MDF

Well, since you like mech infantry, I would recommend doing the tutorial series for either the M2A2 (ODS) or one of the CV90 series. Bear in mind that the CV90's are probably the most complexly-modeled vehicles in the game, so perhaps the M2 is the better bet. As far as tanks, I would choose the Leo2A5 since its fire control system is fairly consistent across the post-A4 variants, and these tanks are commonplace in online sessions nowadays. The A4 has some slight differences. Or you can try the M1A1. Everything in the M1 series except the SEP has the same switchology in SB. The Challenger 2 is not seen as much online, and the target acquisition/fire control is a bit dodgy on some respects, but lately I've had a delightful time engaging targets with the day sight using that very accurate rifled gun. Note also that there is a "Support" series of tutorials that cover combat engineering and artillery FO topics. To echo what Enigma said, you should feel free to jump into online play as soon as you have finished the tutorials for a particular vehicle. The tutorials will give you a sufficient grounding in the SB interface. DO NOT worry about your skill level. The mission organizers will find an appropriate place for you.

F13 for me please.

I have to respectfully disagree with Furia's statement (and other similar ones above) as well. IMO, the SB community is "elitist" only in the sense that arcade-game mentality is frowned upon. It has nothing to do with skill level. I have yet to see any SB virtual unit (or other organized gameplay) that would turn someone away because of skill level. At most, they would insist that the newbie at least familiarize themselves with the simulation basics by completing a set of tutorials for a vehicle. As someone who organized a VU for a while, I would have been happy to accept inexperienced players. My only requirement was that they have a desire for realistic gameplay and a willingness to learn. I don't play WoT or AW and I don't visit those forums with any frequency, so I can't claim to understand those communities' gameplay "hopes and dreams" or their perception of SB in particular. I would have assumed that there are a lot of hardware "nuts" over there who, having experienced (IMO) the inanity of WoT and AW, would have yearned for something a bit heavier. I suspect that ultimately what turns them off about SB is its dated graphics, followed by the high initial cost. Naive as I may be, I still have hope that there is a significant fraction of the WoT/AW crown that could be enticed over to SB. Again, not being a regular on their forums, I don't know what (if anything) they say about SB. Do they watch any of the now-numerous SB gameplay videos on YouTube? That would seem an obvious recruiting tool.

For me, the playable Marder and BMP-2 were the most important additions, as they remedied a major deficiency in Cold War orders of battle. My next favorite "4.0" addition is the new high-resolution terrain engine. Well, I suppose I'll have to be patient for that one.

OK, I just tested on-map arty, and you're right. Yes, they probably should fix that.

Maybe I'm forgetting -- don't "at my command" missions splash 30 seconds after you order fire-for-effect? So that would be 5 seconds for the firing battery to react and then 25 seconds in the air (which I suppose is a one-size-fits-all approximation).

You also have to take into account time of flight.

FWIW, I'm in favor of keeping enemy map updates off but playing smaller missions. I created the "FEBA Madness" mission specifically to indulge my preference for 1-player-per-vehicle style missions. Maybe I'll get cracking on some new small missions to nominate for TGIF.

I'm unconvinced.

Safe to say that tonight's mission will be run in version 4.0?

After a long absence, I'm back. I'll CO Blue.

Yeah, it was another draw, both sides earning a "Major Defeat." Red "won" on points: 84/1000 versus Blue's 0/1000. The battle was largely a stalemate just west (i.e., on Blue's side) of the FEBA. The kill ratio was 1.23:1 (59:48) in favor of Red. Again, however, compared to Blue, Red achieved a greater number of hits (Red:Blue = 726:682 or 1.06:1) and an even greater ratio of flank shots (330:258 or 1.28:1). The ratio of Red/Blue flank shots (1.28) basically corresponds with the Red/Blue kill ratio (1.23). Also, it should be pointed out that Red had six tanks so badly damaged that they had to be fratricided, whereas Blue had only one such instance (a second Blue fratricide was by an AI vehicle). Thus, the true kill ratio is closer to 60:54, or 1.1 : 1. So, one still has to wonder whether the outcomes were driven by: (a) better armor on the Leo; (b) by better target acquisition (i.e., the hunter-killer capability of the Leo) allowing the Leo2s to spot their prey more quickly and and get in "surprise" flank shots; © better fire control on the Leo; (d) an aggregate player skill advantage on the Red side; (e) randomness (after all, this is only the second playthrough of this mission). Anyway, Volcano and I decided to slightly beef up the US side by giving half of the Blue M1A1s the KEW-A1 sabot round, which has 670mm armor penetration. The remaining M1A1s still have the M829, which (like the DM33) has 600mm penetration.

