Mirzayev

Bit of a goof in the manning list: 1B is actually B2 in game.

A21/12 or CoA, depending on requests and desires of other players.

Using the "scout" command for movement, and adjusting their stance (I normally go with standing versus kneeling for long distances of movement) will help as well. If your scout teams spot an enemy, they will halt, and assume a prone position. The AI can be very good at spotting the enemy, especially if you are managing an entire Company +.

1. Scout Teams represent dismounted scouts. Their low number of Soldiers gives them less of a signature, and makes them harder to detect. If you are using them like Infantry (clearing buildings in an enemy held town, etc) then you are going to get them killed: they aren't made to do that. In real life they have specialized training in conducting reconnaissance and security tasks. In game, this isn't modeled versus your standard infantry. 2. An FO may be the only unit that can call for fire depending on scenario settings. Additionally, FOs have a dismounted thermal optic that is superior at identifying targets, and calling for, and adjusting indirect fire compared to your standard binoculars. 3. Use them in the role they are intended: as Scouts. Have them establish hasty observation posts in areas of cover and concealment overwatching important routes. Knowing where the enemy is going, and their size, is valuable, and allows you to make better decisions in the employment of your forces. As an example, in one of Panzer_Leader's recon scenarios, I was able to identify the enemy's forward security company, and report the route it was taking, which was very valuable in ensuring the successful completion of mission objectives. I wouldn't have had as much success if I was using heavy vehicles, like tanks.

CO if no one else will take it.

OPS. I'll be playing out of a random hotel.

@T-72 Contact Ssnake directly, as he stated for best results. Look at his signature on this forum for his e-mail address.

@T-72 This was included as part of the support thread posted by @Gibsonm, but is a fairly quick walk-through for converting older scenarios to work. Newer scenarios (basically after the first few patches once the game was at 4.1) will usually offer the opportunity to download the map package from a server repository, if one was uploaded.

APS systems currently have an "ammo" count for number of countermeasures remaining. When this reaches zero, as expected, the system doesn't function.

XO, or A11. Whatever needed between those.

Thanks for the responses. My motivation to provide feedback was after seeing way too many videos using the exact same build that I had, praising GHPC as being the "Best Tank Simulator" (it isn't even released!) and "Steel Beasts but Free" (neither statement is true), with lots of these claims made by people with very little to no experience ("Called Gunner HEAT PC, I imagine PC because it's on a PC!" - Actual quote). I don't think that GHPC will get to, or is trying, to get to the same level of realism and immersion as Steel Beasts Pro PE, at least not as an initial launch goal. My understanding is that the idea is to make a commercial game that has a higher level of realism than free-to-play options, such as World of Tanks, War Thunder, etc. I'd imagine more along the lines of what I would call "arcade realism," which I would equate to most Novalogic products around the 2000 timeframe (such as Commanche 4, Armored Fist 3, etc). @dejawolf mentioned in another thread that it took him around 600 hours to model the interior of the T-72 in Steel Beasts, which is a significant investment in time and resources. I can see the rationale of only modeling the Gunner and Commander's sights if your focus is on "fun" above everything else. ActionScripter has an outstanding community presence, and he is passionate and cares about his product. In addition, he has the rare (for the internet) trait of not taking constructive criticism as a personal attack. That is something that is definitely good to see.

That is like saying that identifying bugs in Steel Beasts is giving it a bad rap... Publishing a build, pre-alpha or not, invites commentary. I would like to see this project succeed. Publishing a video where I purposely censor my criticisms is doing a disservice to the development process. I stand by my assessment: promising, but it needs some work. In the state of their freely published version, fire and maneuver is not possible to the extent that it should be with the M1A2 SEP.

Make sure the button in Q1 is flipped up, and the button directly below it (the center of the three) is flipped up as well. That'll enable you to fire. AUT I believe means that you have engaged the autoloader, which is the upper position. Unless you are starting your vehicle from a non-ready state as set by the scenario designer, you won't need to mess with these buttons. The only thing you'll need to do as a human gunner in a T-72 out of normal operation is turn off stabilization until contact is imminent, otherwise you will burn out your stabilization system if you leave it on for about an hour. The AI automatically does this if you aren't occupying the gunner's seat.

My take on it. At the moment, using lead on the M1A2 is one of the most frustrating experiences in gaming that I have had in recent memory. It has promise, but the FSC needs some major overhauls from what was presented in this version. Yes, there are updates, but I'm not going to pledge spending $3 a month to get the latest build.

Q1. AUT mode locks the breach for your gun, or turns on the autoloader for operation. This would be turned "off" for manual loading. Q2. This restricts your LRF to not accepting a lase above 1200, 1800, or normal operation. Q3. This turns your LRF on and off. Not sure what this does for sure, but it prevents your LRF from operating. Maybe temporarily disabling it for manual operation? I've been playing for the past 7 years or so, and I've never used any of these buttons in actual play, but if a scenario designer starts a vehicle in a non-operational state, you might use them.