Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Maj.Hans

  1. I've asked about the simulation of CBRN threats before, and I still feel like it could be done without being overly graphic. If civilians are a concern, simply remove them from any region that's been contaminated by CBRN threats. Use regions in the scenario editor to define an area effected by a chemical agent or whatever. Vehicles with NBC systems will be forced to button and remain buttoned, or they will risk contamination. Unbuttoned crew, crew in contaminated vehicles, or crew in vehicles without NBC protection suffer restricted vision from their NBC masks, and sometimes cannot hear commands given through an NBC mask. Unprotected infantry randomly go "ULP!" and roll over in the grass just like the currently do when you shoot them. We don't need a graphic representation of death by nerve agent or chlorine, just to say that "this unit is no-longer combat effective". Protected infantry lose stamina more rapidly, regain it more slowly, and can't see or shoot as well. My interest, personally, is less about nuclear since I figure that would mean the whole world is going to hell in a handbasket super quick, and more about how chemical warfare would effect a cold war scenario.
  2. I'll +1 some of those commands for vehicles with digital maps. It's not totally horrible, but a little awkward with the current interface to have that thing right there but not really be able to use it, but that may honestly be one of the shortcomings of PC simulation vs being in a real tank. And yes, back in the IL-2 1946 days I was a quite competent virtual Bf-109 pilot.
  3. I'll +1 that. Unfortunately that's one of the costs of fighting evil.
  4. I will +1 this, sort of... I would like for the TC to return to whatever level he was in when he exits map view. I would like for, while the TC is in map view, the "B" button to work only to button up. This way if we're looking at our map when we hear gunfire we can duck inside and slam the hatch. I leave it up to the developers to decide if this should also kick the player back out to the F1/Eye view as if you have just had an "OH !@#$" moment and dropped your map to slam the hatch. I would like, personally, to be able to tell my gunner to "Fire!" and/or to "Fire and adjust!" from the map view. I would +1 this, but I'm not sure if I would rather see the Leo-1C2 or a Leoaprd 2A4M model. The 2A4M model could also be used to represent other hypothetical Leo2A4 upgrades...
  5. I noticed this a long time ago personally, but I admit I'm more curious about the monuments that are out there. I saw the Volcano one in a city while on a road march through...Had time to "Driver STOP! Driver Back! Driver Stop!" and stare for a second. But I seem to recall on some other map a small grave marker or something featuring some names that I never had time to read and didn't get back to for some reason.
  6. In regards to the whole "make something up" and "take a guess" remarks about the M1TTB, T-14, etc, I just want to point out that a simulator CAN have fictional or guesstimated elements without suddenly becoming a Sci-Fi fantasy game. Every armor array and every penetrator featured in ProPE that is not modeled based on a complete technical data package and test results, is an estimate. Nothing more, nothing less. And that's OK, because we don't KNOW, so we do the best we can to make a good representation. If the dev team throws together an interface for the M1TTB and sticks a line in the release notes that says "We really had no data, but this is a plausible way it might actually work, so when you design scenarios remember that this isn't intended as a high fidelity model" that's fine. It's not like they just added an X-Wing or a Tie Fighter... One of the great things about simulators is that you CAN try things out to see how they might work.
  7. Since it is a "WHAT IF FANTASY TANK"... Drivers position: A Leo2 with reverse cameras Gunner position: M1A2 fire control system TC's position: M1A2 GPSE/CITV setup with a periscope array. The main part of this vehicle that I am interested in is the auto-loader with a large number of rounds on tap, to use as a stepping stone to introduce newbies to the concept of limited ammo. The frequent "stop to reload the ready rack" thing seems to drive them insane and has, as a matter of fact, driven every one I've tried to get into SB away from it. Since we still don't have a difficulty option to make "everything" ready short of completely unlimited ammo, this is my next best option.
  8. Crew-able M1TTB, even if using an "ersatz" interior or no interior at all.
  9. Wasn't the T-62 in many ways regarded as a lemon specifically because of ammo advances with the T-55 eliminating most of the T-62's reason for existing? I'm not intimately familiar with Soviet/Russian designation systems and stuff, but I seem to recall that the T-55 was frequently updated in many of the same ways as the T-62 was upgraded, producing very similar lines of vehicles, except that with the T-55 being MUCH more widespread it often times got more attention. Maybe it's just because I don't "get" the T-62 fire control system, if you can call it that, but the few times I have toyed with it in Steel Beasts, I felt like I could have done more damage to the enemy with a Tiger IE or a Panther...
