Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ChrisWerb

  1. [This comes with the disclaimer that SB PRO PE is far and away my favourite sim or computer game of all time and is magnificent as it is. I realise these may be far from the top of the list of things to add from a military training or gaming perspective] It may be possible to do this via preferences, but what I would like is some way to give a standing order units to displace to a pre set location and assume a pre set stance (hold, defend etc.) toward the direction they retreated from, once firing a set number or all of their anti armour rounds/disposable weapons. I would also like to see more flexibility both in the types of and total number of AT weapons/rounds an infantry section can carry so that it could have Tier 1, 2 and 3 - for example 2 Rbs57/N-LAW, 4 M72EC and 12 HEDP 40mm or HEAT rifle grenades. I probably mentioned it before, but some ambient noise featuring wind, precipitation, thunder and species native to locations (as, surprisingly, is done quite well in World of Tanks) would be really great for atmospherics/immersion. The ability to plant much smaller minefields and obstacles than the present minimum sizes allow. The ability to set sniper/anti material rifles to engage targets other than designated high value ones. Off route mines and anti vehicle optimised directional fragmentation mines (both used by Finland in RL).
  2. GisonM, yes, it always happens for me on gradients (sometimes even quite shallow ones) and moving the position slightly usually works just fine. Thank you.
  3. I notice that, even in the same scenario with the same vehicle type, vehicle fighting positions can vary in depth. Am I doing something wrong or is it taking the underlying geology or something else I haven't considered into account?
  4. The amount of money that must have gone into SB over the last two decades to give us what we already have is mind boggling. Ssnake gave me a ball park figure once and I wasn't surprised. However much I would love it to happen, I would imagine that modelling the inside of an obsolete Soviet tank that has served with a couple of militaries and took part in one(?) conflict would not be cost effective compared to ongoing work on the fragmentation/damage model and terrain enhancements, which I'm sure are eagerly awaited. I would expect to see new vehicles that are relevant to current military customers take precedence over some historical vehicles that us gamers would really like to see included.
  5. Missile Moyenne Portée. French replacement for their MILAN and Javelin systems. http://www.mbda-systems.com/product/mmp/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Moyenne_Portée [Sorry guys! Didn't see the thread had run on to another page! Doh!]
  6. C. 1990 I remember Chieftains going for £5000. Scorpions were more expensive - around £8,500 - because they were easier to park on your drive and take on the road.
  7. "Networked" ATGMs like the latest Spike upgrade and MMP. This would take the form of being able to launch a missile at a designated point on the map - have it fly out at medium altitude to a point suitably distant from the designated target to allow sufficient time for it to be acquired and locked onto or manually flown into. Apologies if this facility already exists.
  8. As I understand it from Ssnake, individual objects impose a computational burden of their own in the calculation of line of sight by non player controlled crew members/units - therefore it makes sense to have as few objects as possible. Could a wheat field be implemented as an object? I realise this would not be as pretty, but it would not slow the game down perceptibly.
  9. The SFW is banned under the (idiotic) Olso declaration to signatories thereof because it violates at least one of the clauses - it has more than 9 submunitions (40 IIRC). The prohibitions are as follows (this is not a direct quote) : Must contain no more than nine submunitions, No submunition may weigh less than 4 kilograms (8.8 lb). Each submunition must have the capability to detect and engage a single target object and contain electronic self-destruct and self-deactivation devices. Weapons containing submunitions which each weigh at least 20 kg (44 lb) are also excluded. Sadly, Textron have ceased making the SFW altogether because they had issues getting export sign off for a new batch to Saudi Arabia and decided that ceasing selling cluster munitions would positively affect their share price. I have been using the small DPICM strike workaround for some time, which is actually pretty OK.
  10. Helicopters - and the Mi-24 in particular, can take astonishing numbers of hits frontally from pretty much everything (in one case four RBS70 Mk 2 hits). From other angles they're fine. What usually happens is that something manages to hit from other than frontally. I don't have specifics to hand, but I tried modelling this in scenario builder trying various variations of weapon and the same thing happens over and over - also happens everytime I play the Finland defence scenario I made (which I must have played various iterations of 50-60x now). Someone on here posted a CV9035 instruction video, and they had the same thing happen with an Mi-8/17 taking numerous AHEAD (or whatever the directional subprojectile round is called) direct hits to take down. (Ssnake, I will happily re-do those trials and send you AARs.)
