Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Red2112

  1. 5 hours ago, stormrider_sp said:

    I dont remember unfortunately. I tried looking up at wayback machine, but the page recommends netscape 4 for best viewing :D



    Wow! I tried to find any tracks of the Seawolves many times, but never found this!  Did see some comments on a user board by RADM Seademon and RADM LaBolla, and Ramius (from the SCX Team) some time ago, don´t know if you remember them.  They were talking about putting together a group together again but I never got a contact back. 


    I made a mistake, I was LCDR/CO for the Air Division, notice now that I saw some rankings on the page.  That was back in 2000, so yeah rough to remember somethings.

  2. 1 hour ago, stormrider_sp said:

    Oh yes, great times! At one point I was XO of our fleet, La Armada Invencible!

    Nice! What fleet were you in?


    I was in the 17th fleet (688i H/K) as LT/XO, also as CMDR/CO of the air wing (Falcon 4), and CPL of a land unit (Ghost Recon), forgot which one.

  3. Heros of Stalingrad (Matrix version) was/is more bothering then this newer LnL version in my opinion. Those adimn counters did get in the way of gameplay.  I could understand it for those who did know how to play in the first place, but it was quite distracting to new players.  Those adimn counters are used in the boardgame as reminders (Ops Complete, Overwatch ect.), so for players that knew and played the boardgame I guess it was normal to see.  Was it really needed?  Well the game should remind you of your situation maybe, but they could have done it in a different way (not with the actual admin chits).  But again, they pretend to be port-overs of the real game, so I can´t blame that.


    The newer version dose a better job at this (smaller adimn chits), but then the dices are way to big! 😁  They are still en EA, so they might tweek some things to adapt to Steam users, which are not your avarage wargamers in any way.


    Personally, it dosen´t bother me that much. In away I sort of like it this way.  Because I don´t like to just be moving virtual counters around, as if I was playing checkers. It´s boring when everything is being done for you, even the reading of resaults/tables ect.  Move a counter, bang, combat result, move another counter, bang, combat result, and so on.  Boring as hell LOL! I guess Iam more a chess guy.


    My mind thinks to fast in a system like that, which to me dosen´t make it much fun.  You know recon here, think, move, observe, act, then rinse and repeat as needed.

  4. The "point" for PC wargames is set-up, work space, and time (real world), and you don´t have to worry about your cats, children moving your counters around, or things alike.  Also that you can play against the AI, don´t need to go to a club, find friends to play ect. as well as play MP.  Those are the main reasons Iam afraid.

  5. 1 hour ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

    Lock and Load: make up your mind. Do you want to be a board game or a computer game. 


    I played Heroes of Stalingrad on PC.


    It was really well done but I don't like how it's TRYING to be a board game.


    I don't want to see the dice or the other stuff that can/does generally go behind the scenes in a computer game. That's the POINT of a computer game: it can do all the calculations and dice rolling behind the scenes so players can focus on other things.

    I get your point but...


    Some (myself) like to see the results in this type of *game, even more, some even want to see a side bar with more numbers like defence vs offence values or CRT tables.  Why? Because some think the AI is cheating in the background, and/or has some sort of advantage.  Not that it can do same while seeing the results, though they just feel more comfortable seeing result tables/outcomes so they don´t have to wonder why the combat result ended as it did.  Why did that unit get destroyed?  Well if you have the results (see them), you now know why.


    *Game: this is and meant to be a port-over of the boardgame.  It´s not like Panzer General, Close Combat or anything similar, these are strategy games or hybrids, not pure wargames on PC.  But Iam sure you already know that, but just for the record of why wargames on PC tend to show results in some form or matter.


    It´s like the replay cam on SB Pro PE, you see were /what shots landed were and the results, then everybody happy 😉

  6. Lock n Load: Nations at War Digital, platoon level (while Lock n Load Tactical is squad level) PC wargame.  Less detailed then LnL Tactical but nevertheless fun...


    On sale 40% off core game:






    I play the board game (White Star Rising), but this is a good way to learn and/or decide if you like it. Or play multiplayer with friends.



  7. 10 hours ago, DarkAngel said:

    I do have a map in development which is part of the Caucuses map. Have often considered an SB-DCS cross over campaign set during the Abkhazian war in the early 90s.

    That´s great and good to know. Thanks.


    There was a user here @Los, that did just that with his group, cross-platform with other games. They even used wargames in between IIRC.

  8. 5 hours ago, Ssnake said:

    I'm not disputing anything that you write up to this point. These divergent interestes and motivations all exist.


    Well, that's my point. Arguably it is there - in the form of SB Pro, now also tentatively in DCS World - but customer demographics do not suggest that the interest is very big. Maybe it can be developed. But creating your own market is always harder than serving what an already existing market demands. To you and me and probably other readers of this thread the integration of a CAS element into ground and air simulations has immediate appeal. To the rest of the flight sim audience, demonstrably less so.

    I agree. It´s what some call a niche market, and similarly niche is the wargaming market too.  There´s more pilots as you say, but not in a jet fighter world (DCS).  The big chunk of simmer pilots are on a civil platform, of which I agree even more wil not have a interest in ground vehicles (maybe Farming Simulator 2019 ), or air combat tactics, I agree there too.


    What I think, and could be totaly wrong (with the DCS fans), is that maybe if those ground units would have more detail put into were you spend more time (office/interior), then maybe some of those that fly above would move to the ground from time, to time.  Take for example Dangerous Waters, while most of the sub simmers jumped right into a Sea Wolve class sub, we slowly moved onto learning the P-3 Orion, and the Oliver Hazard Perry.  Totaly different platforms, but as well detailed as its sub fleet in the game.  In the end, you had alot of sub simmers that were enjoying the other platforms in the game and creating good and fun scenarios, when initialy most were sub drivers.  They even added (although broken to a point) the multi-crew aspect to it.


