Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/27/2021 in all areas

  1. Posting a consolidated list of all of my uploaded scenarios. Will continue to update as I upload new content. Operation Talon Strike: A five-mission single player operation (LEO2A4, Pizzaro). Operation Golden Eagle: A small SP/COOP scenario with British forces fighting in desert terrain. (Shotkal) Clearing Kandahar: A company from a US Stryker Brigade clears the Taliban from Kandahar. (Piranha V, Centauro) Clearing Kandahar: CANFOR: A Canadian forces adaption of the same mission (LAV III, Leo1A5) Operation Cold Call: A Heavy US Company/Team attacks to seize an enemy airfield in a European setting (M1A2, M2 ODS) Operation Dragon Hunter: A Belgian mixed combat team fights African rebels being supported by foreign combat advisors (LEO2A4, DF30, DF90) The Attack on OBJ Bear: A company from a US Stryker Brigade attacks elements of an enemy mechanized brigade in a European setting. (Piranha V, Centuro) Operation Charger: A 3-mission series where you take command of an armored Company/Team fighting against an enemy mechanized brigade in a European setting. (M1A2, DF30) Baghlan Blues: A Finnish combat-team clears insurgents from a village-stronghold. (T-72, BMP-2, Patria AMV) Predator Strike: A Danish Combat Team is called to seize a critical river crossing in a daring spoiling attack (LEO2A6, CV9030DK) A Time to Fight: A Swedish Combat Team leads an attack against a Mechanized Infantry Battalion to seize a river crossing (STRV-122, CV9040, AMV-360) Dragoon Blaze. A Stryker Reconnaissance Troop attacks a mechanized infantry company to support an attack on a logistics node (DF30, Centauro, M1A2) Clash At Amallah: A phased operation where the player must delicately dismantle enemy assets before launching an armored attack on an enemy held town (ASLAV, Centauro, M1A2, UAV) Opening The Gate: A German COY attacks to clear an enemy mechanized force from key terrain along Highway 65. (LEO2A4, MARDER 1A3) Guardian Angels: A British Tank Squadron attacks to seize the flanks to protect their parent brigade in the attack. (Challenger 2, Ulan) Plug the Gap: A CANFOR air reaction force holds the line until armored reinforcements arrive (LEO1A5, LAV, Infantry) Operation Pathfinder: UK forces attack to seize a road junction from an enemy MECH Company. (Challenger 2, Pizzaro) Ice Burn: A US Stryker Recon Troop takes on an enemy mechanized company in winter conditions (DF30, Centauro, M1A2) Day of Decision: An Atropian Tank Company holds the line against the Donovian onslaught!
    10 points
  2. I just wanted to say thanks to everyone in the SB community. It's been a month and a half since I bought the sim and joined. Since then I have switched my licensing check over to my Codemeter stick for permanent SB goodness. I've learned the ins and outs of both the M1A1 and M1A2 and am relatively comfortable in most versions of the Leopard. It's funny that I am now seeing features on one tank that I wish was in another model. I have played four multiplayer Sunday Kanium battles and a couple different multicrew missions with other SB enthusiasts and community members. I am truly awed at how welcoming and helpful everyone in this community has been and how easy it is for new players (that are willing to learn and take the time to get into the game and work with others) to be a part of the bigger picture. I am so impressed by the knowledge and experience all of you have and bring to the table. And I am blown away at how incredible and realistic these battles are in progress. I feel like I am really in a Steel Beast and part of something bigger. I love watching the pieces and parts come together in the overall battle plan. It really changes your perspective on what actual tankers experience in the field and gives you a hit of what they actually experience. There is no equal to that, imho. SB has become an immediate favorite and a new addiction and I don't see myself ever getting tired of it. Very few games have that kind of draw and longevity for me. So thanks! SB is awesome!! Truly, there is nothing like it.