  11. The list generated by this thread must be pretty vast by now - what I would like to do is just give three things I would most like to see change or be added in SB that I guess (I'm not a programmer) would be relatively easy to implement and not too resource intensive. 1. Helicopter damage model fixed. 2. Infantry fighting positions - with and without overhead cover, with and without camouflage. 3. 155mm SMART/BONUS type top attack munitions.
  12. Gibson, I'm not disagreeing with you about anything. I actually went back and checked what I had written. The last time I used the word "obviously" was about the 10mph rear-on collision with a 20cm diameter softwood tree in an MBT incapacitating the driver thereof (I meant buttoned up, but I added the caveat about the falling tree specifically) being an obvious bug - Ssnake has said that was the case twice on this thread so it's not really open for argument. If we are talking turret crew and faster impacts with completely unyielding or nearly so objects - and not necessarily a 40 mph impact with 500 year old oak tree etc. - then you're probably going to have a really bad day. Accepted. When I used the words "the majority of" - I meant the majority of forests in Southern Karelia. Put the little golden man anywhere you're allowed to on the map in S. Karelia near to a forest and look around. I think you'll agree what you see is usually pretty dense (or at least collision is unavoidable) and indeed nothing like Northern Australia, Malaysia, the Amazon basin etc. which I never claimed it was. You could doubtless find some recently thinned parcels of old growth conifers that would let a tank through, but they are few and far between. Generally, in S. Karelia, I believe you would be restricted to roads and tracks if needing to move significant distances through forests/plantations rather than just to pull off the road and hide.
  13. Hi Gibson. As I wrote, I spent the afternoon looking at terrain in the area where I have been making scenarios - Southern Karelia. I can't actually travel there to check the place out, but Google streetview, which I spent quite a long time on, is a pretty good substitute. Forests/woodlands there can be of a few different types depending on species and the degree of human interference; from planted commercial forests to (apparently) zero (recent) human intervention wildwoods. What was particularly good fun was comparing actual points on the SB map with their Google streetview coverage. Anyway, here are some, pseudo-randomly chosen examples (non random in that I have tried to provide shots with something of relatively known dimensions in them to give a sense of scale) Dense conifers - summer? http://tinyurl.com/ydgkfy7n Dense young growth conifers, winter http://tinyurl.com/y7ghegru Dense mixed relatively young birch and conifers. http://tinyurl.com/ybt7ur4j Young birch in winter (note they obstruct vision much less than many conifer species) http://tinyurl.com/y6wq8ofg
  14. Awesome video MD, but what is the circular structure on the left hand side of some of the cast turret Leo 1s turrets?
  15. Absolutely! I don't want to open a whole new(?) can of worms, but I think it helps to be tolerant and understanding of those you disagree with in almost any context, particularly as this forum gives a valuable impression about the sim and its community to many of those considering purchasing a licence.
  16. We all have experience of at least peripheral relevance to participating in SB without having actual combat experience on armoured vehicles or otherwise. I think it is fair to make assumptions based on this knowledge and what we can learn from books, videos, veterans etc., but we have to take it for what it is and be ready to be corrected by those with direct experience/first hand knowledge. I spent a long time looking at Google Streetview imagery of Southern Karelia and reached the following conclusions/observations. 1. A lot of forest - the majority - regardless of tree species or age/diameter, is so dense that it would be practically impossible to drive any armoured vehicle any distance through it. However, you could reverse into some of the less mature growth in order to hide from ground level threats, although it would be hard to disguise the new "notch" in the treeline from above. 2. Birch is a bit of a special case. It is very common and differs in being deciduous - the distance you can see through stands of Birch differs dramatically seasonally (the Google vehicle/s visited Finland at various times of year). It also differs in that, when self propagating, and particularly when compared to commercial early growth conifer plantations, it can be very open. Although there are stands of old birch that grow to very substantial diameters, these are comparatively rare - as I understand it some are protected national monuments. 3. In game, you can mount a flank ambush on a column of enemy vehicles and be able to see their roadwheels, minerollers etc. from a distance. Whereas, due to their closer proximity to the trees and geometry, they cannot see you at all. That gives you a huge advantage, particularly if you have opted for a 100% KE loadout (to avoid prematures on foliage with HEAT etc.). In reality, whilst there are locations that allow it (particularly when trees are planted to screen motorways etc.) this would often be impossible due to the sheer density of the forest trees and secondary growth. 4. SB models the difficulty of finding a position to shoot Spike in non update mode very well. Generally, unless there is open farmland or a lake between you and the target, the shot offered is straight down a road. I understand from a recently retired FDF SF Major friend that the short range of shots was a driver in selecting the 30mm for the CV9030F over larger calibre options.
