DrDevice

I'm all for TGIF prep by teams. A CO getting the plan ahead of time is a great start. Just knowing what your functional groups will be, having a chance to do map recon and place graphics, and preparing basic plan is a huge leap forward. The next increment better is the CO getting to pre-brief company or platoon leaders prior to TGIF start. These folks can then talk through their 1-3 sub-unit guys at game time and greatly speed things. There are dangers of logistics and wasted time, but if some folks wanna try it, no harm can come. (I think...) I see the challenges of load-balancing too. i.e. Blue/Red shift. When ye olde plan is known to the other side, it compromises a lot. I think the CO plan can accommodate the "player showed up to plan, but can't play on Friday" issue. If a CO has briefed 3 platoon leaders and only 2 show up, it's still less work to only get one guy up to speed. And in practical terms, we are often at the 1-3 player per company/platoon level, max, so the groups are small. I'm certainly up for the CO task as well. I've been trying to earn my merit badge anyway.

Looking like a great team theme!

Nah...it's just you. :biggrin:

And that attitude is just ignorant. Many of us play more than one sim, and have been playing sims since the damn DOS days. Many of us also have 5 or more years on this particular simulation, if not the entirety of its existence. If you don't value the opinion of those who've been around, that's fine. But don't get bent out of shape if those same people have opinions that differ from the "other sims do it, so why doesn't SB?" angle. I'm all for expanding the market. I'm all for you getting the game play experience you want. Just be aware that you may not be the first, nor last, to make suggestions that don't fit with SB's current play model.

I'm also 100% with the "equal opportunity to win, if the players perform the tasks requested of them." That can be a very slippery concept, though. Balance certainly isn't about equality of forces, IMO. But when you have dissimilar forces, how to you weigh the other factors in the balance equation? Terrain, artillery support, unit capabilities, player capabilities, etc. are all much more subjective than the simple math of 1 tank = 1 tank. The other quasi-factor there is "fun." Is being on the side that is getting beat to snot fun? Even if you "win" by mission objectives, is there enjoyment in it? Some may not think so. I think frustration sets in over fun when you feel like you, as a player, have little ability to affect the outcome of the game, no matter if you make good combat decisions or if you are technically proficient in the vehicle you are using. Personally, I like mission-driven games. I don't care nearly as much about body count as I do about achieving a hard-to-reach goal. I'll take as many killed enemy vehicles as it takes to reach my mission, whether that is zero or 20, or whatever number. I have had lots of fun in missions where the "action" wasn't sending rounds down range. But I've found that most MP players look for "trigger time" as the barometer of "fun." The statement "isn't SB all about the mission" is like saying "isn't the car all about the speed?" People like different things, and use the Sim in surprising ways. What they define as fun doesn't always align with mission-based play. (Although you'll find that lots of us are in line for those! )

Highly recommended scenarios for practicing adjust fires: http://www.steelbeasts.com/Downloads/p13_sectionid/258/p13_fileid/719 http://www.steelbeasts.com/Downloads/p13_sectionid/258/p13_fileid/721

The key factor here is deciding the mission ahead of time. We seem to be used to just winging it, which leads to the "last minute plans." I like the idea of the swapped plan file, depending on who can commit to playing on a given date. The "additive" property is good for helping the unit leaders really understand their roles. I also think that the system would be flexible enough to accommodate personnel that had to cancel, since the overall plan would still be better formed. And even if you don't want to be a part of the larger planning cycle, you can still just show up and play. So what are the next steps? Who's making the call on what TGIF mission is going to be played? Sean...will you fall on that grenade?

I love a stickler for detail! We'll look forward to them, should the vehicles come out.

And all of this cool content is where, exactly? :biggrin: All I've seen are some hyper detailed (but still very cool) skins...

