M1A2 what does it take

[Ssnake]

Is SB really that good that featuring a vehicle would/could expose "secret" information to unwanted hands?I think SB is is really really got, but certainly not this "good".

Personally I don't think so, but this is not a question that you can answer with objectivity. It depends on whether we can convince a customer that making the model publicly available won't breach their security. So far our customers were pretty relaxed about it, but it can be an issue. The Israelis, for example, don't even put unaltered Merkava I into tank museums, and the British Army is similarly paranoid, and I wouldn't be surprised if the French aren't keen on preserving an aura of mystery for the Leclerc.

A good indicator is how much information you can find on internet pages about the interior of vehicles. Heck, there are even images of KMW Leopard 2 assembly on the interwebs, try that with a Challenger. For a bureacrat it is always easier to err on the side of caution, a systemic preference of paranoia.

[Wahrborg]

What if you built and put in models of those vehicles before any kind of deal? With the skill and experience generated over the years of introducing vehicles for SB Pro, eSim could model these vehicles with a degree of accuracy that would satisfy your selfs, PE customers and perhaps also potential customers as PR for the sim?

Wouldn't having the models already in the sim before any potential deal ensure the on living of a PE version, along with good PR towards potential new customers?

[Ssnake]

Well, it'd still require extensive access to the vehicle; more importantly though is the time that it would still require which we don't have as long as there are other army customers pushing us for speedy development to address identified training deficits in the current operational environment. We've been through this a couple times now, try the Search function if you can't remember all the details. It's hard to justify adding a detailed new version of the M1 when none of our customers uses it and at the same time there is the need to add in elements that will enable fundamentally different types of scenarios.

SB Pro as it is may not be a perfect replication of the traditional high intensity AirLand battle, but it comes pretty close to it. All the wars that are currently fought however involve urban operations, the mix of combatants and non-combatants, a high granularity between low and high intensity combat, they are infantry centric, focused on changing attitudes of the population rather than the annihiliation of war materiel and enemy formations.

We can't possibly address all of these issues, but we definitely need to address at least some of them in order to remain relevant for our current and potential future customers. It is probably more than obvious that these requirements are fundamentally different from what we have, and that fundamentally new stuff requires more attention than the rather trivial case of adding "more of the same" (e.g. yet another playable AFV). We will see new AFVs in the future, don't get me wrong. But our development focus must adapt to the current realities if the company as such is supposed to stay in business.

[Hackworth]

What if you built and put in models of those vehicles before any kind of deal? With the skill and experience generated over the years of introducing vehicles for SB Pro, eSim could model these vehicles with a degree of accuracy that would satisfy your selfs, PE customers and perhaps also potential customers as PR for the sim?

Wouldn't having the models already in the sim before any potential deal ensure the on living of a PE version, along with good PR towards potential new customers?

[Ssnake]

It isn't quite as bad. We're working on a few internal tools that are supposed to improve our productivity. That could go a long way to increase the speed with which we can add new vehicle models.

[Hackworth]

It isn't quite as bad. We're working on a few internal tools that are supposed to improve our productivity. That could go a long way to increase the speed with which we can add new vehicle models.

it's okay. i still love you, Ssnake

[CalAB]

I thought that eSim was projecting a dedicated workspace for the pursuit of public relations over the course of 2010 - 2011 in which primary customers would suffer in a momentary lapse of contractual obligations resulting in patch works/additions for the PE line? Correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't been laid in a while..prolly pre Febuary 2009 math. Nutz

[CalAB]

Btw, what is shown in the following youtube video may be a consideration for stuff down the road.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-f1cwycSWq0

[Tacbat]

What's that, theme music for every mission?

[BlackDeath]

Just curious about something : was the M1A1HA developed in the first place for an army customer or just to feature that peculiar tank?

:thelmuts:

[Hedgehog]

Think it was added because it was in SB1 and 50% of ESim are yanks

[oscar19681]

Well arent 50 % (or even more by now) still yanks? Time to upgrade the m1a1 into m1a2 just for the yanks!

