What is Steel Beasts?

[Ssnake]

3 hours ago, Koen said:

Which new tactical elements would you dream to add over the next years ?

I never answer such questions. But there are rather obvious new developments that need to be reflected in our product.

[Apocalypse 31]

20 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

The primary focus is to keep Steel Beasts as a viable product for the next two decades. Military development contracts are, in this context, a necessary evil to keep the show going. It remains to be seen if a realistic tank game like GHPC can also be popular enough to support a larger development team for an extended period while retaining its focus on realism. Also, we wouldn't see modern equipment in SB Pro without access to those contemporary systems, and access to those systems is granted only if you generate value for the owners.

 

Without those maligned military contracts there would have been Steel Beasts 1.x, and the story would have ended right there.

Nobody is vilifying the military contracts.

 

But at the same time, I find these conversations to be pointless, almost laughable. To think that players (or maybe even developers!) can provide input that can influence change in the overall direction of the game. 

 

If your Mil customers proposed a contract to have a new game engine - we would see a new game engine

If your Mil customers proposed a contract to turn SB into a wargame - we would have a new wargame

[thewood]

But there are things that get added outside the military contracts.  They exist in the game.  So just getting a voice out there is a good thing.

[stormrider_sp]

12 hours ago, Lt DeFault said:

I like making missions for myself.

I like it as well, but I prefer to play other people's missions which, as opposed to mines, I don't know the outcome.

[stormrider_sp]

4 hours ago, RedWardancer said:

Steel Beasts is a unique system in that it combines realism to simulation.  No campaigns, no roleplay, no crazy imagination.  It's the closest thing to being in the military without being in one.  True in that it caters to a small fan base, but one has to remember this was a military training simulator that was later commercialized for public use.  Yet, the game can easily be played by one person depending on the scenario.  There is so much more to it than just gunnery.  This is a very complex simulator that is equal to Command Modern Operations which requires research, training (practice), knowledge, and a bit of skill.  By no means was SB ever meant to be a shoot-em-up, which is why I have supported this game for well over fifteen years.  Could it be better?  Absolutely.  Could it be worse?  You darned right.  Despite whatever shortcomings SB has, I wouldn't trade this for any other tank game that ever existed or currently exists.  In conclusion, SB is the poo.  SB either wows you or it doesn't.  

It was actually a sim-game that was later commercialized to the military as a training simulator.

[Nike-Ajax]

1 minute ago, stormrider_sp said:

I like it as well, but I prefer to play other people's missions which, as opposed to mines, I don't know the outcome.

 

We always have room for you and anyone else. As does the Gentlemen in BGANZAC and TGIF if that is more to your taste. 😁

[stormrider_sp]

4 minutes ago, Nike-Ajax said:

 

We always have room for you and anyone else. As does the Gentlemen in BGANZAC and TGIF if that is more to your taste. 😁

Thank you. I really enjoy playing with you and Kanium. I only wish I could do it more often.

[RedWardancer]

2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Uh, no, we started with a game (although we considered a secondary role in training more or less from the start, just didn't expect that it would eventually dominate our business).

I stand corrected.

 

Stormrider_sp mentioned he prefers to play mission from others so that he doesn't know the outcome.  This can be done with using LOTS of variable conditions and routes in the mission editor.  When making scenarios for myself, I use this extensively.  EXAMPLE: I can create a company sized OPFOR, giving each enemy platoon and detachments about four different starting positions, each with about four different routes to take.  I may also add in different OPFOR mission types and size of enemy forces.  That way, replay value goes up big time.  Where I fail is #1, not knowing exactly how to do it and #2, using way too many pieces (regiments) on both sides in the game.   

Edited January 17, 2021 by RedWardancer

[Splash]

In my opinion, no amount of variable conditions can overcome the fact that the mission author knows where the enemy might (or more importantly, WILL NOT) be. 

Randomness helps a little with playability of one's own missions ... but it's no substitute for playing a well-crafted mission by someone else.

[thewood]

Its not about knowing, its about knowing you know.  II play the game to see what happens, not to compete per se.  If I build a mission, which I do all the time, I always ask myself, what would someone who doesn't know whats going to happen do?  I have gotten pretty good at figuring out the decision points for a scenario.  I'm not perfect, but I find it educational and enlightening.  I do play 3rd party scenarios and they are fun too.  But at least half of my play is altering those 3rd party scenarios to see what the impact is.

[Ssnake]

6 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

If your Mil customers proposed a contract to have a new game engine - we would see a new game engine

If your Mil customers proposed a contract to turn SB into a wargame - we would have a new wargame

 

But the first would never happen, and the second is very unlikely to happen for the same reason; military customers are also public customers, and therefore bound to adhere to procurement and (in the EU) common market laws. The replacement of a render engine could be seen as a subsidy, likewise the development of an entirely new functional branch. These are things that we must do on our own, which is only fair, but they can be done only in the remaining fraction of development time.

[Gibsonm]

Also I guess I can say "we" are fundamentally primarily interested in the "effect" (the "what", or the outcome).

 

The "how" a supplier achieves it (say game engine, or X polygons vs Y polygons), is very much secondary to the tool delivering the outcomes "we" want.

 

Of course some of the contract requirements fall into "how" (e.g. must run on pre existing Defence infrastructure [say Windows] or similar) otherwise you end up with either software that require Unix or similar (say JANUS) or Defence acknowledges the need to invest in additional hardware for the "standard operating environment" (for example JSAF).