tungstenfall

8 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Well "company" to me = 100+ soldiers.

 

Yes you need a "group" but for us the group is maybe no more than 10 to run a Battlegroup (including the Instructor and the OPFOR), saving a whole bunch of time, money etc. instead of the idea of a bunch of "TCs and gunners occupying the same rooms".

 

While 100+ soldiers definitely sounds more like a proper session recipe, having around a dozen guys is still much better than going solo or with someone who barely ever tried a sim in their life. As for the "TCs and gunners occupying the same rooms", I mostly meant scenarios played over Internet  It's more or less possible to have at least some of the participants share a room and play a role of a separate tank crew making up an ad hoc "Tank Crew Procedural Trainer", which we can't exactly have at home  And over Internet I guess it's also fairly easy to have more than just ten or so participants in a session. Though I would prefer a classroom over that.

@Ssnake, please, no reality checks for SBPPE  Who wants better accessibility will play either ArmA 3 with mods or will outright go the Squad way. And let's be honest here, Steel Beasts can't compete with ArmA in terms of overall presentation (and what's even more sad, probably not in terms of performance either), so the only way to win against more game-y things is going full on sim. That said, I also enjoyed Strike Commander back in the day  But these days I wouldn't touch it with a 10 feet pole, unless it was reenacted with DCS (or Falcon BMS for that matter). Challenge for the brain is always a good thing. The moment we stop learning new things, our brain starts to rot. And simulations (military ones even more so) are probably one of the most entertaining ways of keeping your brain busy. Especially if while engaging in multi-simming with an addition of things like ProSIM titles and a la Harpoon games like CMANO.

18 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

Please note the situation you refer to I've described as "rarely". Indeed using it for multi-crewing (in game parlance) or Crew Procedural Trainer for us = almost never. *

 

* Because the company who provides say the "tank" also provides the "Tank Crew Procedural Trainer" with a 1:1 representation of the vehicle crew station for muscle memory (you feel / reach for the relevant switch, not remove your eye from the sight to look).

 

Indeed, there is no point in using Steel Beasts Pro for that when special tools are available. But my point was mostly that in order to get the best out of it you still need to have a company of players, even if every single one of them will be handling a platoon or possibly a whole company, better yet with someone capable assigned a brigade level command. And it would be even better if more of capable people will have the control over the OPFOR, since the AI can only do this much.

By the way, speaking of challenges, I have found something I'm currently having quite a problem with. And that's Spike LR. More precisely, Spike LR in LOAL mode. Slewing the seeker with either the keys or the joystick hat is an exercise in frustration already, but having the seeker locked to such a narrow field of view requires you to have almost the exact idea of the target's immediate whereabouts. If this wasn't enough of a problem, I can't seem to activate the said "lock on after launch" and have to steer the missile all the way to the target, which is again, a major pain. That said, I managed to hit a moving T-90 in the ATGM Tutorial in this tricky mode, but that was mostly luck. Oh, and the joystick doesn't seem to be doing a thing after the launch. Does the real deal also have buttons for seeker controls? And if there is a joystick after all, why not allow me to use the joystick to slew the seeker head?

Or possibly I'm missing something and I would really appreciate it if somebody shared a hint on how to employ the weapon in the LOAL mode more efficiently.

5 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Well I guess "Huge" depends on the size of the scenario.

 

Select a Brigade attack as a single player and you should expect to be overwhelmed.

 

FWIW in our classrooms anyway its rarely used as a 1 person, one vehicle product. Often a person control and Troop / Platoon, usually they control a Combat Team (3 - 4 Platoons).

 

The strength of the AI, in IMHO, is that it averages out RL performance (despite movies, etc. everybody in every crew position does not have masses of SA). Often units do get hung up in a forest, etc.

 

However using the right combination of route/ formation, speed and spacing (where the learning investment comes in) will avoid this - if you trust the AI. I find must users have "issues" when they decide to "self drive" one vehicle and therefore break the AI routing for the others.

 

As for time spent in different views, we tend to go with:

 

Gunner / Driver - 100% 3D world, 0% Map (you don't have one in RL)

Crew commander (includes Troop / Platoon Commander) - 75% 3D world, 25% Map.

Combat Team Commander - 40% 3D world, 60% Map.

Battle Group CO - 25% 3D world, 75% Map.

Brigade Staff, etc. - 10% 3D world, 90% Map.

 

As you go up that tree, your focus shifts from "personally" operating vehicles to relying on the AI.

 

Of course, that "huge" part mostly refers to the biggest scenarios, like a brigade attack case you mentioned. But we want to be a able to get the best out of all of them, regardless of the size. Or at least this is my wish.

Yes, as I surmised SBPPE is more of a classroom tool, which is no wonder considering what the main product is. And to fully utilize its worth it's best to actually have a classroom or at least several computers bound by LAN, preferably with TCs and gunners occupying the same rooms. Maybe it's a good idea to indicate so explicitly on the main site. Not that it would prevent me from buying a copy anyway, but at least it could help with people not picking the product they might not find very useful for their single player purposes.