    8 points
  3. Submitting it to the downloads section just now.
    8 points
  4. So I've been working on this map for…I can hardly remember now, about 2 years on and off. It's not complete, might never be. However, I’m going to push this out there shortly as is. This was an attempt at a North Taiwan map, way too ambitious, naturally, as I wanted to get the feel right. It's a very complex close terrain, difficult for large maneuver units. This was made with PLA invasions in mind. This is why I wanted the northwest coastal region, just north of Taipei. These are possible landing beaches closest to Taipei, including the Taipei Port and Tamsui Estuary. I'm using the Granada height map for the high-ground around Taipei as I don’t have any height map info for Taiwan. The rest of the high-ground and coast west was built using the editor. Everything else was guided by Google Earth. As such it's an approximation of North Taiwan. The distances are roughly correct between major features. Currently, these include the Port of Taipei and Bali, Taoyuan International airport, Zhuwei Fishing Harbor, the northern sections of Luzhu District, Dayuan District. Recognizable major industry, power plants, fuel storage, Golf courses, rivers, etc, and of cause all the regional roads. The road systems in Taiwan are really challenging to recreate in SB. I've done the best I can to replicate the kind of obstacles these complex road systems would represent. I've built-in from the coast as this is really about whether or not the PLA can establish a beachhead to allow for follow-on forces. If they cannot it's doubtful they will accomplish the mission. If they can it's pretty much end-game for Taiwan. So it's primarily a fight for control of the coastal areas. I will continue to add to the map over time. However, I think it's good enough to publish at this point or it never will. So a little more work to polish up and it should be done shortly.
    8 points
  5. Gee, thanks for letting us all know, I had no idea! 🙄 Seriously, you're harping that point for a good while now, and it's not like I pretend that everything is fine the way it is. So then, what's the point of repeating the same thing over and over when I'm telling you - like I did before - that we're on it. It's begun to remind me of a petulant child. Keep going like that, and people will start treating you accordingly. All that this extra drama will accomplish is to poison the atmosphere not just between you and me, but also other people here. It's not going to accelerate the development. The work on it has begun months ago, it's scheduled to go on for more months between other jobs for which we have contractual obligations, and we'll introduce 1st person RPG shooting once that it's in presentable shape. We're not delaying with deliberation, but we're also not going to rush it. I have on numerous occasions explained what our development priorities are, and why (and these priorities are not up for public debate). First come contractual obligations, because they help us to finance all other work. 2nd priority is work on the new engine, because only with a new engine can we maintain a viable product and, long-term, add new features. 3rd come high priority bugs. 4th, new feature development for version 4 (1st person RPGs are somewhere here, among other things), 5th are medium priority bugs, followed by, 6th, low priority bugs. If you can't accept that 1st person RPG shooting is somewhere in the middle of the heap, I'm sorry, but then we probably have to agree to disagree about this point because I have a responsibility for the long-term development of the whole company and its primary product. Steel Beasts was never intended as a 1st person shooter. We are adding more and more infantry-related features - 1st person ATGMs, MGs, 40mm AGL, all the work on pathfinding, 3D characters, animation system - but the lowest command level of Steel Beasts is the team leader, and even that was possible only with some contortions in the code. See, you're so far left on the Dunning Kruger scale, you don't even have the slightest idea how wrong it is to apply military leadership phrases to a software project that has legacy code of 25 years and which is intended to be kept working for at least another two decades. I'm well aware that in combat command paralysis can occur as a result of too much analysis. But software development is not combat. It's pretty much the opposite of it. You can't brute force a solution by throwing wave after wave of programmers at a problem. Typically, assigning more programmers to a task actually slows down progress. You can make certain hacks to accelerate a development, but hacks are effectively drawing a credit. If the project goes on for long enough, you have to pay back, typically with interest, every corner that you decided to cut years ago. Insufficient analysis will result in paralysis later because you get entangled in co-dependencies that result in unexpected side effects that you then need to fix, and then you might need a fix for the fix, and very quickly you're down a recursive rabbit hole where you might not even have a remotely adequate estimate of how deep it might be. I have said everything there is to say on my end as far as this matter is concerned. I hope you can accept it. The whole picture is a bit bigger than the field of view of an RPG sight.
    8 points
  6. Unless this has been implemented whilst I was away, I would like artillery fire to leave some trace on the ground where it impacts that stays there for the rest of the game. This would better allow fire correction as well as help with immersion.
    7 points
  7. Three years later and I'm nowhere near releasing this project. 2022 - I've hand-placed every object on this map. I've also done a TON of height management work (thanks to the latest tools) - things like creating actual streams with height depictions and ditches. And hand placement of Custom Line Objects to add the finer details of foliage and trees.
    7 points
  8. This video would be more interesting if it was called "If you don't use combined arms tactics then your tanks will die" No single vehicle is invulnerable but tanks will never go away and the need for armored vehicles that can deliver speed, protection, and firepower will always be in high demand. Also - Recon is a thing.
