ole1291

I agree, simplifications are probably better in this instances, especially if modelling these strikes more accurately would strain the FPS too much. Current hit probability within the kill zone seems to be a good enough approximation. What surprised me in SB was the proportion of vehicles, tanks in particular, that are totally out of action after one hit. I would have expected more damaged tanks relative to destroyed ones. In the linked article, bomblet penetration is listed as 70-100mm. in SB though the RHAe given for DPICM ammunition is 54mm, I don't know which figure is more accurate. 155mm M-185: M483 DPICM 21000 54 273 1970s I understand the roof armour of a tank is not very thick, (perhaps someone can step in here with average thickness for modern western MBTs). My guess is it must be at least around 40-50mm if it is able to stop artillery air burst shrapnel ( STANAG 4569 level 6), perhaps even more in the case of the Leopardo. So the HEAT jet of any bomblet would be pretty depleted (if it penetrates at all), on a tank with segregated ammo storage, total destruction seems unlikely. I had it reversed then, ICM (anti personnel only) rounds being developed first and the 'DP'ICM being added later, thanks for clearing it up. The writer in that blog focuses mostly on high intensity symmetric warfare, I guess it can be argued that even then, an entire arty battalion firing on the same target for a minute would be uncommon, but not impossible. During the war in Donbass, there was a few cases of large Ukrainian large mechanised units being almost completely obliterated in DPICM strikes, I would guess those necessitated those kinds of fires. That actually makes me wonder; in SB its pretty difficult using artillery against moving formations because the player has too many assets to control at the same time but is that also true IRL? I would imagine a dedicated artillery commander could make all the required calculations, all he needs really is the enemy AFVs bearing and aproximate speed. Also, are there any instances in SB where, when provided both ammo types are available (HE and ICM) , it would make sense to select HE? I understand HE is more useful against dug in troops but we don't really have them in SB , except bunkers (is their greater protection actually modelled ?) I agree with you that MLRS are a useful part of combined arms (again proven recently in Ukraine, or the first Gulf war for that matter) despite its logistical problems. I don't think the writer was saying there are useless, just somewhat overrated. I think nobody is asking for the supply train to be modelled, it's just outside the scope of this simulation. In any case thank you for the thorough reply.

This blog: https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2014/04/or-smackdown-on-dpicm.html Makes an interesting argument that that DPICM is overvalued as an anti -vehicle ammunition (or in general too as its mainly rocket delivered which the author argues is an inefficient ammo logistic-wise) and is only really better than conventional ammo when dealing with infantry in the open. I used to think it was the contrary, DPICM being optimized against AFVs with the frag effect thrown in as an afterthought. So what do people here think about the issue? I must admit I was a bit surprised with the lethality of DPICM as modelled in steelbeasts, a very high proportion of hits seem to completely destroy the vehicle as opposed to just damaging it/killing a crew member which I didn't expect given their relative small size. Also, tanks seem to be nearly as vulnerable to them as PCs, but I think I recall reading that DPICM was meant to work against light armor rather than tanks (extra thick roof armour of upgraded leos doesn't seem change things much). Are these false notions (DPICM just as lethal agaisnt entire range of AFVs)? Just being curious.

Ah, I see. I then assume the launchers around the RWS turret are potentially for some soft kill APS or smoke. Thanks for the clarification.

According to Wikipedia the Btr B10 Kurganets has a "scaled down APS" but in steelbeasts it doesn't appear to be modelled (nothing happens when an ATGM is fired on the vehicule). Is that because you think it actually doesn't have one at all? or will it be modelled at a later stage? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurganets-25

I should be there

Should normally be there

should be there.

I should be able to come as well.

I should be there

I should be there too.

I should be there too, with broadband this time.

I've started downloading 3.027 but with my slow internet connection, it doesn't look like I'll have it in time for this evening's session.

You've definately chosen the safer course :bigsmile:. We'll see you next week then I guess...

Looking forward to it.

I tried the setup last Friday with TIGF and the game seemed perfectly playable. I did have a few slowdown from time to time (at which point I would just go back to the map view). So all and all, while not optimal, it seems perfectly possible to play SteelBeasts multiplayer sessions over the internet using a cell's phone mobile hotspot as router.

I'm thinking the same as Panzer leader here. Looking forward to it and hoping my connection will be alright but as it seemed to do ok last TIGF I'm not too worried.

