Ssnake

YES. And the Bundle Installer is available only for the latest version.

Use the Bundle Installer on the Downloads page. Heck, here's the direkt link: https://d3kqqh9t9bjzpf.cloudfront.net/SteelBeasts/4379/SBProPEBundleInstaller_4379.exe (Dear Reader of the future (2024 and beyond): This link is probably out of date and you should go to the Downloads page instead) The Bundle Installer will handle all download automatically, also the right sequence of installation (Map Packages go first).

There's a scoring formula for that. AI will generally not shoot them. Some players predictably try to exploit that, using them as reconnaissance assets. Other players, knowing this, respond by shooting them. Which is precisely the kind of escalation spiral that sane people try to avoid by not exploiting these "loopholes"; the small gains now aren't worth the long-term price. That's why we have these pesky Geneva and Hague conventions in the first place. I'm glad that the mechanisms we put in place in Steel Beasts triggered this exchange. That's why we introduced them.

We believe that extraction via recovery vehicle works reliably, but maybe the required close proximity from another Bradley prevented the towing (pull out via winch (ARV) vs "drive away" (the driving part of that may be prevented by the clipping)). It is, however, just a theory. We're going to investigate if there are other means to help you from recovering a clipping situation.

We decided to no longer sell to China in general. I'm sorry if that causes disappointment. But it's got nothing to you with you personally, or the chosen form of payment (that may not be a consolation, but at least it should help you to understand the nature of the problem).

I'm glad you found a solution.

Bug 9989 ("Engineers: Defusing IEDs does not yield feedback") suggests that engineers can already neutralize IEDs, you as the user just wouldn't know. Which sorta-kinda amounts to the same problem, I suppose. I just want to say with this that, "in principle", the required functionality is implemented and it's now a matter of user interface refinement.

The problem I'm having is that the lighter and "less tanky" a vehicle gets, the doctrinal role gets fuzzier (or "more versatile" if you wanted to give it a positive spin); therefore, between scenarios, the eras in which they are set, and from one light vehicle to the next whatever one might considered "adequate behavior" will vary, and that's not even taking into account different national concepts of the army (e.g. USMC, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia all have or had at some point a LAV with 25mm autocannon; their doctrinal use will be/was different in each case). That being said, I'm hopeful that we'll allow for different AI concepts in version 5 that might also result in a step towards more flexible responses depending on what type of equipment a vehicle might carry.

Not sure who the audience for this thread is, but it's drifting into politics and it's distracting from the video thread.

First thing that comes to mind is an accidental hotkey remapping. I'd check Alt+C first and see which hotkey is assigned to that command. (Filter: View/Position commands, Next Unit)

Also, only few Leopard 2 models in Steel Beasts would support the datalink (requires a modified firing pin assembly). Future versions will improve on this.

Note that my criticism was directed at how some of the reporting is done; in all fairness however, not every paper is equally guilty of this sin.

That is only true if you had vastly unrealistic expectations to begin with. Given that the Ukrinian tank crews, to give but one example, receive a mere three weeks familiarization training with a complex weapon system like a Leopard tank, what competence level can you realistically expect? The crews will be sufficiently competent to perform typical combat tasks, but that's about it. To pull of NATO style combined arms operations you need cohesion at the unit level, a lot of practice (and then more practice) at the formation level (and all the layers between), and you need at least a not-permanently-hostile sky. Three weeks crew familiarization cannot address maintenance (we're trying to balance that by industry-run repair centers outside Ukraine), they most certainly cannot break the Russian air dominance (even if somewhat neutered thanks to a Soviet legacy air defense system that belongs to the strongest in the world), and three weeks of unit training cannot change the doctrinal mindset of the Ukrinian commanders (especially not if one key element for combined army, air, is missing). The question is not whether the systems are underperforming - they perform exactly to the level you can expect in this operational environment, given the numbers in which they have been supplied. It's not whether the crews are underperforming - they seem to largely do a good job, given the amount of training and preparation granted to them. The question is whether the press will learn to caution their reporting. My money is firmly on "No" because they have no skin in the game. Hyping expectations and then making headlines about the following "disappointment" is the core of their business. So, ultimately it is left to people like us to caution themselves when reading press reports. Every long-term Steel Beasts player knows how difficult it is to pull off seamless coordination between different armor, infantry, artillery, helicopters, expecially when the terrain is open and there's a gazillion of kilometer-deep minefields involved where breaches that do occur get closed by artillery-delivered scatter mines hours later. Since last summer you all have maps of selected parts of the theater. If you think you added enough minefields to your scenario, quadruple them. Then run your breaching operation, even if opfor is only minimally manned, but with plenty of artillery support.

