Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Maj.Hans

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I kinda think this is one of those things that would be "nice to have", but I wonder how much work needs to go into implementing it? Not only is it the new code to the damage model, but now if you want to make this useful, you've got to implement new reloading code... M1 and IPM1 need to be able to load from the hull stowage, and into the 3 round "rapid rack" near the gun. I suppose with four rounds 'on tap' you could keep fighting. But for the M1A1/A2 and Leopard 2 now you need to simulate loading the gun one round at a time from the hull, or lap loading now, or leaving ammo stacked up around the turret basket, which means more damage model changes... There's other things I'd probably rather have instead.
  2. Pretty much this. I think that, at this point, the SB team has decided that it isn't worth modeling the separate storage. They might be right. Off the top of my head, the only tanks with blow out panels for some or all of their ammo are the Leopard 2 and the M1 Abrams series. The way it is now, it's possible to take a hit that blows the panels off, which makes all main gun ammo disappear. In the real world it is possible that a Leopard 2 or an M1 that took a hit to the turret ammo (or, in the case of the M1, a hit to the hull storage) only could continue to fight, but I can't imagine that it would be very effective. In a 105mm armed Abrams you would be reduced to one round in the gun, and three rounds in the "rapid rack" near the gun if it were in usable condition, plus the remainder of whatever storage compartment hadn't been blown up, so it's maybe possible that an M1/IPM1 could keep fighting by topping off the rapid rack from the hull. In the 120mm armed Abrams, a hull ammo loss might not mean much if the tank was otherwise OK. But a turret ammo storage loss means you're either going to reload one round at a time, very very slowly, from the hull ammo storage into the gun, OR you're going to scatter ammo around the turret, and still wind up with only 7 rounds at most. For the Leopard 2 it doesn't really matter where you put the hull ammo storage, but I can't imagine that it's safe to load from the hull ammo storage while the tank or turret is in motion. All things considered it would be nice to model that level of detail, but do we really need it?
  3. It's been a while since I dealt with a bridge... Try using a route that takes them across in "column" formation, under "assault" or "march" orders, "close" spacing, with path-finding set to follow roads. Make the route long enough on the far side, so that the unit can cross before "unfolding" into another formation. Admittedly this part is poorly handled IIRC. Slow movement across a bridge is probably intentional. Armored fighting vehicles and bridges have a history of not getting along very well. The driver would be very careful while crossing.
  4. I did not say that. I did not say that either.
  5. Your explanation of the legal aspect is spot on and beyond reproach. We disagree on the moral aspects, however, it appears that productive discussion won't be had.
  6. 🙄 Of course it's yours and of course you can. Nobody wants eSim to lose out on any of the future profit there is to be made from selling copies of Steel Beasts Gold. At this point, however, it's almost abandonware. 5-10 years down the road, having the whole package, source code included, would make it an interesting look back at PC sim history.
  7. I'm pretty sure that can be disabled in the scenario editor already, and im sure SSnake is going to point that out. But since many scenario files are PW protected perhaps it would be good to have a server side option to disable it as well.
  8. Such as having Milan launchers fitted to the Marders? Early Leopard 1's and M60s with early passive-IR night sights? Unless it does I'm not interested.
  9. Just like Steel Beasts! Except...You know...Worse in every way it could be worse.
  10. Possibly related to this bug?
  11. You know, I always thought the 2A5 could use more turret! 😆
  12. I'll weigh in with my thoughts on the dismounts... I seem to recall that they were included in a prior version of ProPE...Maybe I remember wrong... I think it would be nice to have the *OPTION* to *ADD* dismounts to the vehicle in the scenario editor, and perhaps simply not include them by default. I think that there are currently several vehicles in ProPE that don't carry dismounts by default but can have them added on in the mission editor.
  13. Pretty much. I think it was labeled as a "Recon Anti-Tank" at one point.
  14. I'm more concerned with eSims ability/willingness to put in the time to model it. I don't know if the ProPE engine can actually model an optical rangefinder like that, or what it would take from the team. Although I would LOVE to have a 60A1 RISE Passive, as well as a USMC model with Blazer ERA, if the situation was between actually getting an A3 Passive, or wishing forever for an A1....Well.... On the related subject of working with what we have... @SsnakeCan we get an option in the scenario builder to "Remove" rather than to "Damage" subsystems? A vehicle with a system "Removed" will behave exactly as if the system is "Damaged", but the player won't have the blinking damage warning up on the screen for the entire mission...
  • Create New...