Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Mirzayev last won the day on July 3

Mirzayev had the most liked content!


About Mirzayev

  • Birthday 04/02/1990

Personal Information

  • Location
  • Interests
    War Gaming, Guitar, History, Video Games

Recent Profile Visitors

6,177 profile views

Mirzayev's Achievements


Apprentice (3/14)

  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges



  1. I've had the first one in the works for a while. I'll try doing it when I'm a bit less mobile in life.
  2. Since most of these questions seem to be focused on what a new player controls, perhaps a method to further classify new 4.1 scenarios in the download section is to organize them by the size of the element that the player is in direct control over. Something like: Platoon Company Battalion Brigade This can be an optional classification by the scenario author to help further sub-divide them in a manner that is easy to find aside from the description. Some cases in point: Seize Objective Bear (4.265) is a company-sized mission. I know this due to the description. It is also in the very first line so I don't even have to read the full description; I can easily see while scrolling through the full list of scenarios. US ARMY COMBINED ARMS is a lot more vague, telling me that I have a "small force of US forces." I'm assuming that is a company-sized element, but unless I download the scenario I have no idea based on the description. I have to click on the scenario in question to read the blurb about a "small force of US forces." Clearing Kandahar is a Platoon-sized mission, but I have to read up to Paragraph III of the OPORD to know this. Not picking on any of the authors, but this shows how it can be harder and more time consuming to find the scale of player control in a scenario just by reading the description... assuming that it actually tells you. Sub-dividing by scale would be a fantastic feature to help newer players (and make it quicker to sort through; even experienced players want something simple.)
  3. Platoon Recon as a vanilla scenario is great. I would start there and modify the starting units to be what you want to use. Here is how I set it up if you aren't sure how.
  4. Press F2. Like I said in the other thread, you can move your mouse to the top of the screen and look under "View" to find out the key to press.
  5. Mirzayev

    Commander 50,

    This seems more like a thread for General rather than support. For the M1A1, the. 50 CAL are partly powered. Use the mouse to move left and right, and top the up or down keys repeatedly to change the elevation. The M1A2 is a flex, so use the mouse to move it. Hotkeys for each can be found by moving your mouse to the top of the screen in the 3d view until the menus appear. Click on view and click on .50 CAL (or MG, I forgot the label) to go to it. Alt-F3 and F3 on the M1A2 and the M1A1 work respectively if you are in the Commander's position (F7.)
  6. I use shift + right click. It works fine for me. You aren't "calling out" the target to your gunner, but rather sending something similar like a SPOT report with it. Your gunner (and the rest of the AI on your team) WILL pay particular attention to the area in question. I do this a lot when playing recon on Kanium sessions. Even though we play with map updates off, the AI gunners still "know" that the "report" was sent and start searching that particular area with more interest.
  7. That and it is extremely reliable with a minimum of issues occurring from maintenance. Just point and shoot.
  8. Was reminded of this "Wargame" from my youth today. F2C2 is more propaganda of a US Army concept from the mid-2000s than a serious wargame, with the Future Combat Systems you command having a VAST overmatch against the types of enemies that you fight. Still, it can be a fun diversion, and it is free. https://future-force-company-commander-f2c2.en.softonic.com/ Future Force Company Commander is a realtime strategy game based on the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) networked weapons. SAIC has contracted Zombie to produce a simulation of the FCS battle command station in which the player controls the full spectrum of FCS vehicles, sensors, UAVs and weapon systems - and fights four intense missions on the complex future battlefield. Future Combat Systems includes 18+1+1 systems consisting of unattended ground sensors; two unattended munitions, the Non-Line of Sight – Launch System and Intelligent Munitions System; four classes of unmanned aerial vehicles organic to platoon, company, battalion and Unit of Action echelons; three classes of unmanned ground vehicles, the Armed Robotic Vehicle, Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle, and Multifunctional Utility/Logistics and Equipment Vehicle; and the eight manned ground vehicles (18 individual systems); plus the network (18+1); plus the Soldier (18+1+1). FCS is a core building block of the Army’s Future Force. The FCS-equipped Unit of Action (UA) will consist of three FCS-equipped Combined Arms Battalions, a Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon Battalion, a Reconnaissance Surveillance and Target Acquisition Squadron, a Forward Support Battalion, a Brigade Intelligence and Communications Company, and a Headquarters Company. The FCS-equipped UAs will be the Army’s future tactical warfighting echelon; a dominant ground combat force that complements the dominant Joint team. Although optimized for offensive operations, the FCS-equipped Unit of Action (UA) will have the ability to execute a full spectrum of operations. FCS will improve the strategic deployability and operational maneuver capability of ground combat formations without sacrificing lethality or survivability.
  9. Range is definitely where I would start looking. I've noticed the AI will typically use the quickest, most effective round for the range they spot vehicles at.
  10. This is a modified version of a K21 pitched for service in Australia. The M2A3 is a very old chassis so "doing better" isn't surprising. I worked with some K21s while in the ROK. They always were road testing the ATGM prototype version near where we operated. They tried to "disguise" it by throwing a tarp over the ATGMs. 😂
  11. @Bond_Villian I think the original intent was that these scenarios MUST use the base maps as included with Steel Beasts. I'm not for the idea personally. Adding quality user-made scenarios from the community to the base software makes more sense, especially since eSim at that point would be recognizing a scenario designer for their quality work.
  12. I know I'm a bit late to the conversation, but why sell scenarios? Why not include quality scenarios or operations from the community in the base install of Steel Beasts instead? One of the biggest questions from newbies is "what are the best scenarios?" Why not just include "the best scenarios" in the main game so they don't have to hunt for them?
  13. Also, is this really a support issue? Wouldn't General be more appropriate?
  14. Any of them that you want. Each one is a scenario.
  • Create New...