Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by solus

  1. Well, I'll be happy to participate in the scenario design contests, if it will be announced. I don't think that it is necessary to provide any valuable prizes or any prizes at all. The status of the winner itself, especially if the mission would be included in the next version of the game, would be enough.

    By the way, where can I look at the list of the last contests winner? Didn't find it in the thread here http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=14174&page=6

  2. Well, Baryatinskiy published several dozens books on tanks, including WW2 era and modern. I could send you a pdf version, but only in Russian:)

    Can't say that he is a very interesting author, his books mainly contain long passages about equipment with the list of all devices by name etc.

    As Jartsev pointed out, one of the most valuable part of his T72 book comes from waronline.org. The article describing first combat action of T72 in Lebanon war is here http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/t72-myth/

    You can try reading it using http://translate.google.com.

  3. Кто бы сомневался:)

    By the way, I also doubt the story about ATGM ambush and the dozen destroyed syrian t72: the only reason why Baryatinskiy presents it like a true episode is that, as he writes, the story told by Israel officer "seems reliable". So it's not based on documents, but only on the story from one source. Should it be sufficient? I think, no. But in the same book he argues, that every photo of destroyed t72 in that war pictures the same tank, so to a certain extent it shows the scale of t72 losses.

  4. Well... In 1982 syrians lost about a dozen of T-72, but those tanks were mostly destroyed in ambush by israeli ATGM unit(from 409th airborne AT brigade). Pathetic stories about hordes of T-72s whacked by Merkavas or Pattons(western point of view) and hordes of Merkavas and Pattons destroyed by T-72s(russian point of view) are just urban legends(if call things in polite way).
    I see, somebody has red Baryatinskiy's book:)
  5. Hi! I have made new single player scenario called "In Motion".

    The concept of “In Motion” scenario is simple: get rid of all the tactical stuff and bring back pure simulation to the SB.

    So I tried to make a “movie-style” mission, where the player occupies the gunner position and all that he (or she, if there any ladies playing SB :) )has to do is to aim and shoot.

    You don’t have to make any tactical decisions or work with the map, just quickly find the target and destroy it.

    All the routes are pre-scripted, so you don’t drive manually. Instead, you would be taken through the battlefield, guided by and driven by AI.

    I know that not everybody has a time for long missions, so “In Motion” approximately lasts 30 min.

    In the scenario you a playing for the T-72, participating in the large scale operation, involving offensive and defensive actions.

    Scenario contains dozens of events, conditions and conditioned routes. I hope, you will find it spectacular and interesting. Please, don’t hesitate to express your opinion about the mission:)

    It can be downloaded here: http://www.steelbeasts.com/Downloads/p13_sectionid/24/p13_fileid/2216

  6. Ok, I hope that next payable or some future free patch will include new Russian units:)

    I think, nobody will argue, that, despite it will require certain work from the developers, it would add attractiveness to the game, and, as result, bring new players and money to the company and benefit the sim community.

  7. I mean that russian crowd will continue complains about inability to reliably defeat Leo-2s and M1s in this great sim.
    Well, I said "at least comparable", meaning that it should be at least not so obsolete as t-72.

    Even the pc-controlled t-80u in the game is much better than t-72m1.

    making the 3d interior would probably be 2-3 months of work.

    then making it playable would be another month of work for the programmers.

    You are right. But they can make payable patch, and it would cover their expenses. As I know, 2.640, featuring t-72, was sold well.
  8. I will admit, I have not downloaded and played the scenario. I guess your description led me to believe that a large, tank-heavy force was attacking into the teeth of a prepared defense, and capturing a town behind this defense. Whether I'm Red or Blue, I'd question the logic in such an attack. But, orders are orders, right?

    My main point is that, first of all, I tried to make an interesting scenario. I didn't want it to fit any abstract theory.

    In the second place, I think that the situation, presented in the scenario, is absolutely possible and it doesn't contradict the reality of the battle.

    "Large, tank-heavy force" is attacking the heavy fortified front of NATO defense, which undertake mobile defense measures. I don't see why it is not possible in the tactics theory of the 1980's.

