Werewolf

I am aware of that. Except when I select the unit options optional weapon doesn't seem to be one of the options. I'll look again - maybe I've still got my head up where the sun don't shine. EDIT to ADD: I think I'll just rent an apartment up there. Found optional weapons (all the way at the bottom of the list) - that worked.

They were LEO 1A5's. Didn't know about the perceived armor thing. Makes sense - why waste a missile if it isn't even gonna scratch the paint. That said: I found the HTML logs for the scenarios (that's a cool feature I had no idea about). Turns out it was me with his head up his rear. Teams all had Dragon 2's assigned with max range of 1500m. Tanks stopped at 1838m so out of range. For some reason I assumed the missile teams for blue had TOW's (they used to - probably a long time ago - not now it seems). What's worse I can't seem to find any man packed TOW's - that system existed when I was in the US Army - 71 to 74 - is it gone now?) Anyway I'm going to reload the test scenario up and see if I can find a man pack ATM with a bit more punch than a dragon and a lot more range. Don't really want to use a vehicle in this setup as I'm basing the battle on one in the Larry Bond book Cauldron.

See subject. WTF. I set up both dragon and TOW missile teams on a hill overlooking a valley up which were coming tanks. Just 4 tanks - in line. Each Inf missile team was set to defend and the search area arc dot was an open circle and stayed open all the way back to each of the missile teams. The tanks passed right thru the open dots. NADA. Those guys just sat there with their thumbs up where the sun don't shine and let them selves be blown away with tank HE and Coax fire. I could take control and fire but as soon as I went to map they lost their brains - almost like they went to sleep. I thought maybe my taking control turned 'em off so I reloaded the test scenario and stayed on map. Set fire lines to show but still nada. No fire. Mucho frustration ensued. No matter what I tinkered with the dang missile teams wouldn't fire. I had to have set something up wrong. I'm thinking at 1800m maybe the tanks were out of range of the super dragon team had but they definitely weren't out of range of the TOW's. Then when all but one squad armed with just AT-4 RPG's was all of the grunts left I backed 'em off so the tanks couldn't see them. Since I was in test mode I assumed command of the RED force and plotted the tanks right into the woods which they happily plowed right into (stupid fuckers thought I). Then I plotted the RPG totin' grunts on an assault path straight to the tanks and not a single RPG was fired - not one - and those stupid grunts got exactly what they deserved while the tankers <snarky comment about SB Inf AI follows> laughed, patted each other on the backs and said, "lucky for us we're in the Steel Beasts parallel universe or we'd be baked meat in these steel coffins by now"). What the heck does one have to do to get grunts to engage tanks with their AT weapons? What? I must be missing something or doing somethin' wrong but I'll be darned if I know what. Ideas? Anyone??

Thanks, Guys. I'll give those ideas a try.

I'd like to be able to setup a scenario where the player is a company commander - of a tank company. His company needs to be human not PC controlled so the player can give the platoons orders. But here's the kicker: I don't want the player to be able to flit about from vehicle to vehicle. I want him to stay in the Commander's tank and stay in the commanders position and not hop into the gunner or driver's position. I can make it so that only the commander's slot is available but that doesn't prevent the player from hopping about from vehicle to vehicle as he wishes. I'm not having a lot of luck setting this up. Hoping one of you guys with a lot more experience with scenario design than I know whether or not this is even possible and if it is would describe the process. Thanks....

I always thought the Merkava looked pretty cool... But as a tanker that dates back to '71 to '74 there's just something about the space age look of the modern tanks that just doesn't seem right. Yes it does look cool and yes they are much more survivable based on their space age shapes. But... The M-48, M60-A1, T-55, T-62 - now those look likes tanks should. Then again for some wierd reason I always thought the Swedish S Tank was fairly aesthetic.

And that's pretty much what I do. With some experimentation I've found that set back about 50 yards or so in column, close gives the minimum amount of time for each vehicle to locate it's pit and move there directly by just turning right or left and heading in. If you start out with the unit in line then the individual tanks tend to back up, and for what ever reason the one's on the right think the pits on the left are theirs and vice versa and it turns into a cluster fuck until everything is sorted out. The 1st way takes about 20 seconds or so the 2nd way can take over a minute to get every one in position. Sure would be nice if there was an editor command or tool that would set this up with units in place though.