Understand that my comment was not an overt criticism of the infantry modelling. I was merely opining that some SB players are willing to give up boots on the ground, where in real life, the exact opposite is true, in my experience. SB tankers want more ATGMs and less rifles, since they just want to kill tanks. I do agree that the legs are too easy to spot, and can't yet be as dynamic as the real thing. That's OK. The interactions at present are still challenging. ever try to completely eliminate even on platoon of dismounts from a small village? It's damned time consuming, and (as Grenny mentioned) your troop losses will be very high. "More explosives!" seems the rule of the day If anything, I'd like to see some type of link between shooting and moving of squads. As said above, the short runs expose the troops...BUT, if the squads are bounding with good awareness of a vehicle that is engaging them, they are much harder to hit. It's the "whack-a-mole" game where if you adjust aim to the squad that's running, they are back down in cover by the time your aim is on. This is very-small-unit behavior, I admit, but might make the dismounts more survivable upon engagement. On the other side of the coin, I would REALLY love an order to a unit that determines target type. i.e. I want to tell a platoon "ignore infantry" just like I can limit their engagement range. That way, the 3 troops cowering next to a dead BMP 1000m to my rear don't cause my gunner to focus on them while I'm driving at another armored threat 500m to my front. Even from the TC spot, I either have to constantly override, and can't stop the other vehicles in the platoon from looking the wrong way.

No...you lose 3. I believe the total troop limit still applies. If you want to pick up a 3-man ATGM team, you have to lose half the existing squad. Sure, you can max their ammo compliment, but you still won't have more than the usual 6 troops in a squad. (In the case of the CV-series.) The current balance to the ATGM-in-IFV issue is the fact that it is manual operation only. CC units will never pick up non-native dismounts. You can't even program them to do so in the editor. That is severely limited in anything but a fully-manned operation. It also begs the question of "why are your IFVs running around hunting tanks when there are much more capable platforms to do so?" Protection from tanks is one thing, I agree. But to put ATGMs in every IFV is a foolish use of resources, especially considering the extremely low manpower count of almost all modern mechanized infantry formations. Ask any commander who went from 10-11 men per APC to 6-8 in modern IFVs about how much ground they can really control. I will bet that lack of boots on the ground and an extremely low loss-tolerance would be high on his list of care-abouts. Fact is, infantry in SB is not as potent as in the real world, so many often downplay their importance in-game. (Woe to the player who ignores them entirely or doesn't know how to counter them effectively)

I've often found that ATGM control w/ a joystick is tough. I almost always use the mouse when firing them.

I have encountered an incompatibility issue with the TS upgrade and SB. If you have the TS overlay plugin active, it may cause a Direct 3D issue. I could not run SB in full screen mode (would not load) and experienced other crashes based on use of the plugin. Switching the plug in off solved the issue.

I completely understand the DCS A10 model. My point was that SB is NOT conducive to that kind of "drop in" play. It has zero to do with fidelity of sim, and more to do with how much coordination and independent action are expected on the parts of the players invovled. One plane going on a mission does not have an SB equivalent. I think this is another area that's tough. The CC units need explicit orders that can't just be "returned to the computer." when someone logs off. In SB, units are tightly controlled, and have no "plan" unless it's pre-programmed. They will react to their local environment, but won't DO anything. Unless every unit is manned, someone has to take up the orders for every non-human unit. You can imagine the confusion when one callsign just goes dark and you find yourself in charge of his vehicle/platoon/company. I'm just saying, that's apples and pineapples comparison. Yes, they are both high-fi sims, but no, they don't share an MP capability in the same way, IMO.

To continue the non-CV90 tangent for just a bit: Helo, no helo...it's still just a dismount missile team. In fact, cruising around in a loud, fragile, arguably easier-to-detect vehicle in order to place an ATGM team is worse than 3 guys with a TOW in a jeep, IMO. With the jeep, your first warning is the lead tank dying, and you wonder just WTF the shot came from. With the helo...you wonder why a transport helo dropped below LOS and then reappeared, and start to wonder about the area. Airborne assaults as you describe don't happen by the single vehicle. They are at least battalion-level events, if not division. Sure, helicopters can transport crew-served weapons that make the light infantry dangerous to tanks. But that's hardly a "good" solution to an armored attack. Helos also don't transport BMD-2s. Those are dropped from rather large planes. The idea of airborne ops and vertical envelopment is cool, but it's also not "small" by any real world standard. Not to ruin your mission fun: play how you like! Drop anything you want from a helo, and use their extraordinary mobility to change how the game plays.

