Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/28/2021 in all areas

  1. Hi all I have begun the task of fixing/revamping and upgrading all my scenarios. I have learnt a lot and improved my scenario making over the years, so I wanted to go back and bring everything up to a similar standard. It will take a few weeks to get them all done and released. Please give feedback in this thread, as specific as you can, for bugs that you notice or ideas for improvements. Anyway, here they are so far: https://www.steelbeasts.com/profile/1165-ben/content/?type=downloads_file
    5 points
  2. I had to look because I know you know better. Well played.
    4 points
  3. Incremental time starts counting when a unit arrives at a waypoint, so if you have a route leading away from a waypoint with a embark if condition set to incremental time > 5 min they'll hold there for 5 minutes before moving on.
    4 points
  4. I know I'm a bit late to the conversation, but why sell scenarios? Why not include quality scenarios or operations from the community in the base install of Steel Beasts instead? One of the biggest questions from newbies is "what are the best scenarios?" Why not just include "the best scenarios" in the main game so they don't have to hunt for them?
    4 points
  5. For the better part of twenty years, SB has not let me down as is the case with so many other games. Perhaps the biggest praise I will give is that SB has not produced a barebones product that relies on the fans to make mods and buy DLCs to make the game enjoyable. Arma 3 is a classic, textbook example of this. Can't play that game as a standalone without grinding your teeth at it. Example: In Arma 2, lots of personal accessible options such as healing yourself were available. They left out a ton of goodies in Arma 3, you can't play that game well without having to Steam download a minimum of about twenty-five mods or so. Quite certain many of you feel the same way. Other games gives you the basics, but you have to buy DLCs to make it fun. So, thanks to all of you whom have made SB possible. Without it, I'd be stuck playing Tetris.
    4 points
  6. Sounds amazing, though I'll miss being recognized as a "Junior Member" for the past nine years.
    4 points
  7. OK, yes, that didn't take long. It seems that some time ago the model got updated and this caused a misapplication of armor values on the inner hull front. I looked at the other Leo 2s, and it seems to be confined to the 2A4. Good catch, it should be fixed in the next patch/update. 👍
    3 points
  8. Since most of these questions seem to be focused on what a new player controls, perhaps a method to further classify new 4.1 scenarios in the download section is to organize them by the size of the element that the player is in direct control over. Something like: Platoon Company Battalion Brigade This can be an optional classification by the scenario author to help further sub-divide them in a manner that is easy to find aside from the description. Some cases in point: Seize Objective Bear (4.265) is a company-sized mission. I know this due to the description. It is also in the very first line so I don't even have to read the full description; I can easily see while scrolling through the full list of scenarios. US ARMY COMBINED ARMS is a lot more vague, telling me that I have a "small force of US forces." I'm assuming that is a company-sized element, but unless I download the scenario I have no idea based on the description. I have to click on the scenario in question to read the blurb about a "small force of US forces." Clearing Kandahar is a Platoon-sized mission, but I have to read up to Paragraph III of the OPORD to know this. Not picking on any of the authors, but this shows how it can be harder and more time consuming to find the scale of player control in a scenario just by reading the description... assuming that it actually tells you. Sub-dividing by scale would be a fantastic feature to help newer players (and make it quicker to sort through; even experienced players want something simple.)
    3 points
  9. I appreciate the comments and suggestions. Ill have to try the scenarios mentioned. While I agree as one person mentioned that its rewarding to manage large armies.....I play several varieties of wargames to do just that... but when I want to drive a tank, I dont want to spend the whole time herding cats to get everyone else in their proper position. This doesn't to my mind preclude large scenarios. It would provide great replayability to have a huge battle and be relegated to one small task, and in the next replay try a different unit on another side of the battlefield. Anyhow just my 2 cents. Thanks for input
    3 points
  10. The kind of payment that is mutually agreeable. For eSim Games, agreeable is if the scenario is your work and yours alone, and no royalties. While royalties may seem fair at first glance, it's the practical issues with implementing them that kills the concept. They are a royal pain to set up, to monitor, and to enforce (requires that you hire an accountant to comb through the books, and if he finds that we're honest, you'd pay him for the audit). That makes it totally unattractive to handle it that way. The payment itself, under no circumstances would we pay a fixed hourly rate above minimum wage and let you start and stop your clock to measure how long it took you to create something. That's not to say that you might still want to keep track of how much time it cost you, but since we can't supervise your work habits and have no way of judging how productive you are, anything based on hourly rates is highly unlikely to be successful as a basis for negotiation. Besides, this isn't supposed to be your new job anyway but a tangible acknowledgement of your effort. So, "a few hundred bucks" is probably a realistic expectation. How much depends on the quality of the scenario which is of course a highly subjective thing. This is the curse of monetizing creative work. There's no objective standard, and there's always going to be the clash of how much love you put into the work, and the merchant's low expectation how much money he could ever make from such an immaterial good. A purely transactional attitude towards this is unlikely to result in happiness on either side.