1) any of the M1's or Leo2's. 2) the weekly TGIF game Fridays at 10PM your time is a good place to start.

I think we actually discussed this after the mission. Someone even half-jokingly suggested that we also remove friendly map updates, for a truly chaotic experience.:1: Another possibility -- if it is actually determined that the M1A1 is undergunned -- is to equip only a fraction (say, 1/3 or 1/2) of the Blue force with M829A1 and leave the rest with just M829's.

The bottom line is that a single playthrough is not a sufficient basis to claim a mismatch between two vehicle types. This is all the more so given that this particular vehicle matchup has been a TGIF mainstay. Anyway, I ran the mission HTML report through Excel and came up with the following numbers: ENY Vehicles killed US: 40 GE: 68 Ratio (US/GE): 0.59 Hits on enemy vehicles US: 220 GE: 337 Ratio (US/GE): 0.65 Number of hits per kill US: 220 / 40 = 5.5 GE: 337 / 68 = 4.95 Number of ENY vehicles destroyed by flank shots US: 33 GE: 61 (This last number is somewhat misleading, since the HTML report does not distinguish between hits that actually destroyed the vehicle and subsequent hits on an already-destroyed vehicle. Accordingly, the above number overstates the number of live vehicles destroyed by flank shot.) Proportion of ENY vehicles killed by flank shot US: 33 / 40 = 0.825 GE: 61 / 68 = 0.897 (Again, this number has to be taken with a grain of salt given the imprecision of the flank shot kills value) So, while the M1A1's required a greater number of shots to kill the Leo2 (5.5 vs 4.95), it is at least partly due to the fact that the Leo2's achieved a higher percentage of flank shots (~90% versus ~83%). More significant is the disparity in the number of HITS achieved -- 337 for the Leos and just 220 for the US. This tracks to a degree with the ratio of vehicle losses, and would seem to explain the latter better than the two sides' ammo types or protection levels.

One thing I did not change was the ammo for the M1A1's. In the post mission discussion, some of the Blue guys expressed concern that the M829 round with which the Blue M1A1's were equipped lacked penetrating power compared to Leo2's with DM33. I note for starters that the mission editor says both rounds have 600mm penetration (M829A1 is 700mm). So, might the kill disparity in our one playthrough of the mission be the product of something else -- say, the Leo2A4's better fire control system or armor protection? I talked this over with Volcano, and he noted (as did I during the post mission discussion) that the SB Wiki (all Hail!:cvcsalut:) asserts that M1A1/M829 vs. Leo2A4/DM33 is the most balanced matchup in all of Steel Beastsdom. He strongly disagreed with the suggestion that the M1A1's be given the M829A1 instead of the M829. I also looked at the AAR for the mission, and nothing jumped out at me in terms of disparity. Sure, there were times when a Leo absorbed a lot of punishment before destruction, but the same was true for the M1A1s at times. During several TGIF games after the FEBA Madness mission, with this issue firmly in mind, I found myself in a Leo2A4 trying to kill M1A1s and being dismayed at the number of rounds needed to dispatch them. And as I set out a few posts above, the kill ratio in our playthrough was at least arguably driven by the disparity in the two sides' player counts and AI ineptness. I note that MANY of the Red-on-Blue kills came from flank shots. So, in my personal experience and opinion, whatever advantage the Leo2 may have in terms of fire control or armor thickness/layout (if any) is essentially outweighed by the superior protection (or at least crew protection) of the M1 series -- at least as these vehicles are modeled in SB. I think we need to play the mission a couple more times before we can say that there is an imbalance in the two sides' material. Volcano and Sean will be the ultimate deciders.

