ChrisWerb
-
Posts
775 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Downloads
Articles
Everything posted by ChrisWerb
-
Hi. It may be that the SB search fu is weak in me today, but I have just spent half an hour looking and doing searches for the template that shows you the orientation of artillery impact areas for a given numerical entry when calling for a fire mission. That took the form of a template and was very useful to someone with a failing memory like mine. Could someone please point me in the right direction. Thanks in advance!
-
t-55 DPICM in direct fire mode for self defence
ChrisWerb replied to ChrisWerb's topic in Ground Zero
I would guess the KE effect of a 40x kg carrier shell with a forged steel body and an Mv of >600 m/sec, would be significant on a vehicle like a YPR-765 at distances less than 1000 metres. In the scenario, the effects were what I would expect from one projectile's worth of grenades and its timing coincided with the muzzle flash from the vehicle shooting, so I really don't think it was a fire mission called in from off map artillery. Thinking on, I only gave the Blue side off map arty, so that surely excludes the possibility altogether. -
Hi. I just did a mini test scenario where I used YPR765s as substitute Spz. 63/73 and attacked a battery of Soviet 2S3. The 2S3s shot back with DPICM in direct fire mode. I had never considered that possibility. Is direct fire with DPICM something that artillery units train to do (including in the past in the case of ban treaty signatories)? I imagine it would be quite devastating in the right circumstances, but never heard of it mentioned anywhere as a capability.
-
That worked really well. Thank you Ssnake.
-
Hi I just tried to improvise a Swiss Centibunker using layers of sand filled ISO freight containers with a Sh'ot in an emplacement between them. The idea was to have a company of T72s with an Engage order coming up a valley and enfilade them. The problem was, as soon as they got sight of the freight containers they stopped and shot their ammunition off into the freight containers. I could use map editor to create some intervening terrain, but it would be good if they simply could not see through the containers. The Cent could see through them too, but did not attempt to engage through them. It would also be great to be able to sink freight containers into the ground to ensure level stacking on uneven terrain and to create fortifications with a "parapet" you can shoot over. Regards Chris
-
Restoration video. What a labour of love this must have been!
-
I posted this video on the Swiss Cold War Defence FB group that I started (more members always welcome!) and it got a post from someone at the Swiss Army Armour Museum stating that not only does the electro mechanical Pz 68 simulator still exist, but it has just been restored and anyone can make an appointment to go and see it. I emailed Nils, but he mumbled something unrepeatable about Facebook, so I'm posting it here instead Restoratiion video follows in first response.
-
Some settings I'd like to see. For all infantry "Use AT weapons in antipersonnel role" Y/N, default N For snipers "Engage only High Value Targets" Y/N, default N
-
I REALLY need to get back to Copenhagen. They seem like my kind of people!
-
It's about hiding the complexity from the end user.
-
OK, not content but I'd like the AI, when a vehicle's path is blocked by knocked out vehicles or obstacles, to back up and move randomly ten or twenty metres left or right and try to move forward to bypass the obstacle.
-
That is also the point that frustrates me most. I suspect, like me, however, you still have "Wow!" moments playing or using SB. My most recent was watching a T-55, at the short halt on dry ground (African Savannah terrain), shooting at a distant target. The way dust rose from the ground and the tank rocked backward on firing was simply awesome. I could just watch that over and over. Whomever made that tank and modelled its physics and behaviour and the world in which it operates obviously has a deep understanding and love for armour that comes across in this simulation as in no other.
-
I hope you don't end up playing in hazmat suits (although that may be a bit of a "thing" for some less conventional Danes already )
-
And necromancers.
-
More wish list additions from Maj. Hans.
-
I just played your scenario (the first one I have downloaded in over three years playing SB) and really enjoyed it. The only thing I'd criticise would be the extremely lavish scale of issue of Spike MR as pointed out by GibsonM. The Belgian Land Component allegedly only purchased 66 Spike MR missile systems so your company had about 18% of their entire inventory. I still had a lot of fun though. Keep up the good work!
-
My own experience is that if you kill all but one of the infantry and destroy all of the IFVs, that infantryman WILL engage you (if his weapon is appropriate) no matter what. I'm not sure how that fits in with the morale model, but it always happens. It also happens that, although tanks seem very good at locating infantry in undulating ground, they often can't engage them because they don't have line of sight. That makes infantry in SB MUCH more dangerous with the new bumpy terrain model. I can't remember if it was this time around or 4.1 but infantry also got A LOT more eager to engage with shoulder launched AT in general. Pre 4.1 with the old "flat" terrain and extremely cautious infantry that spent more time break dancing and bobbing up and down than shooting, I was tearing my hair out. So, there's a long way to go, but the changes that have been made so far are really great.
-
If I could have only five six things next time around(other than bug fixes) 1. Better infantry control. 2. More defineable" weapon loadouts for infantry 3. An IR MANPADS with selectable quality. 4. BONUS/SMArt 5. Anti materiel rifle with first person control and no restriction to HVTs. 6. Infantry fighting positions - no overhead cover, overhead "retreat" cover and full overhead cover and supporting AI logic
-
Yes, in retrospect I admit it's a bit pointless. I didn't realise it was the one mounted on the sensor mast, so you don't get to have both. Also it doesn't include a GSR as far as I can tell.
-
Gilding the lily a bit, but I'd like to see have the Tripod mounted remote sensor head for Fennek, which I believe can be deployed something like 50 metres from the vehicle.
-
Excellent! Thank you!
-
1. At the moment, in game, AI gunners seem to be able to determine instantly if a vehicle is killed. When I'm playing a gunner first person, it's often difficult to tell, particularly at longer ranges with early TI etc. For AI gunners, could you please consider an option of "keep shooting until target burns or changes shape" or "put one round into each target then move on until they all burn or change shape", or something along those lines? 2. Could we have the option that some (it can be a small minority) enemy vehicles and infantry "play dead" if they receive minor damage or if their unit is being massacred, then are resurrected with nefarious intent? By the way, the combination of bumpy terrain and more aggressive (vs armour) infantry in the latest version is a vast improvement. I just wish we had the option to decide scale of issue of LAWs within infantry sections/teams so you don't just have the one RPG guy when you can see other's in the team carrying disposable LAWs that are only set-dressing at the moment.
-
Is there any chance that option could be made available in the home edition? I can understand you may have commercial reasons to maintain the differences between the two versions.
-
Vulnerability of APS systems in Steel Beasts
ChrisWerb replied to ChrisWerb's topic in General Discussion
That's great. I'd like to than the devs for the work they put into this. It's great (whether it can be damaged or not) and adds immensely to the simulation. I'd like to see AVEPS as an option for older Russian/Soviet vehicles too. -
What I'd like to ask is how long did the "olive green phase" for US Army AFVs between MERDC and the three colour NATO camouflage last?