Jump to content

Graycap

Members
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Graycap

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  1. Please don't consider me annoying... Even vehicle camouflage is different for different users. But the community has demonstrated that is more than able and willing to create fantastic mods. The same for sounds and other peculiar aspects. It could be done with text speech moddable that could be read by synthetic voices. It's just an idea. On the other hand we use standard NATO symbols even in Warsaw Pact scenarios. The translations in actual voices of command stemming from conditions could be simply an optional feature that could be disabled. The result I'm referring to is something similar at the ATC in Falcon4 BMS 4.34. You could check and evaluate it in a lot of youtube videos. In other words : when dowloading a scenario in order to play it singleplayer the player discovers that the mission designer has introduced sometimes a lot of conditions that is difficult to fathom at low level. Receiving by your virtual commander an actual order ("change position to.." etc.. ) it could be easier. But I am perfectly aware that ATC is quite a fixed and somewhat predictable sequence of instructions while a tactical simulation is far more complex and unpredictable. Mirzayev has written about "hand-holding" and I think that maybe he could be right. Even if I'm still convinced that the need to impersonate the entire line of command of a scenario is really a daunting task. One of the simulation result that I always look for is the feeling of "being there". Time constraints, decision processes, factors evaluations, technical possibilities. A window over real life. But in real life I never jump from captain to tank driver and back, changing all the parameters. If I would decide to play a single player scenario at TC level I should never feel a loser if the victory condition af my company has not been met. I would be glad only to have fought and survived in a tactically sound and realistic manner following the manouver and performing the task assigned at my unit by the mission designer. Let me be clear: I'm more than happy (and busy in studying) with what SB Pro already give. I'm not interested in graphics or in new vehicles. There is more than I could ever study. My personal military background is quite simple (I have been an artillery officer cadet commanding an FH70 section and I'm an engineer by profession ) and I 've found SBPro challenging at tactical level not at the technical one. The terrain usage, the evaluation of threat with reference to distance, the speed of manouver and how to relate with it. These are the reasons why I felt the need for a "commander". The best solution would have been multiplayer. That's for sure. I started doing multiplay at the 56k modem era and I know that's the way for learning ... But my real life made it almost impossible.
  2. Thank you for your kind reply. I understand very well the extreme complexity of a "AI battle group commander". But maybe there are little steps that could be taken in that direction. Manageable radio networks, different voices with a little of characterization (Red 6 at etc...) orders given at low level (e.g. change formation - if mission designer has so designed; retreat or advance to xy - if a condition is met; which kind of menace the platoon commander or another tank of my platoon has discovered, fall back in formation - if in wrong position.....). The problem to solve is not, in my opinion, to simulate a Brigade commander + his staff, but to facilitate the initial steps and give "sense" even at low level in solo play. If I would be a member of a platoon trying to verify my tactical learning in a little more complex scenario I think it could be more immersive to feel the presence of the team. Leave the concept work to mission designer (paths, conditions, ecc..) but translate them into vocal orders, and maybe create a little of SOPs coded or the possibility to create these by SB PRO PE excellent and technically proficient community. Now I'm sure that I've bothered the forum too much. Thank you for your attention.
  3. I understand that. With experience I have understood that the more important phase is before pushing the start button. Maybe I haven't been able to explain myself. What I'm trying to explain is this kind of situation: - download a scenario (company level) - you choose to play as a TC forgetting about anything else (maybe at the beginning of your learning curve) The problem, maybe solvable at the cost of more complexity, is: you can't forget all the other units. I understand perfectly that if I would learn the TC job I should play a one versus one. But this could be so different from "the real thing", meaning a scenario a little more complex, that you would be immediately overwhelmed by the informations when entering this new level. The TC job is also about executing Platoon leader orders. This is the kind of "complexity" I was talking about. A more "commander-like" AI. Not only "switchology". You could render SB PRo PE more complex introducing mechanical complexity (e.g. start the engine button by button or choosing radio frequency and so on ) crew fatigue and a ton of different complex things. My favourite complex thing is having a commander if I should choose to play at an inferior commanding level (without the capacity of switching levels in game upward...). But this was the reason for my question: maybe this topic is only about phisics and systems complexity to be simulated. In this case I apologize for the OT.
  4. Very interesting topic. Never reply to a question with a question. That's true, anyway... More complex for the programmer or for the player? The more complex the programming the more simple is for the gamer to have situational awareness (I mean the sensation of being there and to understand what to do and why). I've been a player (solo) for quite a time. As a simulation gamer I was coming from Falcon4 and its incarnations. My biggest problem at the start was the missing "picture" (a world "living" around you) and the missing commander. If I had been playing as a platoon leader in complex scenario (for the need to have a world around me) I never received "orders" from above. And the radio net was completely saturated with repetitive messages spoken by the same voice coming from all units in the map. I doubt that a platoon leader should know anything above company level. As a solo player did I need to worry about all that units under fire? I never heard on the net orders coming from AI to the units under fire (hopefully with a different voice) giving me the sensation that there is a "commander". What about transforming all the conditions in "orders" issued by an AI commander and maybe adding an explanation to the issued order ? That's what I mean with complexity for the programmers and playability (immersion) for the user
  5. It should be remembered that along with recon there was another operational problem that this vehicle was envisaged to solve: the defence of the long and exposed Italian peninsular part of the country from the menace of "desant" operation and possible amphibious operations from soviet forces. Defence of fleet ports, the capital, airbases... Long distances to cover, difficult roads (e.g. small bridges), no armoured heavy-weight adversaries. The result was this vehicle. But the world changed a lot from the original need. It had to enter in service with two other vehicles: IVECO Puma 2-axles and IVECO Puma 3-axles. These other vehicles didn't survive the strategic change. They were deployed in Afghanistan but there were problems with IED. Also Centauro had problems with IED (non specific hull design). Now it will be substituted by Centauro 2 armed with 120/44 mm smoothbore and a new hull (if budget will allow) .
  6. Impressive video. A lot of visual suggestions for artists See at min 1.50. It seems an esim screen shot from Nils video doesn't it? A real MRL barrage seen by the incoming side. Nice.
×
×
  • Create New...