    3 points
  11. I'm a noob again, after all that work! Damn it Sean!!!
    3 points
  12. Hi all I recently find that the upper hull armor of Leopard2A4 in the sim is pretty vulnerable against T55AMs and early T72Ms. I did some search in the release notes and find nothing special. So I did some tests. During the test,the upper hull of leopard2a4 can be easily penetrated by BM-15(P0 350mm RHA) Shooting BM-12(P0 280mm RHA) at the same range,the upper hull armor together with that small track plate can stop the round sometimes, but it will get penetrated eventually if you keep shooting upper hull in the different places. I have only tested the KE rounds.It seems that the protection level of leo2a4's upper hull armor against KE rounds is around 250~280mm in the sim,much lesser than what SBwiki said(590mm KE) ,but very similar to what in WT(290mm KE IIRC?) I also tried the turret armor of A4 and the upper hull armor of Leopard2A5. They all work fine and give you the protection level close to what SBwiki said(700mm vs KE for most part of A4 turret,and 500+mm vs KE for A5 upper hull armor) Does anyone have any info on this? I will be very appreciated. thanks. Some screenshots:
    2 points
  13. Wish: a time condition associated with the UNDER DIRECT / INDIRECT FIRE / etc Looking for a more effective way to model surrender IF, and would like to model infantry surrendering when they've been under fire for a certain amount of time. @ben
    2 points
  14. Version 3.1.0

    337 downloads

    I made a lot of changes in this version to fix a lot of problems and improve the game play significantly. Please read the text file included in the zip file. These are the completely reworked missions for my M1ABT Campaign. I had several requests to get these released for 4.0 and sorry it took so long. I'm pretty picky when designing missions and don't want to release anything partly finished. You will very likely find some minor problems or have some suggestions. I'm perfectly fine with you opening the missions in the editor and picking them over to see what I did. Please do not edit them and re-release them though. Submit any suggestions you have directly to me here. You will need the maps that I updated specifically for 4.0 and they include the M1 bases. Please keep in mind that this is a fictitious campaign based on the original Dynamics console game, so the added elements like bases and transmission towers had to be added to the maps to make them complete. I intend to string them together in a campaign file with sounds and other enhancements later this summer but I need them out there so you guys can try them out and give me your input. Once they are in the campaign format, the missions will be locked to prevent any further editing. In 1988, a software company called Dynamix developed a tank combat simulator game for DOS based computers called "M-1 Battle Tank" which was published by Electronic Arts. In 1991, EA teamed up with Sega of America to release it for the Sega Genesis console naming it "M-1 Abrams Battle Tank". Although very limited in scope it provided simulator enthusiasts a console based option and was truly a 3D simulator, meaning you could move or get engaged from any direction. The scenarios I’ve created for SteelBeasts mimic the scenarios from the console game. There are 8 missions in total, numbered and titled but feel free to play them out of order except for #1, "The Moselle Defense" as this mission sets up the story line. When you played the original console game in "Campaign" mode it randomized them somewhat. I hope you enjoy my versions of European defensive and offensive operations based on this classic console game! Please feel free to contact me if you have any suggestions about changing or updating the missions. On some of the missions the score shows wrong even though the victory conditions do work correctly so don't let that throw you off. Please let me know if you see any other bugs and if you want to open it up in the editor and make suggestions for the ending score please private message me with suggestions or a replacement file. Thanks! Striker
    2 points
  15. For version 5, we're planning to add integrated filter tools to help you search for certain categories of scenarios much quicker. Of course, automated scenario scanning can do only so much, if the forces you control gradually expand with events, or if they depend on random variables.
    2 points
  16. Some Ideas to make scenarios easier to find/choose Reorganise all the built in scenarios, and add more. A new GUI within SB to allow choosing scenarios with graphics (screenshots etc) and better categorisation.
    2 points
  17. We have these wonderful badges. Can we create a line for people who rate scenarios and provide feedback?
    2 points
  18. Platoon Recon as a vanilla scenario is great. I would start there and modify the starting units to be what you want to use. Here is how I set it up if you aren't sure how.