Snake hit the nail on the head...

Or... I won't - try that that is.

Now that's thinking outside the box! I'll give that a shot.

I'm finding it impossible to get a tank platoon to start a scenario already in tank emplacements. Getting them to move into the emplacement is easy but it usually takes at least 20 seconds. Might not seem like a lot but while they're moving they're vulnerable which means there are limits on positioning of the enemy units which one may not want depending on the scenario situation. So is it possible to have a tank platoon start the game with each individual tank already in its emplacement and if so how? (no... I'm not going to divide the units up and place individual tanks - defeats the whole purpose and is definitely a no go for AI units).

That all makes sense. Thanks, Mirzayev.

Got tired of telling Win7 that NO codemeter runtime server didn't have permission to make changes to my computer. SB Pro PE 4.010 still ran just fine so I set it to not load at all using the config.msi panel. That made me wonder just what the heck good is it? What does it do? And is there a situation where I'll need to run it manually sometime?

Is there an option to help the terrorists holding the CNN <gag> news crew hostage?

Aren't they that effective in real life? note: serious question - not sarcasm

Uhhhh... What? Conclusions are regularly reached without ALL the info. In fact that is the norm in the real world whether its done by scientists, engineers, statisticians (I fall into that group), theologians, politicians... You name it and conclusions based on "not all the info", are drawn all the time. Imagine how the world would be if action was taken on only conclusions reached with all the info. Sure as heck wouldn't need prisons as no one could ever be convicted, medical science wouldn't even exist (almost everything those guys do is based on just educated guesses backed up by incomplete information), heck most science wouldn't exist. We'd still be living in the stone age. In fact having all the info in most situations involving any issue with multiple variables is essentially impossible. Been reading long? I didn't say no other conclusions could be drawn. Note the word other. I was asking for what OTHER conclusions could be drawn. There are others, certainly, though no one has stepped forward and provided any. Perhaps if you changed ALL to ENOUGH one could agree with your flawed contention. But enough of this. The problem with AI drivers not being able to keep themselves from driving into water is a known issue and has been for a very long time. Esim has acknowledged it. They haven't fixed it - yet. One hopes that someday they will (fix it) or absent that that we're just told to live with it and to move on. Personally I'll move on but I'll feel like I'm driving a Ferrari with a motor running with a cylinder misfiring.

So... Number 1 then?

If a problem has existed for 16 years then what conclusions can be drawn about the issue other than: 1. It can't be fixed - if so then just admit it. I'm OKAY with this. 2. It can be fixed but we're unwilling to fix it for business reasons. I'm OKAY with this too. 3. We know about the problem but it's been one for so long that our users have grown so accustomed to it that it really isn't a problem - I'm not OKAY with this. It's like saying that oil leak you've got is not a problem just keep adding oil when the level or pressure gets too low. There's undoubtedly a lot of excuses that can be made but they're still excuses and an excuse is no more than an "attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offense); seek to defend or justify."

I appreciate the replies guys. Expected nothing less. But I have to respond. I'm an intermediate level programmer at best (Basic and Fortran mostly with some dabbling in C) so I know just enough about it to be dangerous and do my job as a financial analyst. Neither do I know what's going on under the SB hood so what I'm about to present is little more than a guess, an educated one but still just a guess. That said this issue seems to me to be little more than a path finding issue. Path finding algorithms are taught in MIS/Programming language courses at the college level as exercises in problem solving/mathematical algorithm building - anyone majoring in programming (or what ever it is called these days) is exposed to path finding algorithms by their junior year in most cases. If/then/else, select case it seems to me it's just a case of identifying the factors necessary to guide a vehicle around or across water by identifying object collisions, defining prohibitions, exceptions, go aheads and redefining an existing path with a newly calculated path. If in the event that no solution exists or the algorithm gets stuck in a loop then a trap routine sends a radio message to the player to that effect so that the player can go and plot a new path for the unit with the benefit of human intervention. I couldn't program the solution but software engineers with a specialty in programming games are among the best programmers around - or so I am told by engineers I know qualified to judge that (and those guys design disk drives). I 'm not saying it would be easy. But geez! It's been 16 years with the same problem. And no solution. I'm gonna go out on a limb and hypothesize that the issue isn't one of can't but won't. This issue isn't a priority because esim's main customers are the military and they don't need the AI from what I understand. As a customer of very long standing if that is the case I for one would appreciate being told by esim, "We're not gonna fix it - costs exceed the return". As a financial analyst I'd understand it. It'd suck - but - yeah - I'd understand and could just move on.

