Jump to content

Apocalypse 31

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Apocalypse 31

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 08/06/1983

Personal Information

  • Location
    Commanders Hatch of an M1130

Recent Profile Visitors

5,045 profile views
  1. DCS 2.5 Released

    and the release of a Combined Arms Campaign
  2. DCS 2.5 Released

    My new favorite video. Reapers VU doing combined arms supported by fixed wing and rotary wing elements. Bad Ass.
  3. Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

    that's a good one... I'd like to see a way for dismounts to fight at night. Currently, in-game dismounts (LMG/HMG, specifically) are equipped with NVG but cannot aim down weapon sights. Weapon lasers would be a good way to offset the need to model fancy thermal optics.
  4. Steel Beasts and Calytrix

    Titan has been touted as the ArmA killer (or VBS, depending on which crowd you're in), which is great but there has been very little in terms of commercial release or demonstration. Either way, Outerra is beautiful and I hope this brings more revenue and exposure to eSim.
  5. Armored Brigade - Design Influenced by SB says Dev

    I would avoid it. $40 price tag not worth it. My review: https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11699-wargames/?do=findComment&comment=185927
  6. Wargames

    Dummy objectives were turned off in the battle generator.
  7. Wargames

    I went against my better judgement (to never buy another Slitherine game) and picked this up. Terrible game, and not worth $40. Another example of poorly made Slitherine products. Its impossible to read the terrain (no definition of heights) unless you switch to a weird looking isometric view that is totally unusable to command units. Unit SOPs are bogus and do not save. You have to constantly save SOPs and micromanage how units move and fight. Unit pathfinding is awful; as in, I wanted to rip my face off as I watched my pixel troops drive all over the map (not where I wanted them to go). It's not bad on large open maps, but that just limits where you can fight - on the only 4 maps available No tutorial missions, nor is there a campaign. Just a bunch of poorly defined scenarios, with fully detailed orders like "Seize the Objective" with literally no graphics anywhere (where is my objective?). The battle generator is also crappy; AI units just defend wherever they feel like, totally abstract of the defined objectives. During on of my games, the entire enemy force was defending the bottom left side of the map even though the objective was on the opposite side of the map. Never mind the AI trying to put together a cohesive attack plan! Command Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelay for everything! Want you unit to drive 2 meters down the road? That'll be a 1 minute command delay! The game uses a grid system (100mx100m, I think?) and only 1 unit can occupy the same grid at a time. Sounds like a great way to organize things, but its actually a huge pain in the ass, especially when you're working with infantry forces in close-terrain but cant gather enough mass. Terrible, terrible. I wish Slitherine would refund games.
  8. Network integration of simulations

    It's never simple when there's purple.
  9. Wargames

    I haven't played this new version, but the free to play wasn't that great, and certainly not worth $40. The biggest issue was that the enemy AI didn't use any cohesive tactics. It was just a blob rush. Watching many of the videos for this release, doesn't look like it has been improved. Also, no scenario editor, no map editor, no coop or any MP (dev has stated that the game will never have MP, either) No Steam release either. No thanks
  10. Tactical FPS

    https://youtu.be/EIYTEq563Z4 The 10x site is the GAS site and lack of thermals makes me cringe. Squad is a beautiful looking and sounding game, but I miss the destructible environments from Battlefield Bad Company 2. I miss this: https://youtu.be/qDJdE88OX-0
  11. If I told my Scout platoon leader "advance to contact" he would look at me funny. Maybe different Armies = different languages, but for us, recon is used to confirm information requirements that drive decions. We also define contact in 8 forms, to include visual, direct fire, Indirect fire, obstacle, non hostile,etc.. On the other hand, a "movement to contact" is a type of attack used when little is known about the enemy, but not really a scout or recon task. I wouldn't want to risk recon forces unless it was a recon in force, but even then I would have named and targeted areas of interest linked with specific reporting requirements. The tempo can be dictated for reconnaissance and defined by stealthy and deliberate or rapid and aggressive. Not every type of recon is sneaky-peaky.
  12. ETA on terrain patch?

    So, one plane and a map? On a serious note, I'm not touching anything from Eagle Dynamics (again). Harrier was a blast, Nevada is beautiful, but I think they are completely overwhelmed with the amount of modules they have released. Updates are much less frequent. The Harrier is only a year old and it has basically been abandoned.
  13. ETA on terrain patch?

    Destructive terrain?
  14. And an old idea that we have talked about before @Nike-Ajax: Using ArmA or DCS to conduct reconnaissance of objectives that will feed information/intelligence for a Steel Beasts game. Obviously, matching maps in the different games would be difficult, but not a stretch of the imagination. 1. Scenario Designer builds the SB scenario. 2. Scenario designer builds the ArmA/DCS scenario with similar reconnaissance objectives; for example, a zone reconnaissance to determine trafficability of route/identify obstacles OR aerial reconnaissance to determine enemy composition 3. Players complete objectives in ArmA/DCS (route recon has identified obstacles, air recon has identified location of main body, air has destroyed long range artillery) 4. SB scenario is updated with relevant information regarding the success or failure of ArmA/DCS missions; this can be done with map graphics depicting obstacles or updating the Enemy Intel of Position (known) in the SB mission editor. I've seen VU's do this, and its incredible.
  15. Its not awesome, and I'm going stop designing scenarios that way. 1. The scenario isn't long enough to develop the situation to understand terrain and enemy. 2. Player commanders don't have the training nor experience to understand the planning considerations for a tactical problem like that. Simply stating that there is an enemy forward of the Araz river just isn't enough for most players to understand.