Yes, here is the change log: v.0.63 (10 Oct 2015) [following first TGIF play-through] > If the friendly offensive objective is not taken, points are now awarded for the extent of enemy territory held at mission end. These points, together with points for unused reinforcements, will not be sufficient to earn a "Victory" rating, but may be enough to avoid a "Major Defeat" rating. > Friendy reinforcements now spawn further rearwards when the enemy captures territory close to the friendly defense objective. Likewise, friendly reinforcements spawn further forward as territory nearer the friendly offensive objective is taken. (Previously, friendly reinforcements would not spawn forward of the FEBA). > replaced all HEAT rounds with sabot (both sides) > removed small river behind Blue objective and replaced with 2D 3 meter stream linear object. > added navmesh > radio message about reinforcment arrival now includes reminder of number of remaining reinforcement waves. > Increased mission duration by 20 minutes. > added thermal TRP panels along portions of lateral boundaries that were extended rearward in version 0.55 > removed all phase lines (except FEBA). Intent is to facilitate the CO's creation of terrain-appropriate phase lines without the added clutter of the arbitrary phase lines in previous versions. Added checkpoints at the vertices of the (invisible) boxes representing capture-able terrain chunks in the mission scripting. v. 0.64 > added castle towers at intervals along lateral boundaries to assist in visial navigation and avoidance of boundary violations. > added lighthouse object to center of each side's objective area. > added additional thermal TRP panels to lateral boundaries. v. 065 > Because the scripting logic counts SP arty as a tank, all events/conditions depending on the number of operational "tanks" in play -- such as the reinforcement logic -- had to include the SP arty in the count. This was problematic, because the reinforcement logic would be thrown off if any SP arty vehicles are destroyed somehow. Fixed this by adding a new (invisible) "Play Area" zone encompassing only the areas of the map where player-controlled tanks may operate and excluding the areas occupied by the artillery. Now, the reinforcement logic counts only the number of tanks in the Play Area rather than "anywhere." > amended briefing to mention addition of castle towers along boundaries. > moved towers so that they are just outside of the play area and can't be used for cover. > extended penalty zones further rearwards for both sides. v. 0.66 > modified territory-capture scoring to require presence of friendly tanks in zone (rather than merely clearing of enemy). > edits to briefing.

Yeah, Red won that one.[*] IMO, this was driven by the disparity in the number of players on each side. it was originally 8 Red players vs. 8 Blue, but 3 Blue players dropped halfway through, making it 8 Red humans vs 5 Blue. Up to that point, it had been a stalemate around the FEBA, but after the drops, Red steadily pushed Blue back. The central design objective of the mission was to ensure that a player rarely, if ever, had to control more than a single vehicle (there are never more than 10 combat vehicles in play on each side at any time). After the drops, a greater portion of Blue vehicles were under AI control, and AI vehicles tend to have poor survival skills. It became a vicious cycle. Blue's AI vehicles were quickly attrited, which then caused another wave of reinforcements to spawn, meaning that Blue's players were again overloaded (compared to Red) with AI-controlled vehicles, which were quickly attrited, and so on. [*] Technically, it was a defeat for Red, which was on the cusp of taking the objective when the mission time limit was reached.

Oh yeeeah, it's ON! :gun:

Also, just do a google images search for "Soviet tactical icons" or "Soviet military icons." That produces lots of relevant stuff.

Depending on your browser, you may have a translate function. Chrome has a built-in one, and can also accept plugins.

There are plenty of online resources. For example, http://army.armor.kiev.ua/hist/takznaki.shtml

Try Open Broadcaster. It's free and I found it easy to use. It also produces relatively compact files, i.e., about 1 gigabyte per hour of hi-res video. You can see some of the videos I uploaded here.

In Windows 7, go to Start -> All Programs -> eSim Games -> User's Manual. Assuming you used the default install location, you can also go to "C:\Program Files\eSim Games\SB Pro PE\docs\SBProManual.pdf" There are also keyboard charts here: "C:\Program Files\eSim Games\SB Pro PE\docs\PDF for print"

Well, it has been said that SB is CPU-limited rather than GPU-limited, so that suggests that a powerful CPU will do you more good than a cutting edge graphics card.