  17. One thing I really love about this forum is that an observation/request about SB can lead to a discussion where I learn lots of stuff that is completely new to me, despite spending 20+ years on the best armour discussion forum on the web. The amount of exertise here and people's willingness to share it (and that very much includes you GibsonM) makes it an awesome resource in its own right.
  18. I wasn't posting it to be any kind of universal truth Gibson (I had mentioned the possibility of the tree collapsing on the tank in a previous post). I just found it strange that someone was driving an M1 around in Australia deliberately knocking trees down which, as you point out, is a really really dumb thing to do. Filming yourself doing it just takes that to the next level.
  19. No problem Ssnake. Your explanation makes perfect sense and I accept it. I understand that the trees also exist in SB partly to train drivers/commanders not to hit them. It would be nice to see birch trees in SB though, particularly as they do exist in some numbers in Finland for which SB's maps are in all other respects excellent. I'm sure they'll appear in future iterations.
  20. LOL GibsonM. I have lots of experiences of being in forests and some of crashing vehicles, in one case at relatively high speed into a very unforgiving lamp post, but no experience of being in an AFV in a forest. In SB I have lost three crew members when clipping a tree on the corner of a road on one occasion - that was travelling forwards. I can't honestly remember losing any crew to any other tree impacts. It's more the sheer unyielding nature of them when I bump them when travelling at much slower speeds - typically whilst trying to withdraw under fire - that I find unrealistic and a realism kill - a bit like the driverless 4x4s and pilotless Mi-24s.. It would seem to me, however, that an AFV is designed to protect its driver when travelling over broken ground etc. - turret crew less so. Presumably most would have some kind of head restraint for their driver's head for obvious reasons. When reversing any other kind of vehicle, the consequences of hitting something in reverse are generally less injurious for the driver. This is why, for example, baby seats face backwards and RAF VC-10 transport planes have rearward facing seats, contrary to airline practice. I would take a lot of convincing that a 10 mph rearward impact with a 20cm or thereabouts diameter softwood tree is going to incapacitate the driver of a 67 tonne MBT. I would actually not be surprised if he didn't notice the impact. At least unless the tree buckled and the top part fell on the tank If a barrel swipe takes out a turret for one SB mission or until the scenario deems repair possible so be it. That, as you point out is realism. The vehicle may or may not be repaired for subsequent ones. In a campaign you can simulate that. No problem.
  21. I don't consider myself a noob or an old hand. I have played single player an awful lot and gotten a lot out of it though. I must be one of the few people here to buy two full licences in the space of a few months (also bought one for a friend). Yes to barrel strikes - I would like that implemented along with the other minor damage stuff like RWS getting trashed, but with the proviso that some vehicles will have slip clutches or whatever to protect their turret drives. Reverse into a tree at 10mph and incapacitate your driver? Obviously a bug. At the moment you can drive into and demolish reasonably substantial buildings and not take damage which seems disproportionate given the many indestructible trees. Forests that you simply can't move through (i.e. very dense mid growth conifer plantations) would also be a worthwhile addition to the game. I don't want the terrain to become easy - just more realistic. On an even more positive note, I have had a lot of fun coming up with contemporary Finland/Estonia scenarios using the barest minimum of the event processing capability of the scenario builder and have had results that I would consider almost entirely realistic and highly enjoyable. Can we please have an optical sight on the 40mm AGL (the Elcan from the M2HB would be fine) - the British Army at least appear to use one.
  22. Forest trees that are not made of depleted uranium and kill three drew members in a 10 mph collision. it is never desirable to hit a tree, but, in reality, many plantations are made up of less substantial trees. Northern forest is often silver birch which live only 40-50 years and seldom grow particularly thick or have deep, substantial root systems. Conifer plantations are often harvested long before they reach the size that would cause a tank to come to an immediate full stop from speed - in reality you would run into many immature plantations too.
  • Create New...