Jump to content

Captain_Colossus

Members
  • Posts

    2,216
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Captain_Colossus

  1. new house models, crew for the mi-24
  2. definitely threatening for a sandbox simulator- in reality the cost and availability of the gun fired missiles mean there aren't much of them to go around, which is why finding videos or even anecdotes of them actually being used in real world combat are very rare to non-existent. for a simulation not inherently limited by supplies or cost, it most definitely should be a real threat to any western tank- which i know from experience facing the AI controlled t-90 tanks, which are both accurate and very fast with their ATGM, almost as difficult to avoid as sabot rounds at close enough range and often doing much more damage. for most cases i would design scenarios to put limitations on them, chances of encountering these missiles should be rare, and therefore i think a more powerful t-72 sort of gives the wrong impression of what sort of threat the t-72 should be- unless of course the particular scenario is deliberately designed for some reason to take advantage of them. the option is welcome, but within limitations- and it makes them more valuable precisely if they were rare and not abundant in their loadouts, encouraging preserving them until necessary rather than just slinging them at everything that moves
  3. no armor is the best armor
  4. never ends. there is no finish line. we had steel beasts 1 and look where you are now, because it is never enough muahahahahahahahahahaha
  5. definitely needed the trenches 👍
  6. that is new. perhaps at some point it will be a feature with rounds being fired and visible blur
  7. visible heat blur effect
  8. the countries which share a border with china and most likely to get involved in a skirmish are historical adversaries vietnam and india. the other possibility is war with north korea, which drags the PLA into it. apart from that, it is difficult to imagine a scenario where china and the united states and australia go to war with tanks on china's mainland or in australia, either there is no political reason for it on either side, or nuclear weapons makes the sorts of options limited and unlikely. territorial disputes with japan, taiwan or malaysia and the philippenes are the next likely scenarios- but here too these imply amphibious operations and particularly if the united states gets involved, the fighting really will involved their respective navies and swarms of sea and shore based ballistic missiles. don't get me wrong, for a sandbox simulation i would like to have as many options as possible to create that sort of matchup with say PLA expeditionary forces and not worry about the plausibility so much
  9. post no more images in this topic and preserve the animated .gif on the right side of the screen. shut up and take my money -------------->
  10. in the 1990s there was a DOS space combat simulator which purported to use newtonian physics called 'mantis'- there was nothing fun about it, because it was much too difficult to dogfight in space with realistic momentum and inertia in space with no gravity, atmospheric effects, aerodynamics and control surfaces. the player's craft and the enemy ships slip and slide all over the place and taking control of it was all work with no payoff. if these games take that route, to what extent are they fun if you have to literally use contemporary technology known to us now- basically using control thrusters which you must fire in different directions, having to apply the right amount at the right time, apply the opposite effect to neutralize a particular direction rather than returning the controls to neutral, and so on- requires preparation and mental concentration rather than getting to the action of flying, if that is what you want- in star wars type of games which tend to look like world war 2 dogfights at least skip all of that and you can concentrate on the action. if you need to maneuver slowly and deliberately, it's one thing, but if you are looking for action and combat, it's too difficult, it's more likely to appeal to a gamer who wants to spend a lot of effort docking and deploying vehicles etc like in real life, which isn't so much fun as it is stressful the alternative i suppose would be to shoehorn something into the games like future tech which for some reason can mitigate all that, but then it isn't as 'realistic' either.
  11. what would a game be if nothing happened and everyone wins or everyone loses? or say a movie where everything is pleasant from beginning to end- it would be boring as all hell. no one goes to see a movie like that. that is the dilemma, we say we want peace in the world and all this kind of thing, but then we find that we do not really want it, because peace imposed on us would be a new kind of problem- whoever has the power to do that is basically who rules over us. what kind of universe produces a t-72 as a weapon of war- the one we got and the one we actually want whether we think we do nor not
  12. well i certainly hope you got your refund. sit down before you fall down the very people you are calling idiots, the ones who have you triggered are the very ones contributing to the topic about the t-72. see for yourself and peruse. then by that time you might have collected yourself enough and you can contribute something also.
  13. you may have noticed that there is a peculiar problem: maybe we'll just print money and that we'll solve it. but that creates what is called inflation, and your money is devalued and you lose purchasing power. third world countries have especially had a problem where inflation is out control and it becomes an unending spiral- they inject liquidity into the system, and the money becomes worthless as soon as workers go to the bank to get paid, which causes them to inject more and compounds the problem further until they have uncontrolled inflation and they are printing billion dollar notes in the extreme cases which wind up being worth about 5 american cents. if you understand everything does that- it's like a practical joke where in spite of all your efforts to make life equitable and fair, you will eventually find that you have a new set of problems replacing your old problems, or projecting out of the solutions you previous came up with. that is why for all intents and purposes, life is a game that cannot be finished, it keeps going. there was an author- fukuyama- who gained a lot of press with his book the end of history, but then we saw that it is not a feature of the game to have an ending that way- such a situation has never occurred in the universe, except in the sense that any ending implies the beginning of something else. beating the game would be like having a universe where it consists entirely all matter but no space, or entirely, all space but no matter, or up without down, or down without up, and so on- you always have one only with the other. so you cannot eliminate the direction called 'up' from down or isolating one end of a pencil by cutting off the other half. they want to solve 'cancer'- which to think like that seems to miss a crucial point: life itself could be described like metastatic cancer which grows, mutates, and evolves; you can attempt toxic radiation therapy or chemotherapy or starve the cancer, but what you do to cancer you do to the patient as well- since they are the same process. your cells are genetically pre-programmed to die, which means you die- that may sound depressing but consider what would happen if they did not do that: then you would have a situation of runaway cancer, your cells die in order to prevent that from happening, the problem is that cancer hijacks your cell's machinery to prevent normal cell death and tells the malignant cells to keep on replicating. so humanity has been looking for some method that would perhaps lead to immortality in the game that cannot be won- which is understandable because death is an uncomfortable fact of reality, but you see even that has a purpose of solving the problem of overpopulation if there were no death. when you understand this, you see the irony in everything going on, and in what everyone does. even very rich people somehow feel as though something is at stake, because even if their wealth is secured, then it's something else- their health perhaps, or the health of their friends and family, everyone is always looking over their shoulder no matter what they have, because no one gets to keep anything. the game is simply not 'winnable', but is at best a thrill ride which eventually has its conclusion. in the process of trying to beat the game which is like trying to capture a song which comes to an end, but in the process of trying, we evolve. it's a carrot on a stick.
  14. listen to your elders young man, you might learn something- the namely the same thing will happen to you. the problem with youth is we can't teach you something. you dismiss it as old banter, remember this conversation.
  15. all the enlightened classical humanisms have really become a trojan horse to disguise some effort into either rigging the game or beating it into submission* : it really is another form of "me, me, me, me me" under the banner of sounding compassionate or well meaning- even if it did proceed from that, it is not long before corruption gets a hold of it and it turns into something else, i.e., the modern wokeism where it is really a form of "i deserve such and such extra consideration because i am this or that and that disenfranchised group, not because i earned it" and it evolves into entitlements and privileges of its own when it originally claimed to oppose those things- another form of leveraging the game. it's weaponizing self interest and changing the rules of the game, far from achieving equality, but to rig the game in the name of equality. there is a pie in the center of the room, now everyone get set on the count of three and go for a slice. those who somehow figure out a way to rig the game or scream the loudest or make the biggest fuss or strongarm a slice have the advantage- they use equitable sounding phrases when doing it, but what really is going on is something like you might see on the playground or in a prison yard where the strong or the more clever outmaneuver others and shake them down, and it becomes normalized. this is what life does in itself, culminating in the most scheming, political animal of them all, that is what evolution is and would explain why we no longer generally live in caves and trees or the 12th century, or the 20th century. it all keeps going, because deep down there is this sense there is a limited amount of resources, or living space or resources or what have you, life is a competition for these things and through our efforts seek out more and more resources. and living things evolve to seek advantages and success is rewarded- temporarily at least- because the game evolves again- we can see this clearly because standards of what used to be considered well off or affluent or secure change again, the bar gets raised, your dollar or euro doesn't buy as much as it did before. that is the source of our efforts, this sense that there is something which we must do something about it and keep on earning more or fighting one or another, because if you don't, you risk falling out of the race. which is the same behavior you see in the rest of the animal kingdom- competition for mates, for the best living space, for food and so on. we simply package it up in a kind of illusion of civilization, but the underlying game is still there. * voltaire said: "if you want to see who controls you, look to see what you are not allowed to criticize" -- this would have been considered very cutting edge in his day, now that is dangerous, patriarchal speech because it permits criticisms of certain isms which are not permitted to be criticized.
