Jump to content

Orthos5

Members
  • Posts

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Orthos5

  • Birthday 08/22/1963

Personal Information

  • Location
    Akron Ohio USA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Orthos5's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

10

Reputation

  1. I almost don't want to suggest it because it would go against your intent of having the player control a single platoon, but maybe try giving that Pizzaro platoon to the player as well? Just throwing out some ideas here, not trying to get you to change your vision at all, but one possible way to look at it through a different lens would be that the player is responsible for all that is happening within his own boundary but still has no control over anything else. It might also save you some designer pain and free you from having to keep tweaking their behavior and instead make it a player manageable task to own all within his boundary. I find it becomes less enjoyable to try to control an entire company or more in some of the larger scenarios so I definitely am not advocating that, but I'm thinking a platoon of tanks plus a platoon of infantry might be doable and still enjoyable. Maybe an additional way to add immersion would be to start the player into an XO tank or PC on the left side as the initial player controlled unit, and the CO tank/PC (AI controlled) gets added the right side, or vice-versa (CO is left and player controlled, XO goes right and is AI). That way you could say that the XO or CO fights with the left side and the CO/XO fights with the right and work that into the Paragraph V Command & Signal piece of your OPORD (i.e. - CO follows 2nd & 4th platoons, XO follows 1st and 3rd). That would also make your force structure more representative of an actual company level unit on the ground and support the goal of having the player work only with what is within his boundary a little more believable because now the XO or CO would in essence be the ones calling the shots within that boundary instead of 2 peer platoon leaders (who's in charge here?). I think this way the tank platoon would still be where the player fights from most if not all of the time, giving the attached infantry and the XO a series of move/hold orders to keep them a little safer behind the tanks until he needs them for a task. On a side note and more of a Steel Beasts issue than anything else, in my next attempt I'm going to try to deal with the enemy armor buried in the woods from longer range and from the gunner's seat of a single tank (rotating through different tanks to spread out ammo usage). Tankers don't like to fight from inside woods because having your situational awareness reduced to within RPG & small arms range is not a good thing. Running right up the middle isn't working out very well, so I'm going to try to maintain more standoff distance and hunt around in the woodlines with the TIS from a distance, looking for the hot pixels to reveal their locations. The enemy gunner AI logic doesn't seem to try to target me from a longer distance when they are buried in the trees like that, so this might work. The thing I don't like about it though is that I feel as if I'm playing into the gamey limitations of a computer simulation rather than doing anything realistic. This will probably take a very long time to do, which means that the Pizzaros are going to keep moving on the objective alone (assuming they make it that far), and also pretty much kills any chance of my tanks making the objective within 30 minutes. This leads me back to my thought above about giving the infantry to the player so I could dismount them and run them through the woods to maybe try to get the tanks with their AT weapons. Not sure how well that would work either to make the 30 minute mark, but it could be used to present the player with an option - do I keep moving on the objective to make the 30 minute mark to get the higher score but subject myself to greater losses, or do I take a little more time (I think I could still make the 60 minute limit) and take the more methodical and safer approach (for the tankers anyway... 😬) of using the infantry to dislodge the hidden armor? Anyway, I've never spent so much time and had as much fun trying to figure out how to beat a scenario than this one, so great work on that! Cheers
  2. Just downloaded and have begun the operation. Many times over again, LOL. BLUF - I'm having a ball playing this and so far I have yet to complete the first mission. There are some hiccups but I'm having a good time with it. The overall concept of the operation is definitely immersive, great job with that. The map looks very interesting and fits well with your story. I'm not a huge fan of fictitious nations in wargaming, probably from silly training scenarios with Krasnovia and/or Ahuristan and whoever else has been used in the past by the Army, but you did a good job making that piece believable. A couple observations on play so far - not critiques negative or positive, just stating what I ran into: First of all, I don't know enough about scenario building to even begin to comment on that, so all I can do is provide my gameplay experience and hope you can find it useful. This is also the first time I've ever tried an operation in SB. After quite a few restarts, in all but maybe 2 of the starts I end up having to manually extract at least one of my tanks from the woods because it keeps getting stuck up against a tree if I leave the AI driver alone. I usually have to spend a couple minutes dealing with that distraction right off the bat to get everyone back together so I can begin my initial move across the LD. I'd like to be able to change the starting formation/location prior to jumping in to keep from having to do that. Even if you were to create a very small box to restrict setup but still allow players to change starting tactics/formation, it would go a long way toward preventing that distraction. Another time I got my tanks out into that first open area right across the LD in order to consolidate and plan the attack forward, just as one of the enemy recon trucks drove right up into my formation. 