    6 points
  9. Hi all This thread is for release updates and feedback on my scenarios Individual files here: https://www.steelbeasts.com/profile/1165-ben/content/?type=downloads_file All scenarios bundle download:
    6 points
  10. Request: Artillery - more detailed status information! For example: Waiting For Approval (No tubes in range) Waiting For Approval (No smoke ammo remaining) Waiting For Approval (off map battery repositioning -03:56) This could reduce a lot of frustration! Also be good for troubleshooting when mortars refuse to fire etc.
    6 points
  11. And an option to turn it off.
    6 points
  12. time for some delayed action... enjoy... hope its oki.. danish leopard section doing delayed action against the polish invaders thats, coming from the south of blåvand across kallesmærsk heath...
    6 points
  13. The main holiday is coming soon. I have prepared a short video, I hope it will cheer you up :)
    6 points
  14. Hi Gladiator, As Gibsonm pointed out, the map is being worked on. It's actually a massive update that includes adding roads and buildings to Hannover Mitte and the surrounding areas. I'm trying to make it as close to realistic as possible within the constraints of the limited building models but it will look a lot more like the actual cities. I've also been connecting roads, adding some cities to the Northwest and East, fixing railroads, moving buildings off of roads, fixing bridges, cleaning up strange artifacts, and so on. I'm trying to get it done by the end of this month or middle of June at the latest, but it's been a huge amount of work. I've been spending about 4 hours a day of and on working on it since the beginning of December. It's just a lot of picky tedious work so hang in there as it is coming. By the way, there will still be some areas of the map that will be incomplete. There are just way too many actual map object and areas in real life and it would take a lifetime to fill all that in. I'm focusing on the most important populated areas and some of the smaller towns. The map can always be added to in the future but it will be a much better starting point. The reason the map is so goofed up currently is that it's been converted many times and some of the original objects were substituted in those conversions. So I've had to splice roads in a lot of cases and then use the bridge tool to make the proper one. There are many rivers so it's time consuming. I'm about 80% to 90% done I think. Here are some shots of the work in progress. (notes on the map are for my reference only)
    5 points
  15. Trying to create maps with a more detailed and textured feel. Playing around, there is lots that can be done with the map editor that gives a very earthy gritty feel to the maps. The feeling of immersion jumps by an order of magnitude.
    5 points
  16. Suggestion / consideration for future Allow players to modify map/BMS -callsign in multiplayer session. So that for example. Player who lost A/11 vehicle.. but got reserve vehicle C/13 could be seen for example A/11- (C/13) Or that latter part would be only visible when clicking unit. or something. On a MP session when there has been casualties or damages and reserves are pulled into action / units have changed owner I have often witnessed a horrible mess recarding callsigns where players of not just 1 but many units have troubles to keep up what is going on, and what unit is doing what. Basically.. what I am seeing is that Keeping cohesion becomes very difficult towards end and there is lot of struggle to stay up to date what is happening. I believe that modern BMS systems probably allow changing callsign (it would make sense) if not, I think it would ge good to consider to allow that difference to PE version. To make a better multiplayer experience.
    5 points
  17. It has already been submitted to the downloads section.
    5 points
  18. It is now available in the downloads section:
    5 points
  19. Probably holding them back until their staging areas are properly set up, possibly waiting for armored counterattacks rather than pissing them away in urban combat for which they seem even less suited, given that the crew completely operates under armor all the time. But who knows what's going on in their heads. Most people who try to substitute their lack of knowledge with erroneous predictions fare worse than admitting to themselves that they have no clue.
    5 points
  20. I'm not going to measure courage from behind keyboards. It's not about whether we dare to speak out against the Russian president, or to signal our virtue by expressing our desire that the Ukraininan people live in freedom from oppression, and peace. That the "no politics" rule is a somewhat fuzzy boundary is undisputed. What appears neutral to one viewer supports the evil narrative to another. Like I wrote, we will tolerate videos with a high report-to-opinion noise ratio, although it also has to be said that currently the internet is also flooded with footage that is years old and definitively not showing what's happening, as a part of the professional information warfare effort. SteelBeasts.com cannot be some military intelligence center that tracks the campaign in real time, we simply don't have the capacity to moderate such flow. Therefore expect that threads will be locked if moderators get the impression that a thread has become political. We have set up rules for this forum which also apply to Ground Zero. Follow these rules and we'll get along just fine. Explore the far edges of those rules at your own peril, and don't cry Foul if you discover that a very similar post minutes ago wasn't punished while yours just was. This is a moderated forum, and we will moderate to the best of our ability. But a hands-off approach on our part requires responsible posting from the users.
    5 points
  21. Another one! Wish: a CH-47 "Supply" variant to provide a Western version of the Mi-8 "Supply." Can function exactly the same as the base model, just with a supply radius.
