Volcano

Also, many vehicles have an "SBwiki" page. http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/Main_Page

06 DEC scenario: TGIF_'HOLD THE LINE'_v2_FMU/OMU_4161 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes. Random CO selection? Yes. Minimum # players: varies (if <= 10 players then we play "FMU" version, if > 10 players then we play the "OMU" version) NOTES: Avoid studying the enemy's side; only gather intel from the briefing and exposed enemy unit icons (enemy intel), and briefly looking over both sides to figure out which one you want to CO. Anything beyond that ruins the fog of war element. To avoid passwords, open the scenario in Network Session as HOST and choose the side you want to play and go to planning phase. You may briefly look at both sides like this to see which side you want to play or CO on. As CO, once you choose a side, go to that side and create your plan. Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com community rules. 

Also, think of it more that TGIF might help you get more "well rounded" with all the vehicles, in the long run. Although certain of us might be better at some vehicles than others, I don't think anyone is an expert with everything, so its a good learning experience (usually).

Cue the Airwolf music.

We finished the "Firefight" mini-campaign with Mission 9, and the final score was +1205 points, so Blue wins by 205 points (a result of -1000 to +1000 range would have been a draw). Thanks again for playing.

29 NOV scenario: Firefight 79-S09-4161a [again, corrected version] This is the last [completed] scenario of the set. BLUE is currently ahead by 532 points. The idea is that if the final total is between -500 and +500 points then we can consider it a draw, and if below -500 then a Soviet victory, and above +500 a US victory. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? No, same teams. Random CO selection? No, unless same COs are unwilling or unable. Minimum # players: 6-8 NOTES: Avoid studying the enemy's side; only gather intel from the briefing and exposed enemy unit icons (enemy intel), and briefly looking over both sides to figure out which one you want to CO. Anything beyond that ruins the fog of war element. To avoid passwords, open the scenario in Network Session as HOST and choose the side you want to play and go to planning phase. You may briefly look at both sides like this to see which side you want to play or CO on. As CO, once you choose a side, go to that side and create your plan. Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com community rules. 

Yes, not used anymore, replaced by "e_InsectLoop_d.wav", if I recall. 🤔

So thanks everyone for playing the Firefight series. The final one was a bit of a fizzle and not much fun for many (it was the one that wasn't quite play tested of the set), so I made some changes to it and would like to play it again next Friday in a rematch. We can consider it as if it didn't happen. Changes are: Removed the unnecessary LRRP attachment platoon from Red (I thought they were needed, but clearly not). This is 3x BRDMs w/ scouts, and 3x BTR-70s w/ infantry platoon. This makes both sides start at 10 AFVs each. Changed it so that AFVs are what is counted when determining who outnumbers the other in the region, instead of counting all forces. This means that Red's larger infantry force won't count towards ownership of the region, only the AFVs (also encourages Blue to keep the SP mortar in the region).

Sure, attached here.

22 NOV scenario: Firefight 79-S09-4161 (Scenarios are intentionally not included here. Going to try something new where I try to announce the scenario earlier, and then post the scenario after TGIF is played if anyone wants it - to prevent studying, etc.) This is the last [completed] scenario of the set. BLUE is currently ahead by 532 points. The idea is that if the final total is between -500 and +500 points then we can consider it a draw, and if below -500 then a Soviet victory, and above +500 a US victory. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? No, same teams. Random CO selection? No, unless same COs are unwilling or unable. Minimum # players: 6-8 NOTES: Avoid studying the enemy's side; only gather intel from the briefing and exposed enemy unit icons (enemy intel), and briefly looking over both sides to figure out which one you want to CO. Anything beyond that ruins the fog of war element. To avoid passwords, open the scenario in Network Session as HOST and choose the side you want to play and go to planning phase. You may briefly look at both sides like this to see which side you want to play or CO on. As CO, once you choose a side, go to that side and create your plan. Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com community rules. 

'tis the season to be busy...

I believe he was referring to the original tests reported here.