  10. I think he's being a smartass...I think....I'm just not sure...
  11. For the record, I regret having had a part in starting this. I thought it was fun to see someone who I can only describe as "very enthusiastic, but totally clueless" climb around an M1... In response to@Lt DeFault: I don't know if she's feigning interest or genuinely interested, and I don't really care. She does, however, remind me of an ex-girlfriend or two of mine, from the hair right down to the clothes and the whole 'showing interest in guy things'. It's all fun and games until you say "later babe I'm going to the shooting range with the boys!" and then she wants to tag along. Like I joked about when I first posted this, I think she's kinda weird. Very cute. But still weird. By female standards anyway... @Captain_Colossus Pardon me while I shift the gears here a little bit...But, what's funny is that I tend to see this, "conditions that used to finish people off fairly early have been increasingly mitigated", not resulting in a pronounced gender war, but rather resulting in many more stupid people surviving and breeding. We live in a world where firearms are manufactured with a warning engraved into their parts to let you know that guns are dangerous and they can kill you. Well...No S***?! Just saying, but OSHA and lots of other places have done more than just eliminate unnecessary risks and hazards, they've created workplaces where stupid people can not only escape death but can do quite good at their jobs, and go on to procreate with other stupid people.
  12. Oh I know about those... I mean the whole darn vehicle and the missiles all together though!
  13. Ill have to watch that later but the SA-4 launcher in the thumbnail always looked hilarious to me, like its gonna tip over any moment...
  14. As far as I am concerned, you can get microsoft sam to say "Slot 3" and "Slot 4" and splice it in. All I want is some kind of notification that I'm using a different ammo. Edit: We already have English (US) loader voices for HEP/HESH, Beehive, MPAT, OR, FRAG, Missile, "Special AP", and "Special HE". What prevents enabling "Special AP" for Slot3/HOME key, and "Special HE" for Slot4/END key? They're very, very generic...And remind me a bit of Panzer Elite tbh lol.
  15. Nah, I think that's before they had IR panels, if that's GW1 1991? Those look like velcro strips for MILES like someone else mentioned.
  16. About the CROWS / RWS thing... I think what my solution would be to that, would be to go back to something akin to the A1's CWS as fitted with the stabilized CWS equipment and IR camera, and call it a day. Maybe replace the M2HB with an M240 and go with additional ammo capacity rather than big gun, move the M2 down to a position above the main gun. Maybe by going with an M240 you could get more elevation while keeping the mount low profile?
  17. I just came here to say WOW is that CROWS mount mega tall! Also, WOW if I were a tank commander I would utterly HATE having that in front of me! Why not move the M2HB down to gun mantle mount for the gunner to blast stuff with and get a low profile mount with a TC's M240 or something?
  18. No I think you misunderstood. I'm suggesting that for every localization, you take whatever voice clip plays when the loader says "HEAT" and make new versions of it named Slot3.wav and Slot4.wav If we as the end user change nothing, we'll continue to hear "HEAT!" for those ammo types. If we as the end user so desire, we can literally record freaking clips of ourselves going "M-PAT!", "Cannister!", "FRAG!" and so on. If you wait long enough, members of the community will probably find a way to cut up the existing voice clips into semi-passable replacements that can be done as a third party mod. All I'm asking is that you open it up for modders to fix the problem.
  19. We really, really, really need to do something about that so that slot 3 and 4 can have separate WAV files, even if it is as simple as putting in duplicates of the existing "HEAT!" wav so that we as end users can change that.
  20. Ditto, had to go back and carefully re-read.
  21. Ahah, a half a bug, and a feature I was completely unaware of. But that explains a few things...I kinda thought the use of the TC's sight as an AA sight was, uhm, dubious at best with that traverse rate!
  22. Interesting, good to know they all use one file. It's definitely something I'd like to have so that all the T-55s don't look totally identical. As to which one for when and what... I think the "vanilla" T-55 most LOOKS like the Finn T-55M upgrades, but the AM2 with it's better fire control might be a more accurate approximation of gunnery capability, although the BDD "Brow" armor was never on Finnish T-55's.
  • Create New...