While I agree that in real world crews have different amounts of SA, levels of fatigue and so on, at least humans don't tend to ram trees where there clearly is a better path right next to them. Truth be told, I found the current path finding much worse than it was in 4.023. Probably I'm not using some special Shift or Ctrl+click combos (to my shame, this is the first time I'm hearing about those), but at least I don't remember having this problem manifest itself to this degree prior to 4.1.

That's not to mention cases like enemy troops occupying buildings staring blankly at my attempts to get an APC next to the said building to shoot them up manually, since the APC's crew also couldn't care less about what's happening. Though, at that particular time maybe I should have had pressed 'F' and that would be it.

Well, that table is again, something to be expected. If only I could have the luxury of having a large group of people with me every time I'm trying out a more or less complex scenario (not to mention the luxury of all of them having enough licenses to actually take part in the session)... Alternatively, I could try joining one of the online games published here, but I don't feel like doing that just yet, not to mention I prefer playing with people I know personally (then there are timing issues and so on).

7 hours ago, ht-57 said:

@ tungstenfall

I've included the 4 requested mission .sce

I'm sure your aware, but I'll be redundant none  the less-

unzip or extract file- place the four .sce in My documents/esimgames/steelbeasts/My scenarios-

If for some reason you have any problem with map or terrain loading, let me know I'll share the .ter/map package/hgt

enjoy!

camp hornfelt.7z 87.92 kB · 3 downloads

Thank you once again. It's a pity, but it looks like I'm missing the terrain package with the ID of ea0f3fb4-66e8-4030-b98d-ea949bfc6aa3, even though I already have a delta called Blauheim. Querying it from the server didn't help. Please provide the package as well.

I don't think that's possible to assign it to an axis currently, but that's a good idea.

32 minutes ago, ht-57 said:

@ tungstenfall

rodger, I’ll zip’em up when I get home from work tonight.

 

Thanks in advance.

Fire control systems are definitely not the most difficult part of Steel Beasts. I'm not even sure how one could even remotely consider them difficult. Take pretty much any dedicated DCS module and only there it can start getting complicated. And I really hope SB Pro PE will take that route as well at some point, bringing more detail even to the drivers stations and fully clickable cockpits to everyone.

The biggest difficulty of SBPPE comes from the need to manage a huge amount of assets, often all by one person and at the same time, all the while using the real world tactics and procedures (which of course you need to learn first). So, it's indeed basically a CMANO (or BCT Commander for that matter) with the possibility to occupy one of the units. And the strategic plus the micromanagement part might not be to everyone's liking, especially considering that you need to hand-hold the AI most of the time because of their tendency to do things their own way to the point of you feeling like cloning yourself and occupying every single station in every single vehicle. Which, I guess, is basically what happens in a class. It's not very well optimized for single player use, unless you are playing the most basic scenarios.

15 hours ago, ht-57 said:

    I made a couple tweaks thus far-

All sce's got an updated theme  which in turn gave them the new terrain and bumpiness

-"attack by fire"-  I had to change the CO's BP so he could actually spot the enemy to set off the trigger to send the fire mission and radio the platoons to  advance to their BP's from their hiding positions.

-In "support by fire" and "assault" I changed the start time to match the start time in briefing as it called to start at daybreak

-"destroy an inferior force" no change

-"tactical movement"  Is the next one on my hit list

Then I would certainly like to receive the "attack by fire", "support by fire" and "assault" missions. Also looking forward to the updated "tactical movement" when you feel it's ready for use.

20 hours ago, ht-57 said:

@tungstenfall

if you were unable to get camp hornfelt operational, I've updated most of the missions to 4.1.  If you want them let me know

I was able to swap out the terrain without a hitch, but if you also edited some other things like terrain bumpiness or maybe fine tuned waypoints/battle plan, I would definitely want the updated versions. Thank you for the offer either way.

2 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Except of course that it takes up time and usually several exchanges. Password protecting the file removes the problem.

Then again, nothing prevents them from pestering you about your own unmodified scenarios with some other ridiculous claims if they are so inclined.

Then there are people like me who can barely handle the way M1's GPS applies lead. To the point I'd rather drive a T-72 instead (if only it had a TIS). Swapped them out for 2A5s, and I'm happy enough. 

2 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

In the morning I'll zip a collection and send via PM.

That would be really nice, thank you in advance.

13 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Basically any small single player scenario that you like can also be played in network mode with the other player being in the role of your gunner or driver.

That these scenarios are filed under "single player" does not prevent them from being selected by the session host, it's just that picking any party other than Blue may actually not work very well for the session participants.

I figured that with the Niinisalo mission, which was the only one we could run successfully during the LAN session (I failed to replace the maps for the other missions I wanted to try at the time for some reason, probably that was before acquiring of the legacy pack). Still, I wanted to be sure the missions are meant for co-op. Not to mention I'd still need to replace maps in single player missions as well. That said, I can't remember doing that for Niinisalo, but it still worked...

But thanks for mentioning that, I need to give SP missions a try too. I don't mind if only the Blue side will work properly, since we were only doing co-op anyway.