15 NOV scenario: Firefight 79-S08-4161 (Scenarios are intentionally not included here. Going to try something new where I try to announce the scenario earlier, and then post the scenario after TGIF is played if anyone wants it - to prevent studying, etc.) SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? No, same teams. Random CO selection? No, unless same COs are unwilling or unable. Minimum # players: 6-8 NOTES: Avoid studying the enemy's side; only gather intel from the briefing and exposed enemy unit icons (enemy intel), and briefly looking over both sides to figure out which one you want to CO. Anything beyond that ruins the fog of war element. To avoid passwords, open the scenario in Network Session as HOST and choose the side you want to play and go to planning phase. You may briefly look at both sides like this to see which side you want to play or CO on. As CO, once you choose a side, go to that side and create your plan. Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com community rules.  Firefight_79-S08-4161b.zip

Indeed, the AOA is very important (the most important factor here, it seems). Actually, good news in regards to my previous text: It turns out that it wasn't such a pain to test this. I (temporarily) modified the T-14 model and moved the "target" frame outside of the vehicle. As I said, the "target" is something the trained AI gunner aims for to kill the vehicle. It turns out that the Spike behaves as I suspected, aiming at center mass of vehicle object. The Javelin however does aim at the "target", and in the case of my test, missed the target. But here is the rub: the "target" frame is very closely located at the model's center, probably only slightly off. Still, in our quest for perfection, the Javelin ATGM shouldn't be aware of the "target" and should instead aim center mass (the computer controlling the missile wouldn't know about every vehicle's 'sweet spot' like a trained human gunner would - it would simply lock-on and fly center mass like the Spike does). When I put the "target" back in its proper place, the aim point between both missiles is very similar (off by inches). The real different factor here (after additional testing) is the angle of attack, not so much the aim point. That said, we recognize that three long term improvements can be made here (we actively look for areas of improvement): The Javelin should aim center mass on the vehicle, like the Javelin. In the case of the T-14, this won't make much of a difference, but still its important for consistency (and strive for consistency). Of course this means that the Javelin performance against other targets in SB might change though. The angle of attack of both missiles could be re-evaluated at some point. The issue here is that we don't have a high fidelity flight model, so its like that the missiles are given an altitude that they climb to, at which point they angle down to descend, in which case their angle of attack is dependent on range, distance, velocity and so forth. It could also be that the Spike's climb altitude is too high too, or some other detail. Or maybe its all correct. Still, there *could* be some consistency investigation that could be done there. (edit) As Ssnake mentioned in the comment after this, the lock-on missiles do aim for the same exact point on the target, and this could improve as well - some slight deviation would make them less-perfect. (Keep in mind also that the T-14's counter measures against these missiles aren't even modeled -- which means the missiles are even less useful against them in real life). A short term improvement can also be made here... I can slightly adjust the target frame on the T-14 for the AI gunners to help them more likely hit the ammo carousel (by lowering it about 6 inches). This is unrelated to everything else, but at this point we are simply looking for anything to improve (the tail is definitely wagging the dog here now). 😑 Beyond that though, there appears to be no issues with the simulation, in general. Yes, the T-14 is not reliably killed by top attack missiles, or at least it is heavily dependent on AOA, which in turn is dependent on the missile's performance and range to target (and maybe its better to put the Javelin in DIRECT mode against the T-14, perhaps -- something for the human user/gunner to consider). The different AOA can mean a great difference in what the penetrator hits inside and these are all plausable, natural results from the model. Apart from that, the T-14 is being crippled by these top attack hits (and sometimes destroyed by it depending in AOA) and that is all we can realistically expect, given what we know about the vehicle's design - contrary to what was first reported here (based on HTML files). But yes, the reliability of this does depend on the impact angle, which in turn depends on the missile type and the range to the target. All that said, development has to move forward here now (hours have been spent here, where we tried to find anything that could be improved upon), but maybe some long term improvements can come from all this.

OK, I was corrected here by the modeler. The decision was that the difference in the ammo carousel representation on the T-14 is actually based in reality (and is not a modeling inconsistency). Without going into too much detail, the T-72s ammo carousel is shaped (from above) like a disk. This is because, due to space limitations, the rounds are stored horizontally in the carousel with the charges. The T-14 doesn't have this limitation so the rounds are stored vertically around the sub turret so when viewed from above its more like a donut with a hole in the middle (the carousel going around the sides of the sub turret, as opposed to going around bottom of the turret floor). This provides natural protection from above, but makes them more vulnerable from the side. So, long story short, this is a non issue. But at least we made sure. (I will strike out that text in the previous comment to hopefully prevent confusion.)