thewood

I would like to know how long they'll take to charge and where the power to charge them will come from.

I have one laptop that has a 1660 and it runs fine on default SB settings. And thats a laptop. A desktop should be pretty decent with that.

What happened to November?

Well...I meant in the granularity of the AAR report, as that is what Ssnake asked for. But unrelated to the discussion, a sitrep for every unit is just a sortable and filterable list of units, with ammo, mobility, and maybe a few other parameters.

Thinking back to my last couple of design sessions, One key aspect that is very difficult to get insight into with the current AAR recording granularity is just general situational awareness of the unit right before it fires or is fired on. Again, just helps the designer get a clearer picture to make micro-adjustments to formations, tactics, position, etc. It can all be done today, but takes multiple reloads sometimes. And added to the list of features for designer quality of life is a quick side switch hotkey. This avoids having to go back and forth between the 3D world and the map. Again, avoids having to reload the scenario to see thi9ngs that are happening quickly.

Off the top of my head, one that happens most frequently is a unit firing and missing. Sometimes I don't even know they fired before they are killed because they exposed themselves without result. It usually takes at least a reload and direct monitoring of the unit to see what happened. I had one design session where the only reason I knew they fired is they were down a couple rounds. And even that wasn't easy to track down without multiple reloads of the test session. This is especially true of infantry being fired on by machine guns. Only a direct hit on a squad member gets recorded. And the five second interval can leave a lot of the detail out. As a scenario designer, I want to be able to make sure I am not putting units in situations where they can either engage or not engage. Sometimes it can be trail and error on getting them in position. I want to know if they fired and missed or just didn't fire. I know there are other events I miss unless it happens to be right in the sweet spot. But the above is the one I run into in almost every test session at least once.

Semi-connected to this last topic...getting the AAR replay more granular would be a big help. And I know, make it optional. Again, this really helps the scenario designer pick up activity they couldn't focus on.

This exact map and reporting topic was brought up a couple times in the "complexity for new players" thread. And its been brought up a couple times in the "content wish as long as its an option" thread about helping with information management if you are controlling multiple units. So I'm kind of surprised this request is a surprise to the devs. Reducing complexity should include: 1) Map highlights for engaged units, maybe focusing contact, damage, and losses 2) A message window that is larger, detachable, searchable, filtered, and sorted 3) A roster window that let's you immediately see the status of multiple units. Can show fuel, ammo, casualties, etc. 4) Pop up windows controlled by scripting that can be configured to jump to a specific unit. This aligns will with the newer overhead external view and can be connected to and enabled by selecting that view option in scenario design. edit: I'll point out that to me, this feature is most helpful for scenario designing for larger scenarios. I can't count the number of times I have to restart a scenario in design because too many things happen at once and I missed something happening. I bet I can cut the number of reloads for scenario testing in half at least. And as long as SB takes to load and unload a scenario in mission editing, that can be a huge time saver.

Its good to see that people want to stay all nice and warm and cozy in their old ways while sacrificing progress. Thats the community I know. I was worried there for a bit. But we all know the devs have to cater to those 1-2 hardcores who can't seem to learn new ways of doing things. "I want new things as long as nothing changes" I can almost hear the community growing. I know there's a lot of sarcasm in there. But there's just too much to in to point out all of it. This thread should be titled "Steel Beasts Content Wishlist with Options for not Having to Use Any of That Content. Nothing like making it easier for the devs to build a better community.

And that is why manuals are written and instructional posts are pinned. Its why you should read it before installing it.

I've seen this multiple times in the last year or so. Old broken or abandoned games suddenly popping up as something new. Steam should have pulled Theater Commander after just a few months when it became VERY obvious the dev was in way over his head.

I have found the customer support at BFC pretty good. I have to contact them at least once a year for new activations as I move to new laptops. They are generally fast and efficient. The main issue with CM right now is the age of the engine. In 2007, when the new CM2 engine was released, the new engine was already woefully obsolete. They keep putting out new games and content on that engine at a very slow pace. Serious issues crop up and it takes them six months to put out a fix. I'll note the SB engine is also old, but the esims team has been able to make some significant upgrades to the engine over the last ten years. Something BFC hasn't done. The other issue, and SB suffers a little from this too, is the amount of work needed to put out a good scenario. The only saving grace is they have a random scenario generator that is adequate for a good game or two. But what CM really lacks is scripting, tactics, and any other kind of SOP capability. That means you have to be the brains of almost every single unit on the map. It gets tiring. Especially after playing SB where you can expect to be able to do some heavy planning and still have your units behave somewhat intelligently if you aren't sitting on their shoulder.

Have you even played Steel Beasts? While no game is perfect, CM has major issues with tank combat...lack of true depression and elevation limits, no halt to fire, manual hull down and battle position maneuvering, etc. CM has some good features like full replay of turns, machine gun capabilities, some of its infantry combat has grown to be very interesting. But the game also has serious issues on modern hardware. You almost have to keep an old PC around to run it. The DRM is a nightmare at times and is very long in the tooth. And if anyone thinks SB has a slow update cycle, its nothing compared to CM. So take all those things you like and compare them to Graviteam or Steel Beasts. CM is more of virtual miniatures game, Graviteam is a WW2 east from tactical combat simulator, and SB is an AFV-centric combined arms game/simulator.

And the simpler answer for this type of detailed questioning is buy a one month demo. That will answer a lot of questions. Or download the manual. Not against asking questions. But this many detailed questions aren't really going to do much that a good look at the manual won't get at. And then if it still doesn't get the one month license.

For goodness sake...I have been involved in investment M&A inquiries with fewer questions than this thread about a US$90 game. btw, even without scripting, the unit AI is very good. Depending on what orders its set up for, it will adjust itself to check on enemy sightings nearby, look for its own hull down position, and retreat out of danger. All with out a line of script being written. And I am not so down on the infantry model. Its a fairly decent one with some abstractions, rationalizations, and squinting. Is it as detailed as ARMA3, no. But there are things you can do with it you can't easily do there also.