    5 points
  22. Wish: Playable Rifle Infantry (I haven't asked all year!)
    5 points
  23. Another thing for "the List:" The ability to have multiple overlays that can be turned on or off during the planning phase of any operation. The ability to have a GTAO (or MCOO depending on who makes it), an enemy SITTEMP, and operational graphics split by warfighting function (Maneuver, Fires, Sustainment, etc.) and the ability to hide or display each of them at any point would be a welcome addition.
    5 points
  24. It came with a forum update. Trying to wrap my head around it now, but your "rank" goes up based on activity - thanking users for helpful posts, using the icon at the bottom right of every post, reviewing downloads, etc.
    5 points
  25. I strongly disagree with this point. I read and understand enough russian to follow the russian news and their social media. And, with many of them, their deed and the underlying mindset of the russian troops...I have NOTHING in common. That would be like feeling something in common with the "Einsatzgruppen-Ost" in 1942...nihil
    4 points
  26. 4 points
  27. Been a loader long enough on a Leopard 2 to appreciate the benefits of this crew position. But pretty much all of what you describe above is what a desktop computer game experience can not convey. Given that the "frantic arrow key tapping" is something that already polarizes the current Steel Beasts players, I cannot imagine that attempts to replicate the physical stress and satisfaction of gun loading is something that will be universally appreciated. I sometimes use the following analogy to describe the limitations of a 3D environment for crew interaction. "Imagine that you have no hands, just a single prosthetic made of a sawed-off broom stick, and the only thing you can do with it is poke at things. That's what a Graphical User Interface interface is." Now apply that to a representation of the loader's place. It should be immediately obvious why we decided two decates ago that it was "not worth it". These days it may be "less not worth it" than at times when we didn't have 3D interiors at all, and then only as an experiment on two or three selected vehicles. But still, under the prevailing conditions it would still be a net negative since every hour spent on such a feature would be an hour taken away from other feature development.
    4 points
  28. Every piece of military equipment is a CAPABILITY that is linked to it's armies doctrine and its national strategy. In most cases, militaries don't buy or develop a piece of equipment for the sake of having something new and shiny. Modern Russian doctrine is still very similar to its Soviet WW2 origins of "Deep Battle", which relies on speed and mass to overwhelm it's enemies. They originally saw the T-34 as the workhorse that could best support that doctrine and continued to evolve the design. I personally don't think the T72 has a very colorful development history. It has a few modifications over the T64 that favor the terrain of western Europe but nothing fancy. I also think the T72 fits just fine for the Soviets/Russian doctrine. I've also never understood the "T72 versus M1/Leo" argument. Or any argument on individual equipment. There is so much more that dictates a battle before two tanks start shooting at each other from a few hundred meters, and there have been enough wars won or lost despite tactical outcomes.
    4 points
  29. The reason I'm using this is because we dont have playable T64 or T80 variants in SB. So call it a proxy. And eventually Ukraine might get their hands on a few abandonded T72Bs....
    4 points
  30. No. The real threat are fully autonomous tank-hunting kill bots, but they will be hunting any kind of military vehicle and the heavier protected ones will still have better chances of survival, require heavier drones - which will make it more difficult to scale attacks into large swarms. All ATGMs share the characteristic that you have high precision combined with a high effect, but at the same time a relatively low volume of fire (launchers and missiles cannot be procured and distributed in huge numbers (because the better the missile, the heavier and the more expensive it is)), and more importantly, a very limited time during which it must be brought on target. Loitering munitions on the other hand have ample time to find a target and choose the moment of attack. Anyway, historically we already had a moment when it was believed that "ammunition had won". It didn't stop us from fielding new tanks. Instead, we got the Leopard 1. High mobility (at the time), excellent firepower (at the time), enough passive armor to handle the lesser threats (IFVs, mostly), and a doctrine that emphasized a rapid change of firing positions to maintain the moment of tactical surprise. Would it have worked? We will never know, but at least the Leopard 1 user nations believed that it could be done, and nobody had a better idea what to do. The MBT is, abstractly speaking, the embodiment of "mobile, protected precision fire". That is the unique combination that it brings to the combined arms mix. There will always be a need for this, even if the implementation and ther relative emphasis of its three components may change. Since tanks have appeared on the battlefield pundits have predicted that they will soon be made obsolete or that they were obsolete already. And here we are, and still have no idea with what to replace it, except a newer, better MBT.