[CommanderA9]

wait...we need contracts and licensing for this?

[Mogwa]

no

[Hans Von Lohman]

I think at this point it is clear we will see this before the M1A2.

[Tacbat]

So what? How many people regularly play the M1 in MP besides the usual suspects?

[Hedgehog]

Occasionaly I do, depends on the scenario.

I just have a preference to the 2A5DK.

[ShotMagnet]

The phrase 'Please don't feed the trolls' pops into my fevered mind.

If we all just ignore this thread, maybe it'll disappear.

Shot

[ChuikovChambered]

I, personally, will take either tank into multiplayer. While the Leo 2 does index the rounds automatically, and has a easier dynamic lead system to learn, the M1's dynamic lead system is more ergonomic once you learn it, since you don't have to hold down the P key or your middle mouse button to keep lead, just right click once on the target.

[outontheop]

asking "who uses the M1 in MP" is a bit disingenuous, really. Or more accurately, a chicken-and-egg situation

By which I mean: do people not take the M1 in MP because they don't like the M1 (and therefore there's no reason for the more modern version), or do people not take the M1 in MP because there's no modern version (and therefore people don't like it)?

I suspect that if an M1A2 or M1A2 SEP/ SEPv2 was made available- which has armor comparable to the best of the Leo 2s, dual plane Leo style FCS, a commander's independent thermal viewer, and, oh, by the way, RWS .50 cal and better post-penetration survivability than the Leo series- then perhaps people would start playing it more.

[ShotMagnet]

Again, pleading for sanity.

'Please don't feed the trolls.'

Shot

[outontheop]

Ok, so don't read the post. What you consider 'trolling', I consider a valid complaint. People are perfectly well justified in opining that they want an updated M1. Just because you don't doesn't make anyone else's opinion on the matter any less valid

[Ssnake]

Nobody has ever denied the desirability of an M1A2SEP in SB Pro.

[Hackworth]

asking "who uses the M1 in MP" is a bit disingenuous, really. Or more accurately, a chicken-and-egg situation

By which I mean: do people not take the M1 in MP because they don't like the M1 (and therefore there's no reason for the more modern version), or do people not take the M1 in MP because there's no modern version (and therefore people don't like it)?

I suspect that if an M1A2 or M1A2 SEP/ SEPv2 was made available- which has armor comparable to the best of the Leo 2s, dual plane Leo style FCS, a commander's independent thermal viewer, and, oh, by the way, RWS .50 cal and better post-penetration survivability than the Leo series- then perhaps people would start playing it more.

OR, it could be that the M1 happens to be the vehicle outfitting the team i want to play on (red or blue). or maybe there are people on the team with Leos I don't really want on my side. hell, i love the Leo 2A4 the most (don't strike me Mogwa). but, that doesn't mean i chose a side based on what types of vehicles are available. i sure as shit won't play with people i don't care for no matter what equips their team.

Also, as far as pitting a Leo2E against M1's; that's a scenario designer's problem. if the sce designer thinks it's okay to equip one side with more heavily armored, or up-gunned vehicles, that's his issue. i for one attempt to balance scenarios in some way if it's a MP. In other words, if i'm going to pit M1'ss against Leo2E's, then i'm probably going to increase the ratio of tanks to favor the M1 -- 2:1 for instance.

whoops! gave a cookie to the troll (not you, outonthetop).

[Furia]

The group of Spanish players that we are creating a new VU, found a way to "balance" the Leo2E vs the M1A1 within the limitiation and possibilities we have now in SB.

Although it is clear the Leo2E has stronger frontal armour, we have balanced this in combat by the use of the following ammo on each tanks:

For the Leo2E we load DM 33 (KE) while for the M1A1 we do load the M829A3 (KE)

It is not perfect but allows us to balance scenarios and the M1A1 have a good chance of winning against the Leo2E, although since in our unit we do specialize in the Leo2E lets say we are more proficient on it so we make the most of it :biggrin: