The nearest enemy troops were over 3 miles away. This was amazing coding and realism.

Clearly this proves the 500m max range is a bit optimistic, given that the typical engagement range is about 50m. War Thunder and World of Tanks simulate armored combat much better than SB in that regard.

The crews dont bail AFAIK

I can attend and am on standby to Host, if required.

So you see, we're already in clown-world 😛

Yes, but not with the Sho't Kal. That British sight is atrocious.

Sorry know this topic is a bit old, but what about the use case of simulating an opponent that is using drones for observation and fires spotting? I have some mission ideas where the opposition has UAV's up to observe and call fires on the players, but right now I would have to join the red team and do all of that myself. When playing against the AI in a coop mission, there's no way to have an actual man in the loop on the enemy side. I can fake it by having red UAV's fly over fire missions I set up myself to trigger when players go to certain areas, but it would be cool if the AI could do this on their own.

My pitiful gunnery score I got on a laptop with a finger pad.

Sure it has been asked before: A headless server version of SB. With minimal graphic interface. That could be run with basic graphical interface, with remote user management through another SB instance. Under current setup the host has to play the scenario in the 3d world. Which is less than ideal when the host is engaged in direct close combat, in wooded terrain, as well as running a large scenario, with a battalion sized elements on both sides.

Happy to take A66.

Found these online some time ago as part of a pdf/book called, "NVA 88 Die Nationale Volksarmee und die Grenztruppen der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik Ende 1988" by "Old Fritz." They're in German but are easy to decipher. They are for the units attached to the 5th Army of the NVA. I can't comment on their accuracy but they seem to be compiled by someone formerly in the NVA. 20 MSD.pdf19 MSD.pdf9 PD.pdf8 MSD.pdf1 MSD.pdfAttachments 5th Army d NVA.pdf

V5 will no longer use DirectX 9, but the Vulkan SceneGraph.

Another one added to my garage 😄

That is only true if you had vastly unrealistic expectations to begin with. Given that the Ukrinian tank crews, to give but one example, receive a mere three weeks familiarization training with a complex weapon system like a Leopard tank, what competence level can you realistically expect? The crews will be sufficiently competent to perform typical combat tasks, but that's about it. To pull of NATO style combined arms operations you need cohesion at the unit level, a lot of practice (and then more practice) at the formation level (and all the layers between), and you need at least a not-permanently-hostile sky. Three weeks crew familiarization cannot address maintenance (we're trying to balance that by industry-run repair centers outside Ukraine), they most certainly cannot break the Russian air dominance (even if somewhat neutered thanks to a Soviet legacy air defense system that belongs to the strongest in the world), and three weeks of unit training cannot change the doctrinal mindset of the Ukrinian commanders (especially not if one key element for combined army, air, is missing). The question is not whether the systems are underperforming - they perform exactly to the level you can expect in this operational environment, given the numbers in which they have been supplied. It's not whether the crews are underperforming - they seem to largely do a good job, given the amount of training and preparation granted to them. The question is whether the press will learn to caution their reporting. My money is firmly on "No" because they have no skin in the game. Hyping expectations and then making headlines about the following "disappointment" is the core of their business. So, ultimately it is left to people like us to caution themselves when reading press reports. Every long-term Steel Beasts player knows how difficult it is to pull off seamless coordination between different armor, infantry, artillery, helicopters, expecially when the terrain is open and there's a gazillion of kilometer-deep minefields involved where breaches that do occur get closed by artillery-delivered scatter mines hours later. Since last summer you all have maps of selected parts of the theater. If you think you added enough minefields to your scenario, quadruple them. Then run your breaching operation, even if opfor is only minimally manned, but with plenty of artillery support.

note: the last screenshot uses some custom objects which requires the user to download the corresponding Oksbol map from esim and copy those files into this map package

Here:

#1 Playing in my first TGIF during the SB1 days. I was taken under the wing of an old SB vet named Lonestar. He had drawn up a plan in which our forces would take up 2 positions on hills separated by about 2 kilometers. I was part of the southern group. I pulled my tank up to a battle position and started scanning left and right. Almost immediately I spotted a platoon of tanks to the north about 2100 meters out and let loose a snap shot. I ended up hitting the tank and observed what would be a common sight for several years after, which is the satisfying drop of a barrel and a burst of flames. I was filled with a rush of adrenaline. I remember the sounds of the radio reporting that our units were taking fire, so I radioed out that I had engaged the enemy and had popped two more tanks. Lonestar gave words of encouragement, telling me that I was doing a good job....but soon after he was cursing that he had lost his whole platoon. It turns out that my crack shooting was friendly fire and I had wiped out out my CO's units...lol. Sorry LS...and tell Battledog hi for me. #2 All the friends and acquaintances made. Lonestar, Bluewings, Elf, Shermans War, Tankhunter, Delta/Assassin, Vaquero, Wahrborg, Sean, Greevil...and numerous others.

Playing It for the first time on June 6 2001. Not knowing where to go, or what to do. Then I did it every week for 16 years. Been away since April of 2017, Tempted to come back.

My first large scale test of the Mission Editor (and the Steel Beasts 1 engine) when I tried to put in as many vehicles as was suggested by Soviet doctrine for a massed attack on a small frontline, and that avalanche of green M1s (we had only green, or yellow sprite M1s at the time) swapped over that ridge line. May have been around summer 1998. All my years of army training left me completely unprepared for this sight and experience, that I was so overwhelmed that I had trouble concentrating on any single target. I knew what I had scripted, and yet this managed to catch me by surprise. That moment I knew we had something special, that (low-cost) simulation would bring something to the table that no other form of training could. Also, Steel Beasts didn't crash. There was a loss of frame rate, but it kept chugging.

Technically, the Theme Editor is part of the Map Editor, but arguably applying different themes is more a thing of the Mission Editor:

You could set up a CodeMeter license server on different platforms (including Linux and MacOS), but not Steel Beasts itself. We don't hate Macs or Linux, we just don't have the resources to support more than multiple Windows platforms.

The way I understand it: 1. Pop smoke 2. Reverse at maximum speed 3. Fire all weapons, particularly machineguns, in the direction of the launching platform/unit