thewood

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.

Sure seems par for the course

Haven't been here in a little bit and good to see the idiots are still running the asylum.

Its forum regulars that continue to hold the game back the equivalent of 10 years. The continued response to just jump into MP sessions or set up chats when new players ask questions can be off putting and intimidating to new players. It gives the impression to outsiders that this forum in particular is the stomping grounds for players that toe the line on never truly trying to change the game. Forum members are always willing to offer help, but on those terms. Let's not try anything new. Lets not let others ways of playing flourish. Lets keep the same dozen or so players dominate the conversation. If that's how esims sees the progression of the game and very limited community who play, so be it. But the devs asked. I initially didn't plan on giving an opinion because i knew I'd see the typical "Hey, we offered to help and you didn't want it". But stupid me thinking that maybe this was an actual opportunity to get some input considered. I mean, why would anyone ever want resources newer than 10 years from SB version 3.10. 2007 was such a good year, why would new players ever need anything better than that. But as usual, the echo chamber resonates with the "Hey, but I offered to help" response. I don't see the point in the devs starting a thread like this when most of the replies will get the, "But didn't you even look at the wiki?" response. SB is a relatively complex game/simulation and requires work by the player to go beyond blowing things up. But the devs asking what new players might find useful sure is a great sign that maybe they are actually trying to break out of SB being a NATO-based tank shooter. But using this forum to do that will get them nowhere.

And here is exactly the problem. While the offer is appreciated, having a relatively short video properly labeled with meta data for knowing what it contains is much better than having to organize a session every time someone new joins the forum. And maybe having an official youtube channel that new players can go to instead of someone randomly posting videos all over the forum that might contain some information. btw, I have watched the starter pack videos multiple times over the last seven years. None of them really do much for explaining in any detail how logic works. Plus, the action and narrative is so fast as to force one to go back over it multiple times just to see what is being clicked on. And to top it off, those videos are over 10 years old. The Toyguy's videos are a little better. They at least talk about the logic and go slow enough to see what is being clicked on. But again, fairly old and the logic information is scattered in 2-3 minute pieces across 6-7 different 20 minute vdeos. The forum regular response to anyone asking for better tutorial information is either jump on a chat with them or a link to the Starter Pack/Wiki. I am going to point out again that some of that information is over 10 years out of date. I know the next response will be to fix it myself if its so bad. Frankly, I don't do this for a living. I have been self-taught most of the scenario building in SB because there is limited information on how to do it, outside a of a 10 year old 30 minute video posted somewhere not obvious where I have to actually slow the reply down to see what I need to do. There is no place I can find to go see a simple video on how all the components of logic work. I deal with it the best way I can. But when the dev is kind and thoughtful enough to ask my opinion on how better to build out some tools for the new players, I didn't really expect to get the usual forum response of jump on a chat or just look at these old videos. I think more people than you think check the starter stuff out. But its not very helpful beyond some of the basics. And most of the starter pack is spent promoting multiplayer. I have spent a lot of time I could be using to play instead searching the wiki, youtube, manuals, and this forum looking for answers or at least some clue on some of the more esoteric features of the game. I don't typically bother asking on the forum because I know the two answers I will likely get. So instead of a dev-sponsored discussion about where educational resources might be lacking, its the same old, same old.

Route logic and logic building in general.

The noose seems to be closing around the Armata. https://thediplomat.com/2020/01/russia-delivery-of-t-14-armata-main-battle-tank-delayed/ Delayed for the third time.

I assume you mean in Windows Explorer. Never even considered that. Makes sense.

A recently opened menu item that lists the last 3-5 scenario files that have been opened would be a small time saver. I accidentally open the wrong file more frequently that I probably should when I am switching back and forth between scenarios. But with the time to load scenarios getting fairly lengthy, this would be a small quality of life help.

I try to never make that mistake. But one can lead to the other if not done right.

I just built a quick mission and a T-55 had no issues pulling back and going around. A second test had a platoon of three where the first one was knocked out. The second in line struggled a little with backing up because of the third tank in line, but they eventually sorted it out. This was a village with maybe 5 meters on each side of the road.