  16. corruption and graft are features of the game; entropy finds a way because it goes with everything like steak sauce. as soon as life got started, it was wired into things and explains why life evolves the way it does- not out of a situation where energy and comfort are unlimited, because a garden of eden situation has no evolutionary selection pressures at all, nothing evolves out of necessity in that case but where there is always a perception that the goalposts are moving and can never quite be pinned down or there is a sense of some kind of elusive goodie and a sense of losing the game if we don't grab a hold of it (even warren buffet who is as old as he is cannot seem to stop investing in the stock market, it basically does him no good anymore at his age, but he is like an investing machine and can't stop because there is a powerful sense of missing out on further gains) it is is a peculiar feature of life until you realize that you can make the case that life is a game- then it loses all the supposed 'mystery,' and it exposes why things are the way they are. it is a game where there are real stakes and real consequences at all levels, winning the war is one game going on, and within that game there are all sorts of mini-games are being played. the game of self preservation and enrichment is what everyone is doing, so everyone is playing the game on the assumption of beating it into submission and getting theirs. even all attempts to beat the game and create a welfare state where all members are taken care of invariably introduces layers of bureaucracy to dole out the benefits, where somewhere in the process the skimming from the top begins, funds go missing or are somehow laundered. it's rather well known how well supplied americans were in europe in world war 2, until you look at cases of how much was filched by rear echelon troops before the rest made it to the front
  17. you could very well be right: what we do not have are press conferences where the the russians explain what is going on to the press like the way the western press corps would grill pentagon officials on why the cages are there in the first place or do not appear to be working. without that, you may infer a number of things. it is probable in my view that they are unit modifications (to what extent a higher echelon HQ acknowledges, endorses recommends, ordered- including taking them down- no idea there). even before the results came back when i looked at those things just before the start i thought they were a joke, something in my gut told me this wasn't normally going to save you from anything- a javelin or an RPG, and if it did, you beat the odds and got lucky, but results would not be consistent; perhaps a 10 or 20 percent chance to defeat a HEAT warhead is better than nothing at all, but given the reputation of the t-72, it tends to be an 'unlucky vehicle'; much in the way iraqi units with field modifications tended to be 'unlucky' - more for morale purposes than technical 😁
  18. i honestly have nothing to go on but to speculate- like the average internet commentator, that is all i have. in fact there is almost zero thought process in it, because there isn't much to go but for the most obvious reason that that these cages are placed on the tops of the vehicles, suggesting that top attacks are anticipated- which also points to top attacks from open the open floors of buildings as you say. i do not see why they are mutually exclusive if they were the result of initiatives taken by nervous crews at the unit level, that is, if you had one purpose in mind, it might fulfill the other purpose as well. i personally wouldn't feel comfortable with improvised cages on top of my t-72 like that either for either purpose, but maybe for self confidence reasons an ignorant crew might think, we have the scrap, something is better than nothing; otherwise you would have to know what the russian strategy was in the beginning, this is where it gets squirrely. - the cages appear to be a unit modification rather than a directive handed down from the top, which might suggest that planners were not terribly concerned with either javelins or urban combat because they weren't as widespread even in the beginning, when supposedly there was going to be urban combat in kyiv; if it was the plan to to fight in kyiv i would presume they would not look so ad hoc and varied depending on the unit carrying them. the question is who ordered or suggested that their tanks should install these things- did it start somewhere as a field modification like iraqi tank crews might have been prone to do, and just sort of inspired other units to pick up on them? or perhaps an order from like the general staff might have insisted that all units carry them and i would assume there would be a more commonality in them in design, performance, and appearance if they were an 'issued' item (then again, the russians never struck me as disciplined and structured as western militaries, or at least the united states military, and to the degree the us takes losing government issued equipment losses seriously, which may be either good or bad depending on how flexible you want your army to be). - how much were the russians expecting to win the war by conquering kyiv in the opening days is a matter of debate. if you listen to the ukranian and western press, that was their intention and they blew it when heroic ukranians sent them packing (which they are still using as a pretext for russia's failure to win the war- even as the russians changed the scope and objective of the war and now even ukraine seems to have changed their tune at what's going on as they are losing control of the situation in donbas). were the russians really expected to cause zelensky's government to surrender in a week, or is that what someone wants you to believe. if that was the original plan, someone did not plan for it very well, or they didn't prepare kyiv with artillery, the russians were rather merciful there than compared to other cities they expected to conquer. i'm not sure the russians were planning for much urban combat in kyiv- if that was the intent, it looks as if they thought it would be done bloodlessly without much combat at all, the shock of the russians showing up so soon would have been the key ingredient and making actual fighting unnecessary. i speculate though. - the russians losing more tanks to fuel shortages or other reasons is incidental. you can always lose in a way that was unexpected, which does not mean they weren't originally purposed to do what they were intended to do, it just means something else stopping them in their tracks ironically made their preparations a moot point i have found it difficult to even look at technical facts separate from some kind of PR narrative- even looking for technical details often comes attached with some form of propaganda. i have been looking to see if ukraine have been able to move armored units into a counterattack in donbas and what types of vehicles may have been involved, which it seems they have done to some extent, but all of the press is usually about russians blown up at river crossings- nothing about their own movements. understandable that they do not want to deliver information to the enemy, but for that reason, it's difficult to sort out any operational reasons for anything anyone is doing, because to know that you would have to know the intentions of either side- which both are concealing. there is such glaring examples of this that it's difficult to understand what either side really thinks of the situation, with conceits on both sides which are equally preposterous, for example, russian officials claiming that western weapons are having issues with russian tanks, with ukranian officials standing firm and saying that they will not give up sievierodonetsk, but admit having to retreat if only to preserve their forces to attack again- and then you go on an read in ukranian press that the russian front has collapsed while at the same time pleading for more help because the surrounding towns are encircled and have been mauled. going back to the russians again, they are doing that thing they do from world war 2- attack everywhere and reinforce the success where it occurs, and then suggest that is what they intended to do all along- which is very convenient, because they never 'lose' in that respect, it was always going according to plan. this shows that they are either very flexible either way- either absorbing punishment and amending the plan and develop a better opportunity, or spin the narrative- to what extent is either happening is difficult to separate, they seem to go together in russian strategy as politics is a continuation of battlefield results. ukraine at the same time mocks the failures of russia when it is convenient, begs for aid and weapons when they can no longer deny that their country is being destroyed, flip the narrative either way on and off. i understand the perceived need to control information by either side, but it's simply impossible for me to separate the purpose of the cages from the wider narratives being spun, because to find any information without some kind spin on the why's and hows is rather difficult. you are left to speculate, you don't get someone from the top coming right out with press conference as to why they were there but gone now, and it seems they weren't 'official' anyway but whomever had the idea seems to have determined they have either failed or they are irrelevant now
  19. they are working out the solution on the fly without a lot of real world experience with a diving ATGM such as the javelin- they are proceeding from a logical motivation, and the fact that they would improvise something- however effective or ineffective- at least shows they anticipated a real threat. it is of course a part of the process which evolves everything. you have to start somewhere, although the learning curve in this case is unforgiving, but both sides will study what happened and will continue the never-ending work of trying to 'beat the game' (the west will also have to figure out the next move to protect from loitering drones and missiles eventually if not the russians first). again, i think the russians need to come to grips with the end of life cycle of the t-72 and not just shoehorn cage armor to a tired generation of vehicles in order to solve their problems. ukraine too would eventually need to update their weapons, because recent developments are showing the war is evolving again, and now the narrative is changing a bit to a serious development for ukraine as the russians have delivered a shellacking on ukrainian armor attempting to maneuver out in the open similarly as the russians have already experienced. you really have to sort through all the propaganda on both sides to draw any sense out of it though.
  20. i would accept that and move on except: it looks as though the new saved scenario knows those buildings are destroyed, because in the planning phase, it shows the damages carry over to the new scenario. it looks like it is ready to go- there is some information about the destroyed state saved with the new scenario file. the difference is when the scenario is actually started, that is when the map objects are reset. - if it is not an intended feature of steel beasts to store the state of damages to map objects with an in progress save- ok, that is the way it is. - if it is intended, and it is not behaving the way it is intended, these are the symptoms
  21. after the scenario in progress save and restarted under the new scenario file (because you cannot overwrite the existing scenario with an in progress save) 1) in the mission editor, i create a scenario, destroy map objects with pre-plotted artillery / IEDs etc 2) in progress save under new scenario name 3) open up the new saved scenario in the mission editor, you can physically see the map objects are destroyed in the planning phase as you would expect 4) once the saved mission is started however, all map objects that were previously destroyed (buildings, walls, info signs, municipal power lines and road signs) regenerate
  22. in the following scenario, i created a condition where units would surrender if taking direct fire. as far as the mission editor condition boxes are concerned, indirect artillery fire is treated as direct fire since it appears that the artillery rounds and/or fragments are technically the same as direct fire. in these screenshots, there is only off map artillery dropping on the infantry squads, which is causing them to surrender
×
×
  • Create New...