    P.S. I suppose, I should make a notice in the briefing not to spread forces in the 3 different ways, because, maybe I didn't make it clear enough.

  9. - The Order is not that clear to me, you have 3 Tasks in there

    1. Advance in the Central...

    2. Go to West direction....

    3. Try to attack the East....

    It's not a tasks. It is written "you have 3 options". When you are driving and see 3 road signs, do you perceive it like you have to move in all the 3 directions one by one?
    - Attacking Troops need a bit more Arty (and Smoke Option) to get closer for an Attack

    - Change the RPG Mix to the Standart RPG 7L

    - Change to BMP, or BTR only Mech Inf Co and give them 3x3x3+1 strength

    I think, I will change that in the next version.
    Soviet-style forces would utilize their tank forces in an exploitation role' date=' not against a prepared position. An attack such as the one described would be initiated after weak point had been discovered (or created) by motorized rifle units. Tanks would be better used in a more fluid situation.[/quote']1) The practice is always more complicated than the theory. It's only in theory Red should do that, and Blue should do that. In the reality of battle everything could happen.

    2) If you read briefing carefully, you can understand that your aim is to find optimal way of solving the problem, i.e. find a weak point.

    3) Blue forces in the mission do have a mobile defense.

  10. solus...

    1)T-80B and especially T-80U both have totally different interiors, which can not be created by "rebuilding" 3d models for T-72(but sure you can use some parts).

    2) Full solution fire control systems for T-80B, T-80U and T-90 have no similarities with TPD-K1 and its newer versions.

    Year, already understood it myself, while reading manuals:)

    3) FCS for T-80B, -80U and -90 is comparable with SABCA Cobelda(used on australian Leo 1) or may be with TURMS(in some aspects)- think about consequences ;)
    Didn't get a hint. What do you mean by that?
  11. You do know that the T-80 modelled has no night vision capability at all?

    Not sure that's the best vehicle to make playable if its only good when the Sun is up or there's no smoke around.

    Yes, I know that (yet it has some restricted night vision, more sophisticated than t-72, but far more worse than western tanks).

    Of course, it would be better to make late version of t-90 with French night vision devices, but at the first step, IMHO, is more realistic that eSim would make t-80.

  12. 1) Playable Red tank, at least comparable to modern western tank. T72m1 - one of the most obsolete t-72 modification.

    I think, this is the wish, that could be comparatively easy implemented:

    First of all, we already have unplayable t-80 in the game. The interior of t-72 and t-80 is very similar, so it wouldn't be a big problem to modify it.

    It's just a small step for eSim - add slightly changed interior of already existing tank to the already existing model, and a giant leap for the players!:)

    Besides all, t-80 is the most numerous tank in the modern Russian army, comparing to early versions of t-72, which already almost out of use.

    2) In tactical level I hope to see the ability to give orders to several units simultaneously. It's very strange that it is still missing.

  13. Its a good mission.The one Element that i personally think is missing is some resupply and Repair vehicles.
    You are right. I would add some repair units in the next version.
    Sorry' date=' but a Soviet Doctrine Follower never will split their Battalion Sized Element in 3 directions.[/quote']I never suggested to split it into 3 directions. Mission gives a choice to advance in one of the 3 direction - it is a totally different thing.

    I agree with you, that it would be unwise to split the forces instead of concentrating them into one weak point. Moreover, I doubt that anybody would succeed if he tries to do so.

  14. Hello!

    I’m glad to present my scenario – “Soviet Advance” for T-72M1, available for download here http://www.steelbeasts.com/Downloads/p13_sectionid/24/p13_fileid/2201

    The mission is pretty big – dozens of tanks from both side, and so it’s more tactics, than simulation.

    In the scenario you have to break through the NATO strong line of defense, and capture the city behind it.

    When I designed the mission, I made an attempt to create the scenario with several different paths of winning it. So, in the briefing you advised to choose one of the three main routes to the city.

    It is my first experience in creating the scenario, so I’m open to criticism, and hope that you can offer some improvements or tell your opinion about my work.

    Thank you!

  • Create New...