    2 points
  19. Glad to hear it solus Theres another T72/BMP mission on the way, African not Russian. I will do another Russian one in the future 👍
    2 points
  20. I promised another campaign when Operation Talon Strike made it to 500 downloads. It's in the 400s now, so I wanted to keep to my word. I'm working on two campaigns: 1. Operation Olympus - A series of 5 small-scale Company missions, where the player controls a single platoon but can take control over the entire company. During this campaign you will take control over several different platoon types, fighting through a fictional scenario where bad guys invaded a contested island in the Mediterranean. This campaign focuses on a peer-to-peer fight with a very conventional focus for both sides - tanks, IFVs, helicopters, and artillery. Lots of slugfests that you will fight through. 2. Operation Oryx - This is a cooperative effort with me and @ben. It is another 5-mission campaign focused on the platoon-level. This time, you command an element within a mixed French task force that was called forward to assist an African partner nation quell a violent militia who has seized control of a region. The focus for this campaign is much less conventional; you will find yourself in a more asymmetric fight between a conventional French task force and a militant combat group with primitive equipment. Ben and I are working to find a good balance between the forces. Where one might think the militants are the underdogs, it is actually the French forces who don't have the same equivalent in firepower and must use finesse and smarts to overcome a powerful enemy. Should be a fun time!
    2 points
  21. Sadly it seems the Site is no longer available. It redirects to hugedomains.com which seems to be a domainseller (also not available on my side, maybe blocked). And corresponding to his profile, @DarkFib3r was last time online in this forum in 2018 Otherwise I would offer help with hosting.
    2 points
  22. Link to the CR2 schematics that were posted. Not sure if this is allowed here..?
    2 points
  23. You can do it from TARGET GUI, add new configuration, configure axis mapping and from there you can adjust the sensitivity of each axis individually.
    2 points
  24. Hell yeah. Looking forward to getting my ass kicked again in all of your scenarios.
    2 points
  25. Without some sort of DRM being implemented to prevent file sharing of monetised content, this conversation seems a bit pointless, as you would still be relying on an 'honour' system. A scenario/content creator that wants to monetise their stuff can do so now by asking people for payment via Patreon or similar. I dont think theres anywhere near enough demand for this to be viable as a money maker for anyone. Also, there is the question of fragmenting the (already small) communities by enforcing payment for some map or scenario that all members must own (and pay for) to participate in an event.
    2 points
  26. I made an entire series focused on getting started in Steel Beasts. This should help.
    2 points
  27. I first noticed this on 4.259 when doing gunnery ranges, that sometimes you get double hit on target. - Notice time stamp. Exath same time stamp, but on second hit "destroed" is no longer red as target was already destroed - Also notice how the tracer is slightly different location on each. I missed once and still got 11 hits? Look at time 1:47 = happens twice This isn't freak accident. This happens constantly. Me and my friend @Commissar_Martin have been on lookout for these (well he has been while I have been trying to find the cause) We have seen these to happen on all kind of missions not only tanks mission and to others as well not just to me. These can be hard to spot on regular missions, but seem to be most easy to spot and reproduce on gunnery range. When I do gunnery range... this happens once almost every other gunnery range, sometimes twice, hence my gunnery rating is now 112.. even when I missed once <.< Things I have noticed These only seem to happen with Sabo rounds Target type definitely doesn't matter Shooting vehicle or ammunition doesn't seem to cause either since this has happened on all leopards, Challenger2, Centauro, t72s, M1A2 (sep), DF90... possible on some IFVs but I cannot remember such case at this point and am trying to confirm that by testing This is most easy to reprocuce atleast for me, by playing Challenger 2 tank range (for some reason seems to happen more often?) Happens pretty often with leopard 2s as well. Go to tank range. Hit "H" at the start to be able to shoot only sabo rounds. After range check for how many targets you have hit. That is usually quite telling. Also check AAR by going event after event and look for one where event doesn't seem to change after clicking "next" one after another. I am not sure if this is much of a problem or not. However this does offer opportunity for abnormally high gunnery range scores. 😇 This happens to me reliably on both versions, current and previous. This also happened to my friends on games I hosted. And I believe we spotted this happening rare few times on Kanium games when we played on those but on that I may remember wrong as atleast once there was wrong alarm because of something? (At the time we were at lookout for false kill bug I reported long time ago)
    2 points
  28. Having studied some reports myself one by Steven Zaloga, that Syrian T-72s were able to withstand 105 hits in the early stages of the conflict in Lebanon And gave the Israelis a wake up call. To be honest i am starting to Question IDF kill claims.
    2 points
  29. Your 'Reputation' is 1... that sounds about right
    2 points
    Really enjoyable operation, fantastic for newer tankers, not too large in scope and easy to keep control over your element as you're working platoon sized elements. Really good pacing, managed to snag a Major Victory in first mission, definitely going to be using this for Leopard 2A5 practice.
    2 points
    Its great to see a first user made operation and its very well put together! Immersive and varied small missions as part of a larger force. Fun missions individually and quite replayable 👍
    2 points
  30. 1 point
  31. I'm having big problems getting infantry mortar teams to function properly in some scenarios. Every time I try and reproduce a problem I run into another problem. The problems seem to mostly effect SMOKE. I am using the 81mmLong with the 5500m range SMOKE and HE loads. At first I thought it was simply a bug that they cannot fire smoke at targets at a lower elevation than the tube, elevation above sea level I mean. The missions will count down to 0seconds and then just reamin "Active" on the menu and never clear. This interrupts following missions indefinately. In my tests however I have experienced some other issues too: - Sometimes the AI choose HE instead of SMOKE! - Some tgts will fall way short. To reproduce the issues please call smoke misions on a variety of RefPoints in my test scenario attached. 81mmLongTest1.sce
    1 point
  32. Thank you for this very detailed report. We'll investigate shortly.
    1 point
  33. that seems like an endless circle ...you could be pissed off if get pissed on
    1 point
  34. Sounds like a very reasonable approach to reduce complexity at the user interface level.
    1 point
  35. I've had difficulty achieving the effect I want because (traveling) dust levels seem to be either "on" or "off" rather than variable tied to a percentage. I see from Lumituisku's video at about the 1:10 mark that this (traveling) dustiness on/off switch seems also in effect with moisture levels. I haven't experimented extensively, and don't have the capacity (or time) to work up a vid, but I'll post screenies later if wanted. But my experience has been that (traveling) dust when applied by theme for a ground type seems to be full-on from 100 down to about 20 percent ... then completely gone below about 20 percent. This is with soil moisture level at 0 in the map settings. Is that correct or intended? Or am I missing something? What I've been trying unsuccessfully to achieve is less -- but still evident -- (traveling) dustiness for grassy areas than, say, gravel or a cultivated dry field.
    1 point
  36. And with M1A2 Odd.. I am noticing something more here on this version. On dublicate event.. it adds damage to firecontrol system. Not sure if that happened before. Trying to reproduce this on IFVs.. but so far no luck. >.< Just checked. This FCS damage thingy happened on prior to 4.265 as well.
    1 point
  37. in the iran-iraq war, iranian m60s and chieftain tanks were lost to iraqi t-72 and t-62 tanks; the results should not be too surprising given that the t-72 was designed to fight contemporaries of the m60 generation, and assuming the 105 mm ammunition the iranians had were left over from mid 1970s stocks at best from the shah era, you even see the expected results if you match them up in steel beasts without depleted uranium APFSDS rounds given to the M60s. the m60s with older ammunition have difficulty against the t-72 at any range, and given that the iraqis are also presumed to use older ammunition from the 1960s, a fight may tend to be prolonged with the t-72 likely having a better chance to win with shot placement if it comes down to trading shots frontally. historically in the war there were other factors- particular local iraqi commanders could show some capability on the battlefield, while the iraqi military in general was hamstrung from the top down because it tended to operate directly from orders given by saddam hussein and its inflexible military culture, while on the other hand, after the purges during the islamic revolution, the iranians still did pick some innovative commanders, albeit ones which were politically reliable. the end result of all of this were two sides which were balanced out because their differences in weakness and strengths nullified either side's initiatives
    1 point
  38. That would indeed be very helpful und userfriendly..... I don't like it ( 😉 )
    1 point
  39. my own suggestion is to create the kinds of scenario you want to play, if you think it's upload worthy to withstand playtests from the public, go ahead and do it, but it is basically a brute fact that feedback is going to be spare. feedback of the kind that explain why there are bugs in the scenario- broken triggers, missing or errant behaviors and this sort of thing are the most important; the other kind that are generally philosophically at odds with the scope or the composition of the scenario, well, i rate that much lower. i personally am bored with the massive armor mashups in europe scenarios, even if someone set one up with the correct TOE, and behaves like a doctinally correct script, still might be the most boring scenario on earth for precisely that reason once you see it over and over. people's interests in a certain theatre or conflict may wane and come back again- my own interest changes back and forth between conventional, unconventional or modern or cold war era, you just will not appease everyone for kudos, i wouldn't necessarily try to do that anyway. do you want to do, and the audience which agrees with you will naturally find its way to what you are doing- just like steel beasts itself versus the world of tank audience or arma 3 or combat mission or what have you
    1 point
  • Newsletter

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