Yes, Gibsonm was very helpful, I appreciate it. For some reason, things seemed to work pretty straightforwardly this time around. I hope it will be the same on Thursday. I'll let people know how I fare in case someone else happens to have a similar internet setup as I currently do.

Gibsom, Thanks, it's nice of you to offer. I will log on to teamspeak at 6pm Thai time today, hopefully we can find what's wrong. MDF, thanks for the advice, I guess closest SB hosts to me are in Australia. I'm using a time licensed for the time being so I guess it can't be the problem you mentioned, I had also deactivated my firewalls.

Hello, Although I've owned steel beasts for a few months now this is my first post here. Last friday I tried for the first time to join a TIGF multiplayer session. I had downloaded teamspeak and got the IP and everything but when I entered it in my game, no session to join appeared at all. I was thus unable to join the game. I haave a 3.025 pro PE version (x64) so that wasn't the problem. I currently reside in a rural area in Thailand and don't have a broadband connection at my house. Instead I'm using mobile hotspot from a cellular phone with a download and upload speed of about 0.35Mbps (according to speedtest.net) and ping of 50ms, the connection is about fast enough to view youtube video in a low res. I let my wife's nephew play comand and conquer 3 online to test if the setup worked at all for internet multiplayer games and it worked so it doesn't seem totally impossible to play online games wit this setup. I'm guessing the problem might be port forwarding as talked about in this thread: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=7739 Alas the instrucions for port forwarding given don't seem to cover the (probably unsual) case of using a samsung mobile phone as a router. So here are my questions: 1) Is it at all possible to play steel beasts online using mobile phone as a router? 2) Are the internet speeds mentioned good enough or to slow? 3) Does anybody have clue why I couldn't seem to detect the TIGF session and how to fix that? Any help is appreciated.

100 AFV per side would be nice if it's possible, and if a certain PC configuration would make it playable I would go for it. However I would already be happy with less if that's all I can get out of SB, not having played this simulation before I cannot be too specific. I definately want to be able to use large artillery components, as well as lots of infantry. Part of the reason I bought the sim is to get a better understanding of land warfare generally, as I only get that much from reading books and in my experience I learn something much more quickly when I'm actively engaged in it rather than just passively reading about it. Artillery seems to be generally underestimated in the west, yet it plays an extremely important role in war and with the new ICM ammunitions now available it is a very efficient AFV killer too provided the intel is there. So I hope to play scenarios that reflect those aspects of warfare. I guess then I need a really powerful machine, exactly how much is required is what I am trying to find out.

Thank you all for your input. SSnake, it's my understanding that the GTX 970 is roughly equivalent,or maybe even a little better than the GTX 780 (which is no longer on the market here in Thailand) so I should be alright with it right? or do you think there'll be a noticeable difference with the GTX 980? Buzpilot, I take note of your recomendations with the motherboard and processor as well, did you mean it as a general recomendation or does it mean you felt the motherboard or processor in the (cheapest I guess) article was underpowered? Marko, I think you made a good point, especially if they do develop a new engine for SB, do you have any idea of the timeline they are thinking about? On the other hand it's always a risk, buying the more expensive software not knowing for sure that even it would be adequate for a future version of the game. Thanks again for all the help.

Hello, I recently found out about SB to which I was immediately drawn for many reasons. I have actually already bought the license for it. My old PC however is not up to the task of running it and I'm currently looking to buy a new computer. I intend to spend a lot of time on SB playing large WP scenarios with a lot of units so I'm basically looking at the best PC configuration to run SB at it's most demanding. I'm willing to pay the price (though I'd start to be painful past 1'600 dollars) for that but on the other hand, since I'm really only buying a new PC for this simulation, I don't want to overkill and spend money for hardware whose dvantages the SB engine would not be able to use. I am currently hesitating between two different configurations, products of a competition in designing the best value PC at tomshardware.com The cheapest option at 1200 dollars is this one: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/mainstream-enthusiast-pc-build,4023.html The more expensive one here at 1600 dollars: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/high-end-performance-pc-build,4018.html One of the reasons I am considering the cheaper configuration is because I have read in other posts here that, given the nature of the SB engine, an I7 processor won't be any better than an I5, and I think I recall a similar argument between the GTX 980 and GTX 970 or equivalents... Any input or recomendations is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance