MDF

Yes, I'll CO Blue again.

I'll CO Blue.

I have a TM Warthog. I programmed a singe button to do two things (well, 4 really): 1. When pressed, it issues a keystroke that temporarily disables the voice activation software AND issues the TeamSpeak push-to-talk keystroke. 2. When released, it releases the disable-voice-activation key and releases the TeamSpeak push-to-talk key. Of course, not every joystick has that programming flexibility.

Not one of my better personal showings. learned the hard way that the T-72 FCS doesn't compensate for cant.

To add another point of encouragement to those who might hesitate to join online play because of concerns about their skill level... Unlike many other online games, which only spawn a combatant if there is a human occupying that slot, the order of battle in a Steel Beasts mission is fixed regardless of the number of human participants. So if there are 30 vehicles in the OOB and only 10 humans, 20 vehicles are controlled by the AI. I suppose that's obvious. What might not be obvious is that, in order to add value to your online team you need only be better than the AI that would otherwise control your unit. That is a rather low hurdle! The AI shoots fairly well, but requires very specific orders, is lousy at self-preservation, has sub-human ability to spot foes in wooded areas, and often needs babysitting to negotiate the terrain. So, I would say that to function at an acceptable level in online play, you need only diligently complete all of the tutorials for a single vehicle (best bets are the M1 or Leo 2), and maybe spend some time in the instant action mission to solidify your gunnery. If you want to expand your vehicle repertoire, try the M2A2 or T-72 tutorials, as these are also common in online play and differ quite a bit from the Western MBTs. The CV90's are probably the most complex representations in Steel Beasts, so you might want to leave them for later. And even if you were only as good as the AI, the idiosyncratic nature of a human teammate and the ability to communicate beyond the very limited list of AI commands is still an improvement from an immersion perspective, IMO.

Lack of internet connection or awkward scheduling can't be helped. But I have wondered whether the other thing you noted -- shyness/introversion -- causes a significant number of people to opt out of online play. Or, I might add, prior bad experience with the soul-crushing inanity on public servers for many other online games. That would be a shame. The SB online community is generally very mature and welcoming of new players. It's too bad that Rotar (apparently) took down all of his TGIF videos. They were a great way for people to get a feel for the online experience. The same is true for skill level. Especially in the TGIF game, but also to a considerable extent in the VUs, skill level among players varies considerably, and I don't think I have ever seen a new player being criticized for lack of skill. Just make sure that you alert the CO for your side about your experience level, and he will make sure to task you with something appropriate. I do have to quibble with you here. I don't see how the weekly TGIF game could be interpreted as a members-only event. Likewise, it seems to me that whenever the various VU's post here about their events, they usually indicate that new players are welcome. And when I organized a weekly mission last year, my opening post stated: "All skill levels welcome, except that prior completion of all tutorials for at least one vehicle is a prerequisite.". Maybe people are influenced by preconceptions stemming from VUs for other sims? I dunno. But in my experience, Steel Beasts VUs are typically happy to have new players, even ones who don't want to "join" the VU, per se. (It seems that most SB VUs have very fluid notions of membership anyway). Well, I'm glad you finally dipped your toe in the water with UKA!

Also, as far people who are new to the multiplayer community, it's hard to believe that some of the (few) ongoing personality conflicts would be known to them, let alone salient to their decision to join in.

As far as people situated in North America, one would think that the TGIF time slot would be perhaps the ideal one for many or most people. The vehicle choices also seem to be the most popular ones. Of course, you can never please everyone, but I'm surprised (based on what I assume, perhaps incorrectly, are sales of at least several thousand copies of SB Pro PE) that there aren't more attendees. Like Tjay, I'm interested in knowing why people would prefer SP to online play.

Actually, if you CO a multiplayer mission, you will spend most of your time in the map screen. And depending on the group (for example, TGIF), you will have the mission in advance so you can pre-plan to your heart's content.

No, I think they were still using the Division 86/Army of Excellence TO&E's at that time. The BCT concept was post-Desert Storm.

If you're equating SB with Flashpoint Red Storm or TacOps, you're getting disingenuous. How many virtual, real-time tank simulations -- not constructive simulations -- have there been in the past 25 years? And the inquiry is whether prettifying SB, while retaining its full "hardcore" qualities, will bring a commensurately larger consumer audience. So, to count as a "simulation," a program must make an attempt at realistic fire control, armor, and weapon modeling, etc. Battlezone, WoT, Armored Warfare, etc. don't count, for instance. Things like the Microprose M1A2 Tank Platoon, the M1A2 sim from DI, T-72: Balkans on Fire, Panzer Elite, and SABOW probably should. I doubt there are too many more. And then one must ask how the sales of these products stack up to flight sims and infantry sims. Not very well, from what I understand.

