Jump to content

Captain_Colossus

Members
  • Content count

    1,761
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Captain_Colossus

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

4,824 profile views
  1. We love photos

    you more or less repeated what i just said
  2. We love photos

    captured 'lion of babylon' below- distinct from breakthrough7's t-72 with extra plate welded to the glacis and supposed IR disruptor on the turret
  3. We love photos

    what is the more questionable designation is the term 'monkey model' that was thrown around for awhile, as if to say that the soviets supplied the iraqis with scrap rather than the 'real' version of the t-72. that sort of designation needs clarification or ought to be thrown out altogether, since the export models that the iraqis received aren't 'lemons' but rather export models without certain features, but at least as good as t-72a models used by warsaw pact. monkey model - likely a description used to somehow imply the t-72's lackluster performance was due to the fact that iraq didn't receive 'real' t-72s lion of babylon- local iraqi designation for the t-72, much the same way allies in world war 2 may have given their american manufactured vehicles their own names
  4. We love photos

    of course, but it's like you're doubling down on this for the wrong reason. in a similar way, the british in world war 2 nicknamed some of their american manufactured vehicles by certain designations, but the fact that they gave them these names isn't meant to imply that the british actually produced these vehicles. in much the same way, lion of babylon or sherman 'firefly' are nicknames for morale purposes rather than to suggest something else.
  5. We love photos

    it's not kind of a myth, that is the distinction that iraqis used for morale purposes to make their tanks sound especially badass- it's not a myth as in they never did that. you might be having issues with a semantic distinction- do you mean to say that lion of babylon is not iraqi designed and produced from scratch? no one claims that it was as far as i know. over the years, iraq had either assembled t-72s from exported parts- in other words putting together disassembled exported parts rather than creating each part from scratch, or they took their already working t-72s and added components to them to the standards that suited them (extra welded plates, a primitive smoke generator, some kind of IR dazzler on some vehicles). so they didn't produce t-72s from scratch, but they did assemble export models or modify them, often times under embargo conditions putting together what they could. that's what it is meant by iraqi assad babil- they did in fact either locally assemble parts received from abroad, or they locally upgraded some vehicles in their fleet. but the name doesn't refer to a locally manufactured tank from scratch, it refers to the fact that they called them lion of babylon for the coolness factor, not because they designed and produced them under license from scratch.
  6. About that deleted thread

    this statement contains both an internal contradiction (ensure estimations are factual), and entails the very thing you would want to avoid per opsec (ensure secret data is factual) in other words, estimations by definition aren't verified facts and secret data is forbidden as such.
  7. Iraq Republican Guard

    infantry modification to resemble iraq RG uniform
  8. floating spotters

    the forward air controllers and artillery observers float during play when kneeling or standing; this isn't apparent in the mission editor planning phase but once the action starts. terrain type doesn't seem to matter.
  9. MTLB

    the mtlb
  10. Help me have more fun with SBPe

    the mental block is likely the fact that no matter how skilled you are with the mission editor, the mission designer has a sense of how it plays out even with random events applied- the mission designer tests it and works out the bugs, and even a simpler scenario designed by someone else will still give a different feel for that very reason, at least until it is played enough times that it becomes committed to rote memory. this is why no one can honestly play chess solitaire and give black and white the same chance of winning, this is also why someone might think that simple missions generated in m1tp2 are more 'surprising' than very elaborately scripted missions that one creates for himself with steel beasts. i've heard music composers explain that by the time they create their music, they've been through the entire process of sampling and mixing that the final product is 'uninteresting' to them and they're ready to move on to something else (likely software developers might have a similar sense with their own products). i can subjectively confirm this with myself when i take apart other people's scenarios and alter conditions to have random events or a different mix of events and units, they are still often more fun to play than scenarios i create for myself with random variables. this is not the fault of steel beasts, it's just a natural consequence of anything we create for ourselves and expect the surprises to look the same as if someone else had done it.
  11. Help me have more fun with SBPe

    i will add something else because it still blows my mind that there is a nostalgic following for m1tp2- if you do an image search for m1tp2, the same stock photos tend to pop up- opportunistic camera shots at the right time give the impression of complex combined arms behavior and urban combat, but that never really happened at all in m1tp2 for the reasons that infantry couldn't occupy buildings or the impassable forest blocks, or that the computer ai didn't deploy mech infantry and move them around away from their vehicles, they always stayed right next to them exposed in the open, or that in reality there weren't complex urban areas but a few scattered buildings and these areas never really served as an objective to hold or attack. there is no comparison with steel beasts.
  12. Help me have more fun with SBPe

    my impression of m1tp2 and steel beasts are the reverse of what you describe- m1tp2 gave the illusion of continuity through cut scenes amd preservation of crews in the campaigns, but that's where that ended- if you played single missions and took those parts out (and the single missions were usually a mirror copy of what the campaign missions were like, arcade action), the gameplay was fairly weak. there are no ambushes in m1tp2 because the terrain was flat, simple, didn't have much information content to obscure vehicles and lines of sight (vehicles could spot and engage each other across the map at 8km, AI could see and fire missiles through trees), and units were as a result in each other's lines of sight and aware of each other all the time; furthermore, the game gave you a loud signature of atgms firing on you at several kilometers away, so you always knew they were coming, not to mention they would seem to lock on to the player's brainwaves or something through the tree 'fences'. still, it was more convenient if you didn't want to set up your own missions, because the computer did that for you in the campaigns. however, if you haven't explored steel beasts' mission editor, the random variables are the key to what you seem to be requesting- you can create random spawns of units so you don't always know what's coming
  13. Syrian T-62 (4.023)

    Version 1.0.0

    10 downloads

    Texture based on the original Syrian T-62.
  14. Syrian T-72M1 (4.023)

    Version 1.0.0

    18 downloads

    T-72M and T-72M1 skin based on the original Syrian texture. Note: Included is the separate NSV file for the commanders heavy machine gun. The program appears not to recognize this file if it is placed in the Mods folder, that is, it must be placed in the root Steel Beasts installation directory for all desert skin textures.
×