Jump to content

kraze

Members
  • Content Count

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About kraze

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 02/26/1985

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Because this topic exists I have a few things to say about Combat Mission series. Any current Combat Mission is a damn fine game that simulates company/battalion level combat down to incredible detail incl. ballistics, individual soldier morale and even stuff like soldiers crawling to their out-of-action comrades to take their ammo. When played on a highest difficulty setting it gets to a point where you have to keep squads in communication with their command - because they will shoot their buddies in the neighboring building if they don't know about their presence there and are under stress. There's even more detail - like firing missiles from inside the building will suppress or even injure friendly soldiers due to backblast and if somebody is badly wounded - you need to let his teammates perform first aid or the soldier will have a high chance of dying when the mission ends. Even tanks are simulated on the same level as in Steel Beasts if not even better - with ERA and SLAT armor actually working - down to such micro detail that in certain tanks you need to have tank commander unbuttoned to increase crew's situational awareness because of extremely limited FOV inside the tank. And yes individual systems can be damaged or destroyed. Tanks can even get detracked if moved through mud during or after the downpour. There's quite no other strategy game like these ones - but, alas, the price is that it's another niche title and thus a concept like UI/UX is entirely alien to the dev team - so in between fighting the enemy you will fight an even worse foe - a dated interface.
  2. A hi-res terrain engine still not being there is not much of an issue... The more I play the game the more I wish it had a proper single player content. It will hardly ever happen of course. Especially since that seems to be a norm across simulation games. Even aforementioned DCS campaigns are hardly ever more than classroom excersises. But if Steel Beasts ever did something akin to Steel Armor Blaze of War it'd become a classic and do a lot better in the mainstream than that SABOW. Sigh
  3. Have you played Falcon 4 (or rather its most recent iteration - BMS)? It's quite something when you just completed your mission task then switch to your side's radio channel and hear reports about Su25 attacking your FLOT and you are like "gotta use up all the weapons" and go after them, setting a plan to also use that remaining bomb on your pylon smashing enemy troops on the ground. Only to get ambushed by MiG29 flight. And it's not random because you know that Su25 had a mission to assault your troops and MiG29 had a mission to escort them relying on ambush tactics (AMBUSHCAP) to add to a general picture of an enemy breaking through your line of defense and getting close to your cities. You get a strong feeling of being a cog in a giant machine that lives with or without you. As for Enemy Engaged - sure, it is the war of attrition there. But it's because of the choice of a combat vehicle. Attritting enemies is about all the things you can do with a chopper. It's the same reason why any plane in DCS (which has no dynamic campaign) gets rather old fast because of their roles having you do exactly the same thing over and over again. It's not only about it being a dynamic campaign but also about what you can do in it at any time.
  4. Ugh no. In the examples of dynamic campaigns I've described the starting OOB is set in stone and you never deal with a random force - you deal with what's there near your objective or along the way to it. You and/or the strategic layer AI go after the general strategic objective and your opponent does the same. So what you get is a battlefield that is about as predictable as a real one. As opposed to predefined one, which is of course a better thing for training (or not - depending on how you look at that verb about the survivability of initial plans). Of course I wouldn't expect eSim Games to make anything close even to SABOW, let alone the glorious living battlefield that is Falcon 4 (which bankrupted its creator... a 100+ men team in 1998 making a flight sim). But wishing for something is wishing. Also eSim Games has 'games' in its name.
  5. Not a dynamic campaign. Dynamic campaign is when you launch a big operation with set starting forces and defined objectives for all sides - and from then on nothing is certain, no scripted progression. Steel Armor Blaze of War has just that, but it's not even the top example. Of course expecting something on par with Enemy Engaged, let alone Falcon 4 (which simulates conflict across several countries) to realistically happen in SB Pro is even less likely. But for simulations, realism-grounded games - it's the best way to do it because you are presented with infinite number of various tactical tasks and not relying on pre-scripted missions which railroad you compared and inevitably run out.
  6. ...dynamic campaign at least on par with Steel Armor? *runs for cover but can't find one because new terrain engine is not out yet"
  7. One solution that can make everyone happy while we wait is rather simple. Videos. Yeah yeah there's one about "dted is dead" that shows new terrain but just showing a few new minutes of a progress made can chill everyone. Especially if there is more to the upcoming patch than just a terrain engine.
  8. AI reaction to beams should not be anything overly complex. It can be as simple as AI detecting a beam in its LOS - is there a known friendly at the source of it? If yes - ignore or rather don't use it in AI LOS processing AT ALL. If the source of a beam is unknown - mark it as possibly an enemy (unless an enemy is detected at the source of it). And in case of the game determining that the "unknown/enemy" source is within AI LOS - they can look in that direction to investigate and will determine if they can engage - similarly how they do it now within visible light conditions. And yes, AI crew does react in SABOW - which is why it's advisable to use IR light only when deemed safe enough or won't put you at a disadvantage. And in a case of SABOW when it comes to AI using IR illumination - it's a lot more complicated since, unlike Steel Beasts, SABOW's AI is entirely dynamic. In Steel Beasts AI completely depends on waypoint scripting - and adding a simple On/Off switch for IR light to waypoint properties will be another simple thing to do. This is doable and should be done in a game like Steel Beasts - of course the question is whether developers deem it needed enough.
  9. In his case it didn't end well.
  10. SABOW does IR illumination and AI tied to it rather well - so it can be done - and there are benefits in that SB Pro PE is a simulation that includes those Cold War era vehicles as playable - but this important thing is missing making those vehicles much less effective than they should be. IR illumination is also not a magical giveaway of a position, especially when used in its era's scenario when NV was pretty bad compared to modern stuff - and especially against a less developed enemy (Asia and Africa - where those tanks and APCs, especially of a Soviet make, were mostly used) they can give a nice advantage. And a fun gameplay - again SABOW is a proof of that.
  11. The problem with SB Pro is that even if it's fixed - NV sight will still not be effectively used in any combat scenario because an IR illumination projector is not modeled. And sadly this issue is there not only for BRDM2. This is kinda a bummer seeing as how SB Pro does so well with thermal modelling
  12. M1A2 - because cutting edge Leopard 2A6 - because cutting edge M1A1HA - because challenging to command, while not being dated, also marines
    Definitely a good one. Not too large, not too small in terms of troops control and pretty straightforward - just wish a recon force had another javelin squad to cover the other side of the forest (granted, nothing an editor can't fix!)
  13. Only hi-res are out, in terms of content they are the same and certainly above and beyond what they were originally. Pretty not bad for something that is free.
×
×
  • Create New...