And just to add to this, look at the past 25 years or so of PC games. How many tank games have there been that fall on the "simulation" side of the spectrum? And how many based in the modern era (which I prefer)? Very few that I can recall. Hardcore simulation is a niche market and, for whatever reason, it seems that aircraft, rather than tanks, are the vehicle of choice in this niche. If the market were there, companies would be catering to it. So, like the others, I am rather skeptical that an "if you build it, they will come" rationale for prettying up SB is going to work. And I say that sadly, because, like the OP, I would love to believe otherwise.

You still appear to overlook the fundamental nature of this product. If, as Ssnake pointed out, 90-95% of eSim revenue comes from military customers, then no matter how lackluster sales of the consumer version are, it is not going to affect the direction of the product. I'm surprised to hear that the defense customers are using SB as a constructive simulation. I would have thought that JCATS/OneSAF-type sims would be the tool of choice. But if they are using SB to drive missions with thousands of autonomous agents, then it becomes clear that a fancier rendering engine might actually be counterproductive. And even if the issue is merely that defense customers are not interested in paying for prettier graphics, then consumer sales will have to pay for the enormous costs of a visual makeover. I imagine that current sales levels would not suffice. Maybe if eSim ate the upfront costs to improve the sim's look, there will be a huge influx of new customers to make the expenditure profitable in the end. But I doubt that would be the case. We all want a better-looking sim, but the unfortunate reality is that SB is likely to lag well behind the state of the art perpetually.

I got a good chuckle out of this.:luxhello: Still, I'm surprised that militaries aren't interested in higher fidelity representation of the battlefield environment. Visually, the SB battlefield is quite simplified compared to reality, meaning that your visual panorama is considerably less cluttered than the real world. That makes target acquisition easier than real life (especially in non-thermal views). Cross-country travel is considerably easier than in real life. Battlefield obscuration from dust, smoke, atmospheric effects is considerably less than real life. All of these things affect the tactical experience. Of course you can experience the real thing via field exercises, but that is extremely expensive. I would think much more expensive over time than an upgrade to SB. Not complaining. Just somewhat surprised. Maybe eSim can knock some heads together across all of their military customers and reach some agreement to share the expense. Ehhh, what do I know, anyway?

Not sure what you mean.

The response to the poll has been fairly anemic so the results are not particularly valid, but here are the top vehicles so far: [Votes] Vehicle [17] Marder 1A3 [14] BMP-2 [13] Any USSR BMP variant [9] Any Leclerc variant [8] Any Cold-War Marder variant [8] Any USSR T-64 variant [8] Any USSR T-80 variant [7] T-72M4 [7] M1A2 SEP v3 [6] Any T-90 variant [5] BvS-10 [5] Any Challenger 1 variant [5] Any Cold War M2/M3 variant [4] Any Centurion variant [4] M2A3 [4] Any M-48 variant [4] M60A3 TTS [4] BMP-1

It's a shame they can't just license the Arma 3 terrain/rendering engine. I don't imagine that BIS would be very keen to engender what would be a near competitor.

Servus, I would like to request a Leopard position, possibly III/4/911.

OK, but I can't include you in the poll unless you submit something as set forth in the original post.

Stratos, can you confirm whether this is what you meant?

Hi Stratos, BMR-600 wasn;t originally on the list, but given that it was produced in significant numbers, I've added it to the list. For the record, I also did the same thing earlier with the USSR BRM-1. Also, I assume that "M-51" means M-551 Sheridan, and "Centurion" means "Any Centurion variant." Also, did you mean the original T-64, or "Any USSR T-64 variant"?

But there's the dilemma. Kingtiger's post, viewed in isolation, is insufficient to explain how the poll works. So, first I have to explain how it works. Then, in your view, I also have to explain how it doesn't work (a la Kingtiger's post). Now the "wall of words" is even taller -- so much for K.I.S.S. Half of the respondents got it right without any further clarification from me. You haven't explained what was unclear and caused you to "goof up." You've merely hinted that it was too long for you to want to read. If that's the case, then I'll ask you again: what should have been omitted and/or added to the original post to shorten it while conveying the essential information? Look, I don't want to make a big deal out of this. I wasn't exasperated by the nonconforming responses like Kingtiger was I suspect that Tjay's remark above aptly sums up an inescapable aspect of the human condition.

Hmmm... What is present in KT's post that is not apparent from my original post? Not only did I explain the poll mechanism, but I gave an exact example of the response format. That seemed to do little good. Kingtiger's explication of what not to do is useful, but only when read in conjunction with my original post explaining what to do. But including such counterexamples would only have made my original post even more complex. EDIT: just to add that, as the person who interprets the responses and tabulates the votes, it's in my interest to ensure that the poll explanation is as clear as possible. But someone has to demonstrate how the OP would be unclear to someone who actually reads it in full (or at least the first 2/3rds of it). If the problem is that people aren't reading it, adding KT's counterexamples will only exacerbate matters. Anyway, I will rearrange the OP and add a brief clarification (hopefully) to see if it improves matters, although I suspect that most of the people who intend to respond have already done so.

How would you have written it differently?

The sim does have a crewable Centauro 105.