Armies are slow to adapt, except maybe after serious defeats. That's good, and bad.

Missed that, now registered as 11741.

With V5, all screen elements and text will be scalable. Right now, I can but recommend to pick a lower resolution. Which also sucks (I'm aware of that) - but it sucks in a different way.

If you hear something, something, or something.

...except, there won't be. Looks like the Redback from Hanwha was selected. https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/news/hanwha-wins-lucrative-army-ifv-contract

...that is largely empty. 90% of the population is under 100 miles from the coast. The Australian GDP is right between South Korea and Mexico, but unlike South Korea there is no land border to an extremely hostile neighbor with the official policy to conquer you one day. So the question is, what is the justification for a large army. Isn't the money better invested in a navy and airforce. That being said, let's wait and see the results of two imminent decisions. Could well be that there's going to be a large Rheinmetall factory soon, pumping out license-produced AFVs that may not only be used locally, but sold back to the European market.

No, as best as I know. They were replaced by M1A1AIM before they could receive their thermal imager upgrade.

The unification isn't so easy as you make it to be. There are a number of vehicles, NATO or else, that have separate eye pieces for thermal and optical daysight view, so you can't simply toggle between view modes in those vehicles; but you do toggle in other vehicles. Whether TIS on/off is a superfluous feature lies entirely in the eye of the beholder. Strictly limiting it to the Personal Edition it may be as you say, but there are other variants of SB Pro and other user profiles where it's a strict must-have function. If it was that easy, we'd have done it a long time ago. Nobody is more concerned about economic usage of hotkey assignments and consistency of the UI as eSim staff.

The fundamental three pieces are that anyone can connect to your session, or you can connect to anyone's session, as long - as you both know that there actually is a session - as long as at least the client of a session knows the host's IP address - as the connection between host and client isn't blocked by firewall or other means

Yeah, well, what can I say. It was worth a chance, and you have now the option to identify the correct base package if you have it already. Otherwise I suppose you'll have to contact the maker of this Delta map and see if you can get him to make his base map available.

Going by Michael Shackleton's Leopard Trilogy, Leopard 1A2 received a thicker cast turret over the 1A1 variant, a modification of the stereoscopic rangefinder, and other minor modifications. It also represents the Italian Leopard 1s (initial delivery) Leopard 1-V (V for verbeterd, improved) was a Dutch upgrade over the original "Leopard 1NL", close to the German variant 1A1A1. It received the EMES 12A3 fire control system as introduced on the Leopard 1A3. Externally you might recognize the same Blohm & Voss add-on armor as seen on the German Leopard 1A5, side skirts, thermal sleeve for the gun, different tracks, smoke launchers, tool boxes rather than openly mounted equipment, US style antennas, external fire extinguishers. Leopard AS1 was the Australian Leopard variant. It came with the SABCA fire control system (plus laser range finder), a Belgian development. Externally, it came with the 1A3 welded turret design, a "strengthened hull", tool stowage boxes, a tropicalized power pack with heat exchanger designed to operate at higher ambient temperatures, and extra equipment boxes on the turret rear. In the late 1990s the AS1 also received the Barracuda thermal camouflage kit.

The base map for this delta map has the following map UID: 70ea0b35-4501-4d38-8fd0-a2a71157aaa6 Please start the Map Package Transfer Manager. Then query the UID above and have the transfer manager download it for you. Afterwards, copy your map into the "deltas" subdirectory (you may need to create it), and on the next Steel Beasts start you should be able to use the map for your own scenarios.