WhiteFalcon325

The tank I had, please; though listed as 41A, it was 41B.

Sounds like a plan! This is DocWhatshisface, btw; I'm from the U.S.

Absolutely great looking skin! Thanks for taking the time to put it together!

This is the most epic scenario description I think I've ever read. :luxhello:

It was in the proper format. I just deleted, then redownloaded, and extracted the file. It's working just fine now. I'm not sure what happened.

The AAR will not open in SB. I've never had this happen before. It's in the right place, AAR folder, and it's the right file type, and when I click 'Load AAR,' I see it in the list. But, when I hit load (or double-click it), it brings up the dialogue box "Loading Mission Please Wait," before the box almost immediately closes, and the AAR never comes up. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong.

Ah, I see.

Thank you, sir!

Yes sir, however, the map was *completely* flat. If you click mission editor, and do not select a map, then the one used is flatter than Oklahoma. I am eager to test the march speed. Again, if it turns out I was wrong, I'll admit it - I assure you. Indeed, sir. From my understanding, the infantry gave us (blue) a good kicking with ATGMs last night. It was beautiful. :luxhello:

Good game last night, fellas. :luxhello: I got dropped a few minutes into debriefing, therefore would it be possible for someone to put the file here? I'd like to go through it.

And the jogging results are in! I used a completely flat map. Assuming that each grid square is 1 km (is this correct?), I had one soldier move 1 km, another move 2 km, and the last one move 3 km. For consistency sake, each soldier's movement was computer controlled using "engage" (which moves at the second speed, 'jog'). Therefore, when I hit the 'start' button they immediately stepped off, and their time stopped when they reached their respective checkpoints (looking at the numbers, I think man 1's distance was a bit shy of 1 km.). Man 1 hit his checkpoint at 14:12, making his MPH 2.63. Man 2... 29:13... MPH 2.55. Man 3... 43:40... MPH 2.56. The average MPH was 2.58. Using only the most scholarly sources at my disposal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_walking_speed), I've determined that a typical walking speed for an adult is 3.1 mph. Maybe at another time I'll test their run, and marching speeds.

That actually makes a lot of sense, sir. Yes sir, though a hotkey would still be nice.

Heh, I honestly wrote, deleted, and rewrote that word a few times before posting; I'm not sure how else to sum-up my thoughts. I thought to use "weak sauce," but I was trying to be diplomatic. Well sir, I see your point here. My estimate was assuming a generally flat area to the exclusion of inclines, water obstacles, etc. Hmm, you bring up a good point, sir. I didn't think about conscripts/militia. Regardless, I am now curious and will have to do some time trials tonight. I'll post the results later. If the speeds are comparable to 3mph (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_walking_speed)(http://www.runnersworld.com/for-beginners-only/what-are-the-right-walking-and-running-speeds), I will retract my movement/stamina statements. Fair enough? :bigsmile: I reread my post, but I'm not sure where the accuracy question is. I don't think accuracy is an issue. Overseas, I've seen some incredible shots, but I've also seen times where a squad-plus is blasting away, and the bad guy was not hit. Indeed, sir. However, from the F7 view, there were no breaks in LOS that occluded more than a couple soldiers out of a 9 man squad (it was a large bush). Hence, it would be nice to have a crosshair, or perhaps just a circle, and with the press of the spacebar, to have them begin firing. If nothing else, maybe it'll scare the enemy. I don't doubt that significant progress has been made. My intention, despite being poorly described, was not to gripe. Rather, it was to toss out my $0.02. I look forward to seeing just that, as well as picking their brains on the topic. :bigsmile:

Indeed sir, but fire control is finicky - at best. Like I said, sometimes they shot, sometimes they wouldn't. I see my post could have been more clear. :c: Also, the issue with movement has to do, primarily, with stamina and how quickly it runs out.