    4 points
  31. 4 points
  32. The artillery system is scheduled for major changes. They won't make it into version 4.3 - too much needs to be changed to make that a "safe" feature addition at this point - but for whatever it's worth, we're working on it. It touches internal messages and processes in the code, the user interface, network messages ... in short, it's pretty "hairy code" with connections going to many places, all of which need to be redesigned. But, in the end we'll have artillery that's going to work well even in mountaineous terrain, when firing from uneven ground, possibly with ordered high/low trajectories, and all from a standardized user interface with dialogs closer to real life call for fire procedures (that can then be tailored to the specific national demands of the different customers that we have).
    4 points
  33. 4 points
  34. Getting my butt kicked in Gershausen today! Great scenario...
    4 points
  35. Uh well, I'd be happy with an option to shot handweapons (esp. AT-handweapons)...and some more fortification types for infantry. Things cool to have and making the sim more "combined-arms'y". Whenever it is possible to techically do~ and priorisation allows it ...
    4 points
  36. I created a map from the Steelbeasts map and had it printed at UPS store, then wrote rules to facilitate a MAPEX/Kreiegsspiel. I then made counters of various types and put them on magnets (using other magnets as markers. The counters maps and charts all hang n a magnetic board. I then assigned one player to be the OPFOR division commander (4th Motorisierte Schutzen Division and the other four to command positions in a squadron of the 11th ACR. This resulted in one DCS A10 Mission Prior to our get together. (which attrited one battalion from the 4th) and another during the weeklong get together which attrited most of another (see a snippet below): As we gamed out things on the mapboard if we saw an interesting situation that woudl be ported to Steelbeasts or Arma.. I had developed a base Mission in SB so it was easy to quickly gen up missions. We conducted Train up mission prior to get together as most of the guys only play SB once a year for a few months. We use our Discord channel for planning and AARs (Separate channels (private) for OPFOR and Blufor plus one general channel. At the beginning of our con I held one training mission in breaching ops (about two companies) using Opfor units so the player could get familiarization in OPFOR unit capabilities plus how to conduct engineering and breaching operations. The OPFOR commander secretly planned to use this mission as the results of one battle. We held about four mapex sessions and two further SB Battles (typically 7 players but am getting ready to expand to 9) at our get together. Subsequently with everyone home, we held the battle posted above, and have another big one which will cover a regiment trying to force its way through the constrictive terrain between Hunfeld and Fulda that is occurring simultaneously to the battle above. In addition we play lots of Arma. In one situation early in the campaign a German territorial mounted Milan platoon had to evade an huge enemy force and was subsequently bypassed. We thought to ourselves "hey I wonder how those guys would ever make it back to friendly lines with a massive assault underway against Fulda.?" So a built this mission in Arma using the Global Mobilization DLC (Germany) and late one night, we conducted a four hour mission using two Milan and two gun jeeps. (I haven't posted that vid yet) I GM'd this mission using the Excellent Zeus tools to keep things goin. We had 12 players participating and we had great fun. The OPFOR player has a Airmobile company in his arsenals so I anticipate some sort of Bridge seizure mission played out in Arma in our near future. DCS is releasing the Ah-64 Longbow (complete with multicrew) in early December and I anticipate that we will be getting trained up on this and using it in fights subsequent to Fulda. In the OPFOR discord channel there is a little bit of roleplay going on. Many Nato vs Warsaw pact wargames have some sort of rule in there about a possible Warsaw Pact revolt. IN this alternate Campaign scenario, the 8th GTA has used the 4 MRD as the lead unit to bear the brut of the initial assault, one could spin it that the Russians get the double benefit of using an excellent unit to make the first crack in the lines while also keeping busy anyone who could cause dissent or trouble. So I have two of the three OPFOR players in the channel secretly working to convince the 4MRD command of this plot by the Russians to conveniently destroy his beloved division. Maybe it will lead to a revolt in which case I can add the remnants of the 4th MRD to the remnants of the 11th ACR for post seizure of Fulda. We'll see. Anyway, we are having great fun, and everyone can sense they are involved in a singular gaming experience. I am also growing new SB Players out of this expanding from our three SB buddies to seven and getting ready to go to nine (including my wife.) Steelbeasts takes a little more learning than say an FPS so growing new players takes a little longer.
    4 points
  37. The Icing on the cake would be the VC's GPMG mounted and usable
    4 points
  38. I had to look because I know you know better. Well played.
    4 points
  39. 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
  40. also world of tanks and war thunder has nothing to do with tanks... all it is, is arcade..
    4 points
×
×
  • Create New...