Jump to content

thewood

Members
  • Posts

    432
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by thewood

  1. Noticed it in the mission editor video on masking...T-72B3 2012 Also noticed BTR-82AT and Leopard 2A6MA2.
  2. thewood

    Ukranian T72B

    I love internet arguments without references or data. 100 T-72A/B, 33 (now 50) T-72AMTs, plus almost 1000 in long-term storage (probably useless). Only a few captured, most left from Soviet stocks. Source: Military Balance 2021 and Janes 2015
  3. I would say you're pretty good at trolling your self. Not sure what you were trying to accomplish beyond saying something just to get someone riled up. Troll much?
  4. People who say they meant no disrespect usually did and knew it when they said it.
  5. I don't really have a horse in this race, but this attitude doesn't make sense. This is just plain poor marketing in every sense of the word. Its basically saying anything customers say mean nothing, so I'll just do what I want. And this why programmers should be barred from talking to customers. So enlighten me on how you gather intelligence on your customer's wishes? Is it from all the giggling chats on the MP sessions. Or do actually go out and talk to every customer?
  6. So what's prognosis on this? If I only play single player and don't have any apparent issues, should I wait until this is straightened out?
  7. I love how we players are all insufferable asses until Ssnake comes in and clears the room.
  8. I think this comment should be considered a little more in discussions.
  9. Does increasing the cache slow the loading of the scenario in execution of editor modes? Is the PC having to spend more time loading the map into cache, versus pulling it as needed from the HD. I know in using MSFS2k, the impact of increasing map cache slows the loading of the flight.
  10. Agreed. Overall, a lot of the vehicles look a lot newer. Maybe its just the lighting, but overall great. I also really like fleshing out the Piranha lines and their armament.
  11. So even if we've already installed, we have to download and install again? Because of one round inadvertently making it in. I mean...we have a lot of bugs we grin and bear it on with no thought that any patch will be forthcoming for months and possibly years. But this one round will require a redownload and reinstall? Maybe I'm misunderstanding and my righteous indignation is misplaced.
  12. This is a long shot...hard drive space? With the size of the installs and the need for the temp files, that's chewing up maybe 40gb.
  13. thewood

    Wargames

    Saw that Combat Mission Black Sea is out on Steam now. No difference in the game other than the traditionally nightmarish patching and updating process is hopefully simplified. https://store.steampowered.com/app/1502380/Combat_Mission_Black_Sea/
  14. The big issue across all niche game sites is that few want to criticize scenario makers. You hate to criticize someone's hard work. You also expose yourself to pushback that you aren't grateful for the effort it took to build scenarios. Its easier to just not say anything.
  15. Its not about knowing, its about knowing you know. II play the game to see what happens, not to compete per se. If I build a mission, which I do all the time, I always ask myself, what would someone who doesn't know whats going to happen do? I have gotten pretty good at figuring out the decision points for a scenario. I'm not perfect, but I find it educational and enlightening. I do play 3rd party scenarios and they are fun too. But at least half of my play is altering those 3rd party scenarios to see what the impact is.
  16. But there are things that get added outside the military contracts. They exist in the game. So just getting a voice out there is a good thing.
  17. I know that. I'm just pointing it out as to what I am referring to so we don't go down a rabbit hole. I know what drives the development of SB.
  18. I mean on the commercial side. JUst so you are clear, I am referring to the commercial gaming side.
  19. Exactly. Things like pause and and the hot key switch are important time savers. I make scenarios for myself to play out situations of mod a scenario I downloaded for my own enjoyment. Locking potential features out of the development roadmap because you want to force the player to play a specific way in the execution side of the game is frustrating as a player. The scenario editor isn't a beginners tool and should be promoted as one. But it is an awesome intermediate tool for players that can't find scenarios they like. It just reinforces that the game is built for just a small clique of multiplayer players.
  20. And I as I have stated in the content thread. Make it configurable. Even put in hard limits based on RAM and storage. I have to assume the current system was put in place when RAM was typically 2-4Gb and HD storage was still measured in 100s of Mb.
  21. The communications to the player on what is happening. I requested these features before in the content thread: 1) Better message window that is sortable and searchable 2) Configurable message filtering 3) Hotspot message window (click on the message and go to unit/event) 4) More detailed unit status...ammo, damage, casualties, etc. 5) More granular and configurable time slices on the world AAR to see and learn beyond what a hit did. I want to see what the misses were. 6) Option for active pause where I can pause the game and still give out orders and look around the battlefield 7) Automatic and configurable transport to events. 8) Automatic pause on configurable events 9) Not so much a wargame feature but quality of life...a hot key to switch sides in scenario test mode. I know there are a few more. Its mostly focused on messages, communications to the player, and being able to manage events. In general, broader situational awareness.
  22. My musing is no knock on SB. It is what the devs say it is and more. Every little "gamey" thing I get I appreciate. But there just doesn't seem to be a concerted demand for SB to be anything but a team multiplayer procedural. Look at this forum. It seems like 80% of the posts are former tankers reliving glory days online. Just wondering if I'm waiting for godot.
  23. I have a friend I have played Combat Mission with for almost 20 years. He still plays after I have moved on over the last year. We hadn't gotten together for almost a year, for obvious reasons. So we finally went to Starbucks last week and just chatted about our wargaming hobby. He is pretty disillusioned with Combat Mission and its progress. He has been asking me a lot about Steel Beasts. So I loaned him my Codemeter stick to try it out. I built him a basic scenario to show him how I use it as a single player wargamer for my own enjoyment. After reading the forums, listening to me talk, and trying the game, he says he's not sure what to make of the game. His initial visceral reaction was how cool it was to go from inside the tank, to looking out of it, to the observer's position to flying around the map and then to look at the 2D map. But after some reflection, he thinks he'll stick with Combat Mission. He's looking for a wargame, but a simulator. He feels, and I agree with him, that Steel Beasts is a multiplayer-oriented tank operations procedural simulator. I call it a wargame with extra steps. IOW, yes it is what he says. But with a little work and imagination, you can make it like a Combat Mission wargame. And that's my issue...it sometimes takes a lot of work to make it a wargame. I have wondered lately after my friend's comments if I am barking up the wrong tree. Each update I hope to see another breakthrough feature to make it a little easier to get through building scenarios for myself or letting me play it more a wargame. I almost passed out when the "wargame" view of the map was released. But am I wasting my time pining for these features? Am I trying to make SB something it will never be? Is there anyone else trying to do something similar with SB?
×
×
  • Create New...