thewood

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.

Since someone decided to resurrect the thread...I think engineering is a good one to point out. The only game that might have the potential to rival SB in combined arms is may ARMA 2/3. But it would require a lot of mods and configuration to make it even close.

Infantry isn't perfect, but is simulated to a degree of realistic capabilities that it puts it in that corner for me. That's artillery, armor, and infantry. I don't mind airstrikes being abstracted. I don't need to see the airplanes flying around. Also, I haven't used helicopters in a while, but they do a pretty good job of killing me under the right circumstances.

I'd like to think a few long-time players would have the motivation to maybe stand up for the devs a little. But I can see the devs sure earn their money with a crowd like this.

So guessing you really don't like the devs or the game at all. Good to know.

Really? I could say the exact same thing. SO some people just don't have the skill to understand how what the write or speak gets interpreted. So I'll ask...do you really think how the SB devs work is on par with a company that has a pretty poor reputation for delivering unfinished product and abusing the Early Access concept?

I have to say, this is one of the more insulting comments I have seen towards these devs. Is the game perfect? No. Could they release more frequent patches to address issues? Yes. But the SB devs are more communicative, honest, and transparent than most devs will ever be. When an SB product is released, its in pretty good shape and complete. There is no Early Access churn you see with most modern developers. Go to the DCS, ARMA, or BFC boards and see how long you have to wait to get anything fixed. To make a comment like that, I have to assume you are so incredibly dissatisfied with the game, that I have to wonder why you play it. Why waste your time where you feel you have to be so passive aggressive to feel any form of satisfaction. I mean, there must be other detailed combined arms games out there that are perfect enough to spend your valuable time on.

DCS really perplexes me. It looks really good at first and maybe second look. Some of the videos are outstanding. But once I start digging below the surface, it always seems to be somewhat a "work-in-process". And this is the first time I have ever seen a good consolidated list of what is being worked on. I have always thought they should shutdown in-house releases for six months and just clean crap up. I know that is unlikely because of cash flow reasons, but it always seems to be that the hole they are digging just gets a little deeper on each EA or release.

Stumbled on this in Reddit...

The 1660 family is a good compromise on price/performance. My son upgraded from a 1050 and it was a world of difference in his flight simming.

I assume this is the issue... And this one...more recent

Not sure what that means, but OK.

Jeez...Can't I get some sleep. I tested a bunch and Hans is right. I'm not sure what I saw. I think it was that my paths were so long that I didn't see the convergence.

Mine all go straight ahead. I'll play it out a little longer and see what happens.

Then I would suggest watching the video for the extra five minutes to see how its done. It was pretty straightforward and completely changed how I do supported infantry fire and movement.

That is a platoon of PCs in the video. I suspect you didn't watch the video all the way through when he did it with a platoon. I'm a little confused because you seem to be changing what you are looking for over three posts. I just went back to 4.162 and built a scenario that does exactly what the video shows with a 5 PC platoon.