14 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

Perhaps, but you need to respect the designer's decision.

 

I used to post non password protected scenarios but then people would complain to me about changes they have made.

 

e.g.: "I've swapped the M113s for Bradleys and now its too easy for Blue. Its a broken sh*t scenario!" - as if somehow I should have been prepared for Blue now no longer having just a 0.50" MG but now having TOW, 25mm, and Thermals.

 

If its password protected I know it hasn't been played with and can respond to reasonable questions.

 

If you know who made it, perhaps send them a PM requesting they update it?

 

I know several designers are currently doing just that. Either a "simple" conversion to use a new map, or a more detailed "update" to use the new map, adjust the bumpiness, adjust to take into account new features, etc.

 

I just hoped the map and the battle plan could be separated. I mean, I fully understand it if the mission designer doesn't want me to tinker with the units, waypoints and so on in his mission, but is it really necessary to also prevent me from swapping out the map?

As for the case of people complaining to you about your scenarios they have modified and didn't like the result, I hope we both understand just how ridiculous their claims are and you can simply reply to them that their own edition of the mission is solely their own responsibility. Once even a single symbol in the file name is changed by a 3rd party they can go build their own missions and absolutely shouldn't bother you with anything. In fact, I wouldn't bother the mission designer at all even with an unmodified mission unless there is some glaring design problem in the mission that is plain obvious.

PM'ing them? Well... I don't really know anyone here, so bothering them out of the blue doesn't look like a good idea to me. I just assumed that if they are interested in it, they would have already updated their scenarios a while ago. Then again, you said that several designers are already working on that and they are doing more than just slapping a converted map on, so it's best to wait after all...

14 hours ago, Grenny said:

Which scenarios?

Actually, I'm not even sure whether the scenarios were what I needed. Just wanted something small enough to have a little LAN co-op mission for two people (got myself a second license after 4.1 was out) or just a quick battle for myself, so I decided to look for exactly that: small co-op missions. I can't recall all the names right away, but these are some of them: Fluss, FMV Air Strip and Loch Ness (I prefer Leos) and Sandpoint. Again, I'm not even sure if they are something what I need. But I guess now that I have installed 4.023 back I could check that myself without complications. Speaking of which, now I wonder if I should reinstall 4.159, seeing how 4.023 has overwritten some of the files (even though I put it into a separate folder).

By the way, if you know any good small-scale (platoon or several platoons sized) tanker scenarios that can be played either coop with someone who can barely be anything but a gunner/driver, or single player for that matter, please let me know.

I am personally also not very keen on investing several hours on a scenario juggling companies all by myself, but hopefully one of these days I'll make enough time to do exactly that, since that aspect is mighty interesting as well.

11 minutes ago, Grenny said:

Yes, when the scenario maker has put a password in, you can not modify the mission file without the password.

That's a huge inconvenience, since it prevents me from converting the missions into the new format and as a consequence - from running them either, at least in 4.159.

Indeed, turns out most of the maps were converted already and the rest was solved by installing 4.023 back again. Speaking of which, while choosing Extract map in its mission editor, does that also extract the .hgt one as well? Because with the mission I tried I was only asked for the .ter file name upon extraction.

So far I ran into several problems. Looking for the new terrain or height map (even though they are not called that anymore, some of them provide the coverage whereas the others only give you a barren landscape) has proven rather difficult. Why not include the possibility to look for a map by coordinates within a certain range?

Searching for coordinates is how I located CMTC Hohenfels for Camp Hornfeldt, for example. If you just choose plain41, you'll get pretty much a green desert, while there is nothing even remotely called "Blauheim" in the list.

Then again, there is a worse scenario: you choose a map from the list and after the terrain and the mission have loaded, you are prompted for the password for one of the sides... Is there no way to replace the map in that case?

And lastly, I came across some weird editor behavior. In one case it said it couldn't load the scenario because of something like artwork missing or something similar (couldn't replicate that after the second time, but maybe I simply couldn't pick the right scenario), while in the other the map would load showing only the terrain and the editor would stop responding to the mouse at all, apart from the overview window on the lower right. In that second case, however, when I press Esc it asks me whether I want to save the scenario or not and allows to me to least click either or the three buttons of the dialog. Weirdly enough, the same happens in the 4.023 editor as well. But at least after choosing a Yes the map choice is saved and I can finally start the scenario (it's called Battle of Donesk, by the way).

It would save a lot of time and pain if choosing the mission editor from the main menu would yield a choice of either a new mission or an existing one, leading to either the map list dialog or to the open file dialog, respectively.

From how I understand this, every legacy mission needs both. I guess that terrain data is simply "painted" over the actual landscape presented by the height map. If you don't have the .ter file, you could still theoretically have the mission on the barren land. However, if you don't have the height map, the units won't be placed correctly in the geometrical sense. Of course this is something I speculate while not knowing for sure.

As I said in the PM I mostly meant missions in general, not this particular one. But thank you for replying.

And if I'm missing the .hgt file instead and it's not in the legacy package, I guess I can forget about the mission?