4 turrets slew main guns to shoot the truck which was now right in the middle of my platoon as if it was one of us, and fortunately I hit the hold fire key just in time to prevent a major crossfire fratricide. Thankfully the enemy truck never fired at anybody or the tanks would have probably returned fire even under a hold fire posture. A nearby Pizzaro actually shot up the truck, how he did that without hitting any of my tanks is a miracle. The Pizzaro platoon that moves along the same axis as the player platoon keeps getting mixed in with my tanks as I move forward, and it ends up turning into a game of bumper cars with the AI tank drivers as they intertwine. This again creates more distraction as I try to unscrew the situation to get my tanks back in control because now I find my own tank is all alone advancing forward. The terrain kind of forces the player to move the tanks pretty much along the same axis as the Pizzaro platoon unless the player is willing to go lumberjacking the tanks through the woods, which is something I don't like doing. Even if I hang a left after PL ALPHA and take the paved road into the village along the left side of the platoon boundary, my tanks still end up being channeled by the terrain back out in the open area right where the Pizzaros have been the whole time. About the time I start to run into serious contact somewhere around PL BRAVO and my tanks take up good hull down positions to work on the threat, the Pizzaro platoon just keeps right on trucking and gets way out in front of the tanks and begins to take losses as a result. It makes me wonder what the TF commander is doing letting his IFV's get out in front of the tanks like that right in the middle of a gunfight. Whether it is intended or not in order to keep the player moving, it does make me feel like I need to push ahead again to protect the Pizzaros even though I'm right in the middle of an engagement and dealing with it just fine from where I'm at. The Pizzaros don't seem to mind getting out ahead of the tanks and leading the charge, but in this case they really need to find some cover until the tanks have dealt with the threat. As I near the objective I start running into a few individual enemy vehicles buried deep in the woods on the south side of the objective, which is something I think happens way too unrealistically often in SB. Almost every time an enemy AI gunner manages to find a 2-pixel wide gap between the trees and gets a lucky shot at one of my tanks before my AI gunners will engage him, and now I'm down a tank or two because of it. That is the point when I hit the restart button. I'd like to see some infantry move into the woods and put some AT-4's in the grille doors of those tanks & PC's hiding in the trees, but by now the infantry platoon is combat ineffective because they got too far out in front of my tanks. Nonetheless, I am having a great deal of fun playing this, even though I keep restarting it before completion. I really like your goal of keeping the player controllable force down to a single platoon. I keep thinking that one of these times everything will mesh just right and it will be a nice clean run at the objective. If there is any way at all to improve the movement logic of the Pizzaro platoon to be more tactically sound along with the player platoon movement, I think you will at that point have hit this one over the fence. Nice job!
  3. That one worked great, thank you!
  4. I tried Chrome, Edge, Firefox. No go. Like I said above, I see the available license but the pulldown with the option to choose where to put the license says "No Cm Container found!" It's like the old license is stuck in the Cm Container and can't be removed/replaced. I did notice, however, that I can still run SB even though it says 0 days left on my license.
  5. Hi, I purchased a monthly license... well, a month ago. That license is expired now. Just a few days ago I took the plunge and purchased the Codemeter stick version. I received the email with a link to activate the complimentary single month license while waiting for the CM stick. When I click on the link, the page shows there is a new license available but the window below it says "No CmContainer Found!". This has been just in the past couple days during the v4.250 rollout, and I wonder if that has anything to do with it? I just installed v4.250 which also installed v7.20 of CM, but still no dice. I know the CM stick is on its way but given the performance of the US Postal Service lately, it is probably on its way to me via Bangladesh first. Can this be fixed or am I SOL until the stick arrives? Thanks
  6. So when I start up Steel Beasts today (Tuesday, 19 January), it says "license expires in 2 days". Of course, that's Thursday. I ordered the full version however ($115 USD, which is cheaper than it was a week ago), and am awaiting arrival of the Codemeter Stick. So, there are several COA's here. If stick arrives before game time, then I'm good. If stick hasn't arrived, maybe the count down timer on my monthly will still be good for game time. Finally, it is possible that the stick won't be here in time and the monthly will expire prior to game time, in which case I'm SOL.
  7. Tentatively yes. That's 0330 my time. My whole life I've debated the question (aside from the technical answer) as to whether 0330 is still "last night" or "this morning".
  8. I am also running into a problem where every bridge (so far) wants to crush under the weight of a Challenger. Is this intended or possibly unintended due to an older scenario being played in 4.167? Refreshing the map in Map Editor did not help.
  9. Heh, yeah that would probably be it... I believe it was the RKh version, it was turretless, at least in the 3d view during AAR playback. Lesson learned: AI gunners apparently don't react to ghosts...
  10. Yes, good time today with a good group. So about 45 min into the mission I was wondering why my AI gunner kept slewing the turret back to about my 8 o'clock and identifying a target. I thought "there's only friendlies back there, fool" If you look at the AAR tape at T +44:40, you will see the BRDM in the woods just off my 8 o'clock...
  11. I have also started SB after a very long hiatus and have started working through the Hornfelt missions. Thanks to the links above I was able to get the maps installed. After installing the maps however, I suspect that the maps refreshed in 2020 are not the same data as when the scenario was designed many years ago. I played Mission #2 first (several times actually) and it went as expected. When I try to play Mission #3 Attack by Fire, I am running into a problem where the scripting of the mission never proceeds past the first message that appears right after the start of the mission "Red One, what's the hold up?". The CO never announces he is set nor does he ever order the platoons to move forward to engage. I sit in my hide position as the enemy force drives right past us. Testing this out in the mission editor, I can see that the problem lies in the fact that the CO never gets into a position where he can observe enemy units in the trigger zone, which is one of the conditions for the scenario to proceed as scripted. I've run it like 5 times with the same end result. I have tried to edit the scenario to give the CO a path to a better position (in the photo) but he keeps going to the same spot shown above. Apparently I can't edit any paths or any of the scenario parameters, or I'm not doing it right. Any help or ideas would be appreciated.
×
×
  • Create New...