In fact, it could be argued that the AI involved in things like that reduce the complexity of the game fairly significantly. In a game like Combat Mission, it takes a lot of tweaking to get a unit to go hull down and use alternate firing positions. In SB, its almost automatic.

Again, everything is a simulation, more closely modeled to the "real world" to one level or another. Its always somewhere between engineering based or outcome-based. So what game/sim out there does what you are looking for?

Its all simulated. Its also all abstracted. The typical debate is how far to either end of that spectrum someone sees it. My curiosity is where anyone sees other commercial games/simulations that do it better or differently. My comparisons: Combat Mission - Armor seems ok, but somewhat abstracted and needs heavy micro-management in tactics. Infantry seems detailed on the surface, but has very serious issues with all the infantry having to be very close together and needing micro-management. The small arms modeling seems very good with some of the more recent changes. Artillery is very heavily abstracted. Air and rotary wing even more so. CM's big strength is modeling of things like training, experience, morale, etc. in a very believable manner. A few recent changes has taken a step back, but probably still the best out there. There is very limited engineering for static objects and a mine sweeping tanks. For WW2, some of this works. But its gets real creaky in a modern setting. Armored Brigade - Has potential but is very limited in how AI is built with no ability to configure it. Also has serious issues with infantry and how support weapons are represented in mechanized units. Some limited engineering for player only (bridging and mine sweeping) ARMA 2/3 - very good infantry modeling with some limited armor, but still very spotty in abstraction of penetration and damage. But even with infantry, outside own squad, heavy configuration and modding needed. Some limited modding for engineering. I have played ARMA 2/3 as a wargame quite a bit and has a lot going for it. But the mod installation and configuration is sometimes very tedious. World of Tanks - No infantry and a little artillery representation. But boy...those tanks. No engineering. War Thunder - Again, no infantry or engineering IL-2's spin off Tank Crew - Good tank procedural simulation in WW2, but very limited infantry and artillery representation. No engineering. Close Combat - In its prime, as good as CM in the soft factors. But everything else is abstracted and has shown its age in the underlying engine. No engineering DCS 2.5 - Looks great on the surface, but outside the graphics, its somewhat abstracted. Air and artillery support is modeled fairly well. But infantry is very basic. I haven't seen any engineering capabilities Lets take a step back and look at M1 Tank Platoon 2 - I think a lot of people have rose colored glasses on for this. It was simple to use, considering SB today. But it was limited in scope and had its own issues with the effectiveness of its infantry. One thing it had was more of a game atmosphere with campaigns and crew management. But artillery was somewhat abstracted, along with air support. I don't remember any real dynamic engineering. Static objects were present. There are a number of newer FPS and squad games, but I perceive that where they have a heavy infantry focus, they are lacking modeling in detailing other arms. And they are limited in scope. So using the same perspective on SB - Very good armor and armor tactics modeling. Can do a lot without micro-managing. Artillery can be well modeled. Rotary aircraft is modeled OK compared to above. Air support abstracted in graphics, but reasonable in execution on the ground. Infantry is limited but passably modeled. Fair simple, yet arcane scripting is more powerful than it looks. Not as powerful as ARMA, but consider most of the games above have almost no scripting. SB has a very good scope of terrain, available units, and time frame. A lot of flexibility in equipping and configuring units. Very good engineering, repair, and resupply. Outside ARMA 2/3, none of the above have those capabilities in any detail. Even in ARMA, its not easy. One of SB's big strengths is being able to combine SOPs, like tactics, formations, spacing, etc. and change them dynamically if needed. You don't know how easy that makes building scenarios until you see CM have all its infantry move in a straight column assaulting a MG position. Is SB perfect...no. But for every failing of infantry in SB, I can point out something neat it can do that none of the others can do or do easily. The SOPs especially place infantry well above most of the games above. I also point out that fortifications, trenches, and foxholes are the biggest issues I see in SB. Its the one that frustrates me the most.