"Shoot and move, baby. Shoot, and move" - Infantry adage. I'm not sure if this should go here, or in the "Content Wish List." I apologize if it's in the wrong spot. I'd like to preface this by stating that I really love this game, more so than even the Silent Hunter series - which is saying quite a bit! I am not intending this to come across as a rant, or badmouthing Esim/SB in any way. These are just my thoughts as a former grunt. The infantry in SB suck so badly, it makes me want to cry! There, I said it. I was messing around with the M2A2 troops tutorial last night; the tutorial wasn't really working, so I whipped up a quick infantry-only scenario with two opposing rifle platoons (for simplicity sake: 4 squads of 9 men). The map was just a generally flat field, no forests, buildings, etc. From there, I set about trying to run through some basic battle drills - FM 7-8 stuff. What shocked me during these scenarios is that the infantry has two *major* problems. The first is their ability to engage consistently (shooting), the second problem is mobility (moving). Regarding shooting, for example, in one iteration, the red squads were more or less on-line, firing, but not all of them, and not at the same time. Meanwhile, blue's 2nd squad was returning fire, while 3rd squad (which was approximately 100m closer than 2nd) was not firing at all (despite having a clear line of sight); neither were the remaining blue squads firing, despite being no further away from enemy troops than second squad. In the next iteration, (with similar positioning) all blue squads were firing, except 2nd. Yet, only one red squad was firing. The other three were high-crawling about, seemingly in circles. And on and on it went. Now, I understand that in a tank simulator we're lucky to have infantry. I also understand that they are not the 'stars' of Steel Beasts, and therefore cannot/should not receive as much attention as the tracks. However, it would be nice if the grunts got some work done on them. Their ability to fire seems terribly bugged - sometimes they'll engage, sometimes they'll just lay there, and other times they'll opt instead of crawl around until they're all KIA. "A single rifle can turn the tide of battle" is an old adage used by grunts, and to a large extent, is completely true as numerous historical accounts bear witness. Therefore, when it's time to shoot, we need every trigger being squeezed. Also, it would make them more lethal if players had more control over their fires: i.e. the ability to 'point' at a target (enemy, building, etc.) and, with the press of a button, order the men to open fire, or cease fire, shift fire, etc. An FPS, or 3rd person shooter-style system is unnecessary, and I think would detract from SB. However, as it stands, the player has too little control over his men's fires. The second major issue is mobility. The success or failure of infantry operations is largely predicated upon rapid movement, especially once contact has been made. When I was enlisted, a 'standard' ruck march for training was with full personal kit, and a *minimal* pack weight of 35 lbs.; the distance was 12 miles, and it had to be completed in under 3 hours. The speed required for such a march is comparable to a brisk jog/slow run. Unfortunately in SB, the infantry is horribly, lethally non-mobile. If I or anyone else needed to stop and rest every couple minutes, we'd find ourselves kicked out of the 82nd, and probably out of the Army itself. Therefore, I have a couple suggestions in pursuit of this issue. I think that the stamina system should be adjusted to better reflect the basic standards an infantryman (and any attachments, such as: combat medics, FSTers, etc.) must maintain. There are a couple ways that I can think-of which may help fix the movement issue. I will try to keep game balance in mind with these suggestions. First, the ability to 'sprint' (in regards to stamina) seems quite nerfed, though the speed seems about right. To sprint 300m, with full kit, wouldn't be a stretch - especially under combat conditions (adrenaline's quite a substance! :bigsmile:). To 'jog,' with full kit, for at least a click (though up to 2 would be better), without needing to stop and rest would greatly enhance the infantry's mobility without 'breaking' the balance. Of course, this excludes steep inclines, water obstacles, etc. Also, it might be beneficial to add a 'walk' speed. What I mean is, keep the high-crawl as the movement for prone troops, but have walk as their slowest standing speed; I reckon a decent stamina distance for walking might be at least double that of jogging distance. There's more stuff I can think of (formations, hasty fighting positions, etc.), but I think shooting and moving are the two biggest issues. I hope this didn't come across as mean-spirited, as my intention is only to provide constructive criticism on this issue. You may begin flaming me... time, now!

My apologies, I seem to have accidentally reposted. I'll smoke myself now.

You're a hero, sir. I was messing with this same tutorial last night, and was feeling frustrated.

An excellent point. Blue it is.

re: 04 SEP scenario. I'm planning on being there. Now, please forgive my paranoia, but as a 'cherry,' I'm not sure where I could be the most helpful/least detrimental; there's only so much I can learn by studying the previous AARs. :confused: Therefore, if possible, may I be simply 'assigned' a role (i.e. Red or Blue, Armor or Infantry, et al.), so I can work on preparing for it as much as possible before Friday? I honestly don't care what it is, but I'd greatly appreciate the chance to practice with that specific vehicle: study the manual, take notes, etc. My plan was to adapt some of the Camp Felthorn scenarios to utilize, for example, an M2A2 and it's grunts.

Ah, now it all makes sense. Heh, it's not an amazing score, but I was quite confused as to why an 89 was still yielding such poor results. :c: I reckon it's time to fire Lt. Default... :gun:

Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation, guys. I guess I'll have to look into making a skin.

Perhaps this is silly. But it would be nice to be able to customize the writing on the barrel of your tank ("Gun Truck"), or even the logo (crossed sabers, or the skull) on the turret. It would be a couple neat customization options. Kinda like in the Army, when deployed, we'd write our weapon's name, or other stuff with a paint pen on the stock. Of course, mine would be either: "All the Way," or "Paci-FIST." :cool3:

My apologies, sir! After posting, I wasn't expecting so prompt a reply so I fired up another Camp Hornfelt scenario. :icon_frown: Ah, well, I suppose I should have noticed the thread was closed, and put 2 and 2 together *before* asking about port forwarding. I really have no intention of hosting a match, unless circumstances demand it. Yes, I combed through that thread, the M1A2 tutorials, and the wiki before I posted. I don't say that to imply that I've gotten SB figured out - far from it. In fact, I just had my butt handed to me in the scenario I just played. Less than 500m from the objective: three tanks left, clear lines of sight to the OBJ, and after thoroughly (or so I thought) prepping the surrounding lanes with arty, I got cocky and charged in... only to be hit from opposite sides by a couple tank platoons who were set-in nigh perfectly to cover the low ground I was racing through. They were flawless! :luxhello:

I apologize if I've inappropriately resurrected this old thread. However, I wanted to say 'hello' to everyone, and also ask a couple questions. My name is Bill, and I just got SB. I actually prefer simulators to most games, yet I had not even heard of SB until a few days ago (I mostly played the Silent Hunter series). I served in the Army (2/325 AIR, 82nd ABN) but was never a tanker, so it's been interesting to note the similarities, and differences between armor and light infantry. I think I've managed to get my router squared away, but would it be possible to test it, as well as test my connection speed? I live quite a ways into the boonies, and while I've never had a problem with my internet, I'd prefer to test it in case it's insufficient. Secondly, is this http://www.steelbeasts.org/downloads.php?do=cat&id=7 still required for multiplayer? If so, I would assume version 4.0 is what I need, is that correct? Barring any problems, I look forward to seeing you all on Friday. -All the Way!