That would be more "World of Tanks" and less "Steel Beasts" as far as play style goes. I totally understand the "I haven't got much time" aspect. But the reality of this sim is that it's not about just hopping in and shooting. If that's the time you have, I recommend practice on the range, or maybe the Instant Action options. Anything but the simplest scenarios usually take at least 10-15 minutes of reading the briefing, understanding the mission, and planning orders to any units not directly under your control. This is in front of the actual play time. (I take far longer, and look at planning as a joy unto itself, but some just like trigger time.)

Certainly one of the negatives when engaging tanks w/ ATGMs is their seemingly hyper-awareness of the incoming missile. Ssnake has commented that IRL, it's a heck of a lot harder to detect an in-flight missile. If you don't detect the launch signature, you are hosed!

It is true that SB is not the most conducive to a "pick up game." The solution: talk to other players ahead of time and schedule your play time. Or attend the large public games that have developed over time, i.e. TGIF. If this time doesn't work for you, start something! Lead. Take action and organize an event. Don't just whinge that no one is around to play with you. If you do decide that you want a pick up game, be willing to wait a while. There's even a whole channel dedicated to the concept of "Looking for game." And it's not like you have to sit there staring at the TS screen. I often go and play SB while waiting, and if a group happens to free up a game, they know where to find me. If I don't find a game, I have no one to blame but myself for not arranging people to play with. The ability to enter a game in progress is a separate issue. This isn't Team Fortress or some massively multiplayer arcade fest. I, for one, would not want you jumping in mid-mission, then expecting those in the mission to explain to you just what the hell is going on, how the plan is developing, and then assigning assets to you and HOPING you "get it." Successful mission execution beyond the most basic "go kill tanks" missions requires planning. Would it be cool to allow dropped players back in a game? Yes. Would it be cool to allow some random guy to jump in mid-mission? Hell no.

Neither do Brads with trained crews.

Ssnake has spoken. There will be medium-dark blue CV90s in the next update. You heard it here first, folks. The most combat effective CV90 to date!

That's like asking what color blue is the best. Subjective, opinionated, and highly variable based on a myriad of combat conditions.

So the magic number for prompt reloading of the 7-round "clips" is >21? If I'm firing either left or right feed ammo, and I reload prior to dropping below 21 rounds indicated in the ready supply, I should keep a fairly short load time, correct? I did some testing, but couldn't figure out the "right" place to cue loading for the 35mm. I tried again, and if I just shoot say, 10 rounds, the delay for the first reload of 7 is only about 1 minute. The other factor that matters to me is ergonomics. From the TC position, how easy is it to a) orient the gun w/ override from the hatch, b) see my formation, especially when behind me in column, and c) see behind myself to back up rapidly while allowing the CC gunner to engage targets. The 9035 has my favorite balance of ergonomics, firepower and fire control modes, but it's figuring out the damn ammo feeding that gets me! If you let that belt slip out, you are looking at 5 minutes+ just to get started loading, and about 1 min per 7 rounds after. It's just forever in combat time, so avoiding that is the hurdle I need to master. For load times alone, the 40mm seems to be the easiest for me to keep combat effective. The 9040C is awesomely protected, has great firepower, and can shoot some nice programmed munitions, too. Ergonomically, I don't like the TC hatch style or the placement of the 7.62mm, but I can accept those little things for the ease of use of the 40mm and the protection level.

Which is where I think the CC bridge layer is stalling on the example scenario. The river itself is too wide, and while it recognizes that the bridge is out when on breach orders, it simply won't lay down the bridge. (Even though the gap is exactly 1 span wide, based on manual testing.) I'll mess with the map and re-test. That way, if the underlying river at that point is properly narrow, we should see a working "gapped bridge" attempt.

As an addendum: make sure the river is narrow enough to bridge. I also could not get the layer to engage the bridge on a breach route of the nearby river. I suspect (nay, hope!) that this was due to the CC driver realizing there was no way his bridge would span the obstacle.

Conditioned penalty zones. I want to be able to flip on a zone when a certain condition is met. This would make things like chem strikes, radio jamming and some other neat ideas much easier to simulate.