Mirzayev

@Thrown Tread33 Here is what is happening: If you have any off-map artillery the default is that they will fire first. Off-map artillery will execute fire missions until the number of committed batteries is maxed out. On-map artillery will then be called into fire. Included is a quick scenario to demonstrate this. Open it and call in 3x HE fire missions. All of these will be fired by your off-map artillery. If you call in a fourth artillery mission while the first 3x are processing, your on-map M109s will fire it. If you only want on-map artillery units to fire, remove all of the off-map artillery tubes and batteries under the support options. Artillery Test.sce

I'd argue that if you are making a scenario where the enemy reacts in a manner that the player is totally unprepared for then you are making a bad scenario. A good scenario with replayability should have more than one enemy course of action that the player can determine from reading the briefing. Usually these courses of action are not completely new plans with zero similarities: most COAs will share many similar features. The challenge to give to the player is enough information to know where to look to try to determine which course of action the enemy is using so they can modify their plan appropriately during the execution phase. I'd also offer that all information that the player needs should be contained within the scenario. Having to look up threat task organizations in an external document is lazy scenario design, IMO, but one that is very common in many commercial "military realism" oriented games. There are multiple echelons above a Platoon, Company, Battalion, etc. that would realistically be feeding information to their subordinate unit (IE the player) to allow them to make an actionable plan with a reasonable chance of success. This information will never be 100% correct, but it certainly won't be 100% wrong. You can also add other variations to existing enemy COAs. Maybe there is a 10% chance that the enemy will commit their reserve to your AO, and so now you have to fight two tank companies as opposed to one? Maybe there is a 35% chance that the enemy will commit rotary wing aviation to disrupt your planned offense? Maybe there is a 75% chance that the enemy will conduct non-observed "terrain denial" fires on locations where the player is likely to put observation posts? You can definitely get creative with adding in additional "things" that can bleed over from the area of interest into the player's area of operations. They don't have to be game changers, but they should be something that forces the player to consider them in their plan or face the consequences.

Have you tried sending an email to the address specified in the error window?

Start here and get the scenario you want: https://www.steelbeasts.com/files/category/140-41-single-player-scenarios/ Drop the scenario into your "My Scenarios" folder under documents. Default directory is: C:\Users\<YOUR USERNAME>\Documents\eSim Games\Steel Beasts\My Scenarios

It is important to note that this was just for the server patch sent out by Nils, NOT the bundle installer. That worked fine.

The server update for 4.379 is triggering a Trojan detection via Windows Defender. I was able to get it to work via exclusions, but it took some experimentation. Figured this might be worth testing prior to the next release. Results were the same regardless of browser (Opera, Chrome, and Edge) used.

When deleting a user record in game (using the Delete function) the user is deleted, but the file is moved to the recycle bin. I know in the past this was simply erased without requiring additional user input in Windows. Steps to reproduce: 1. Delete a user profile. 2. Check your recycle bin. I am using 4.377 with the server files installed. This particular bug was observed when running the basic (non-server) version.

This was taken from the tank range. The view is of the forest in the background.

I hope not. Until then, I'll just chalk up black hot as useless.

Oh no... how will our future Company Commanders ever be able to fight a war without having to count bayonets every month? I own an M9 bayonet. Fresh out of the sheath... it is really underwhelming. You can't use it to cut anything because the blade is dull. I tried using it to cut tape on a box. It literally couldn't do it. So now you've got this knife-like object that comes too dull to do any knife-like functions that might actually be useful, like cutting open an MRE, cutting 550 cord, or... just cutting anything at all. I guess you could carry it along with the sheath and use it to cut wire. Or you could just do everything above with that Leatherman that you are constantly carrying around instead. Minus stabbing people. Which you won't do with your bayonet cause bullets are better. As far as it missing a bayonet lug, you can install one. Check out the Geissele SSBM. If the Army really wants to mount those dull M9s to the XM5, they can. Want proof? Here is my dull M9 mounted to my AUG. That's the great thing about having a more modular platform: you can add what you need and remove what you don't. (I've since given the M9 a much needed sharpening. It is now actually useful.)

The idea of requiring a human spotter is so a single UAV can't fly over the map and spot everything based on the currently implemented AI's spotting mechanics. This is intentional. You will not have enemy icons populate on the map when using a UAV.

Currently it is not crewable.

Does it have some text files, namely the FXList-4_363? Folder is for mods to sounds, not the original sounds.