I've been playing SB since 2001 - and that can't be said about a single one of the many, so many that I've lost count, of the games that have been bought and played since I started playing games on a computer way back in 1979. In other words been doing this for a long long time. Back then I was heavily involved in SB MP, scenario design and single play until 2006 or 2007 when I stopped MP and stuck with SP only. Played regularly since and updated from versions 1 to 2 to 3 and now 4 which means I've put more money into SB than any other single piece of gaming software I've ever owned. I just upgraded to 4.010. Started playing around and initial reactions were WOW! Infantry changes are fantastic, graphics are improved and on my rig at least my perception is that eSim spent some time on optimization 'cuz I'm getting better frame rates than I ever got in 3. New options in the editor that I can't wait to try out. In short - until about 10 minutes ago I was truly IMPRESSED! So... Why is all that important? Because before I go off into rant mode it may help in assuring those who will break out their flame throwers and aim 'em at me that Steel Beasts is truly a product that I both admire and love. It's also got one issue that's bothered, frustrated and downright pissed me off since version 1. ... and just what is that issue that's got me so riled up you may ask? Well... Plain and simple its that the AI vehicle drivers STILL, STILL, don't have the brains GOD gave a wooden jackass! (learned that particular phrase from a 90 year old woman back in the 80's telling me about her 92 year old husband - rarely use it - today it seemed appropriate). Even after almost 16 years the AI drivers still drive into rivers. Come ON! The only explanation I can think of for this having not been resolved by now is that this single issue must be the monster grand-daddy of all bugs. A bug so mean and nasty that if we ever ran into it on the street our only option would be to just lie down and let it eat us without a struggle. This single bug must be the most difficult to squash of any bug in any game ever created - must be - because I just can't imagine, won't even think about the alternative. So... ESIM! PLEASE FIX THIS! 16 years is long enough to wait. I'm 65 (will be in a couple of months anyway) and I'm not sure I'll be around in another 16 years. SO Please? Please fix this.

Thanks, Gibsonm. Very good info - relating both to SB and the real life changes implemented in the last 40+ years.

Aside: 12Alfa: Based on the link you supplied and the nature of contemporary warfare (lasers, thermal imaging etc) one has to wonder why any form of smoke but multi-spectral would ever be used on the battlefield. My experience is 43 years ago so I know almost nothing about multi-spectral smoke (no IR or lasers to block back then). Is it as good as the descriptions of it in the literature? Is it as opaque as the stuff we used (all we ever used was WP and besides starting fires and burning the crap out of anyone caught in it) it was about as opaque as opaque could be from a distance.

Which answers my question. WP - unlike in the ealry 70's - is no longer the only type of smoke round available.

I built a small demo scenario to test out some mech infantry assault procedures (which worked! YAY 4.010 ). Kept adding this and that and ended up adding a smoke barrage (standard not multi-spectral) to cover the unit advance up to the dismount point. Long story short - I messed up on the timing and dropped it right on top of friendly, dismounted infantry. Oh CRAP, I thought, I just dropped white phosphorous on those guys and fully expected to end up wiping out most of the platoon with friendly fire. NOT! Not one single casualty. Something's not right here; that can't be right. Or maybe I just got lucky(?). In my day, artillery, tank shell, mortar shell and even infantry hand grenade smoke was white phosphorous. Very, VERY nasty stuff. So my question is, does modern non-multi-spectral smoke still use WP as the smoke generator or is it something else? If it is WP then why isn't it killing or wounding the virtual troops of SB? If it's something else than WP then just because I'm curious - what is it? Inquiring minds want to know.

... finally upgraded to SB Pro PE vs 4 ... and then noticed that an update is scheduled for Jan 2017. Does that mean another $40 to get the update?