    I agree it´s a difficult market, but DCS already has the platform done and has a good dose of a fan base in general of which is aware that CA exist.  It took them a long time to fix the issues with the trees, which put alot of people off from the start.  Just saying that with a bit of care, some "might" put more time into playing it.  Personally I don´t think it can compete with SB Pro, but then I also think that if more effort was put into it, those that enjoy it and were looking for some steps above, would turn there heads to SB Pro.  Same could work the other way around, If SB Pro could have a couple of (Apache/Cobra) of simultaed (In cabin) helos, with a fidelity of say Janes Longbow, some of those DCS pilots might try SB Pro and end up driving a tank or two.  But again, small market for just the brave and hardcore players like us.


    Dreaming a bit there in the last part, but you know what I mean.

  9.  Not everybody in the simming community comes from a real world counter-part experience.  Actually, most of the flight simmers do so because they can´t afford a real world PPL, or never joined the AF, or got to be a fighter pilot.  I started as a flight simmer, moved to sub/naval simmer, and not to long ago here with SB.  Some simply enjoy simming milsim machines of which not everybody gets to do in real life.  Some might like planes more then tanks or the other way around, but what is true is that, if it´s not there, and/or has some atractions to it, how is anybody gonna have any interest in it?



  10. 3 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

    DCS players seem content with air to air.

    So true.


    But I think that if ED made a effort to model there ground units in a similar way (Interiors, ect.) as SB dose, that might change some of those air heads thinking 😁


    BTW, 20min. is what one spends in the lobby waiting for other players to get in, and then the later brefing.  That´s IF someone dosen´t have a fit about ordnance and/or OOB  used in the scenario, that would extended to a half hour more LOL! 


    Aside from that, RECCE needs to find/scout the target before it can even lase it, and your SEAD or CAS would not be to far either (close to the no-fly zone).  As I said before, the whole Idea of the scenario was to put in practise some Ideas and work flows, and see the end resault.



  11. 2 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said:


    My most enjoyable time in DCS was when I was playing with a small group, doing combined arms operations. We had 3 guys on the ground managing Platoon and Company sized units and 3-4 in the air flying in support.


    Unfortunately, I have yet to find an active VU that is interested in integrating any ground combat into their operations. Most units only want to do air to air, and can't even comprehend how to include a ground element. 



    Count me in if you like. 


    I have been trying the same (with my old VU) since Combined Arms came out. I even made a sceanrio so we could try JTAC Ops and get the feel for it (establish a flow doctrine) with a Kamov Ka50 and a Humvee Recon team (JTAC capable) on both sides.  CAS for the Ka-50, IN infiltrate to eliminate OPFOR CP.  It was a simple sceanrio to try the CA element between three-four units at most and explore there capabilities.  The end resault was to establish a work flow and find any flaws/issues in there use and operations.  You know how some folks are, if they find a obstacle while in MP, they soon have a s***fit!  So the idea was to have a smooth thought out game experience, in other words, served on a platter 😁


    Best Ka-50 pilot I had, and that knew the potential of CA moved to the US and never saw him again, and the rest were basically jet pilots that all they wanted was a ground target to shot at, so I dropped the project...

  12. Why bother if you don´t play  it, and/or like it as stated in above post?


    Nothing is perfect, and we have what we have...  


    More so, the core game is free and you get a couple of airframes to play around with, along with a editor.

  13. I forgot to mention that SPMBT is a hex-based wargame, it really can´t compare to the other mentioned games as they are real-time none hex based games were waypoints are used.  

  14. 12 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

    I've tried so hard to enjoy games from the Shrapnel catalog (to include SPMBT). 


    They all seem to have a nice focus, a few with modern combat, but in the end they're all clunky, ugly, play very pooly and generally not fun or enjoyable.



    They are built around old engines, especially BCT Commander (1998), ATF (Armored Task Force) would be the "newer" engine following that (2006), and AATF (Air Assault Task Force) being the latest engine (2006) from ProSIM and Mayor Patrick Proctor (dev), I think he is a Mayor, or got promoted IIRC, it´s been awhile.  I haven´t looked at the other ProSIM titles, just the ones from Patrick P.


    For me, SPMBT is just to old-school in the graphical dept. Not saying these other titles I mentioned are any better, but I can live with it with just NATO symbology.  As for the rest, yes it can be clunky, or difficult at times to navigate and/or overall management of gameplay which in the end I don´t mind. Like everything, once you get used to it, it dosen´t imply a handycap, at least not to me. You will struggle alot more with Addobe AutoCad then this, belive me. I don´t mind older graphics, actually I think better tactical/simulation games were done back then compared to what we can do today.


    Steel Beast dosen´t have a modern UI either so to say, but again, it´s the result that matters, which in both cases is to deliver a more/less simulation experience in commanding a force/unit.  Oviously SB doses a better job at this, but with a similar atitude (map view, ect. ) these titles do alot better even with there age then most if not all of the currently available PC wargames on the market.


    In todays games, watching the AI do everything for you except moving the counters and some other admin duties is quite boring to be honest, but yeah, they look real nice! That´s why I still play and enjoy the old boardgame style wargames today, and that´s why Iam revisiting these games again too.


    As a side note, I think SB has it´s learning curve when new to the UI and system, especially if you were to play only via the tactical map. But that dosent stop anyone from playing/enjoying it. So in the end, one get´s use to it and it becomes second nature. Same with the above games, if one is really interested.  Patience is key my friend 😉


    Just my opinion...



  • Create New...