Kingtiger Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 4 minutes ago, Apocalypse 31 said: First person functionality for Riflemen. AT4 sights. +1 on this! <3 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenny Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 I'd Prefer this: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingtiger Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 (edited) Whats that? Edit: I guess the sight of the PzFaust 3? Edited June 30, 2016 by Kingtiger 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilso845 Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 (edited) Thermal sight for CVR(T) and Warrior BGTI if possible or at a push ESPIRE I use the scimitar allot in Multiplayer missions its speed and mobility is a amazing and effective but lacks on a Battlefield surveillance sight. thanks in advance. Edited June 30, 2016 by wilso845 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj.Hans Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 (edited) Now that we have both the M113 and the M47 Dragon coming in in 4.0... How about M113's with a Dragon ATGM launcher as an optional add-on to the commander's cupola? I understand this was a reasonably common cold war era scout/mechanized infantry type fit. Edited July 1, 2016 by Maj.Hans 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 The ability for AFV,s to snorkel if so equipped to do so in the RW. I realise this is not a quick process in reality tanks have to be sealed etc. Plus a player would need some way of knowing how deep the river was. But it would be a very useful addition 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenny Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, Maj.Hans said: Now that we have both the M113 and the M47 Dragon coming in in 4.0... How about M113's with a Dragon ATGM launcher as an optional add-on to the commander's cupola? I understand this was a reasonably common cold war era scout/mechanized infantry type fit. As can be said to the MILAN, the HMG-version of the MG-3, 106mm RCL Guns etc etc etc All kinds of stuff could can be stitched to an M113 Would love to see it implemented :-) PS.: and the Option to extend the TOW laucher to about 1800mm above the vehicle roof on the M113-TOW (as can be done IRL) Edited July 1, 2016 by Grenny 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj.Hans Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 In a future version after 4.0..... We currently have Russian & East German options for vehicles and infantry, as well as the US side in both the 90s and 2000s... So on my request list goes: US troops with M14 rifles and M1 helmets US troops with M16A1 rifles and M1 helmets with Mitchell pattern covers German troops armed with G3A3 and M-56 Stahlhelm (M1 copy) UK troops armed with L1A1 SLR and...whatever godawful steel turtle thing they wore during the cold war... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted July 2, 2016 Members Share Posted July 2, 2016 Squint harder. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpow66m Posted July 3, 2016 Share Posted July 3, 2016 On 7/2/2016 at 3:19 AM, Ssnake said: Squint harder. you really should trademark that,lol. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev2go Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 (edited) its nice to see the T72B upcoming in 4.0, but a crewable T80U as well as possibly the T90 tank are must have at some point, because IMO the T72B is still not quite advanced enough to fight the M1A1 without disadvantages. Team east needs such aforementioned tank(s) that could actually go toe to toe with the Leopard 2's, M1A1(HA) & possibly m1a2, not have to constantly play "spam the T72 until you finally overwhelm the superior nato tank with raw numbers of inferior tanks". this may be tolerable for SP scenarios but for MP you abosultley want all sides to have crewable tanks that are relatively comparable matchups in terms of capabilities particularly where it concerns FCS and ballistic computing. Edited July 4, 2016 by Kev2go 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Kev2go said: its nice to see the T72B upcoming in 4.0, but a crewable T80U as well as possibly the T90 tank are must have at some point, because IMO the T72B is still not quite advanced enough with its Ballistic computer and FCS to fight the M1A1 without a disadvantage. Team east needs such aforementioned tank(s) that could actually go toe to toe with the Leopard 2's, M1A1(HA) & possibly m1a2, not have to constantly play "spam the T72 until you finally overwhelm the superior nato tank with raw numbers of inferior tanks". this may be tolerable for SP scenarios but for MP you abosultley want all sides to have crew able tanks of relatively fair and closely equivalent matchups. Not sure even if esim modelled the T-80U fire control system I would consider it a fair match up. In terms of mobility and frontal armour yes its better then all the other T-tanks except the( T-90. fire control only) But it still lacks a thermal view for the gunner and commander it would still be an unfair fight the T-90A have proven its self to be a tough tank and has a thermal imager not as sophisticated as its western counter parts But you would have some chance using the AT-11. Personally I would like to see the T-90MS it has an equivalent fire control to the M1. But I don't see that happening to version 7.0 arrives. LoL Edited July 4, 2016 by Marko 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev2go Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 (edited) On 7/4/2016 at 12:08 PM, Marko said: Not sure even if esim modelled the T-80U fire control system I would consider it a fair match up. In terms of mobility and frontal armour yes its better then all the other T-tanks except the( T-90. fire control only) But it still lacks a thermal view for the gunner and commander it would still be an unfair fight the T-90A have proven its self to be a tough tank and has a thermal imager not as sophisticated as its western counter parts But you would have some chance using the AT-11. Personally I would like to see the T-90MS it has an equivalent fire control to the M1. But I don't see that happening to version 7.0 arrives. LoL Yea i understand. something like the T90MS is just too modern. Would have classified stats and what not, and Russian Gov't wouldn't agree to share information. Just like it would be unreasonable to expect an M1A2 Sep v3 anytime soon. Ultimately why i listed that T80U and a T90. Reasonable suggestions as they are older tanks, but still improved and better matchups agains natos newer gen tanks of 80s cold war period, even if the later T90 technically is post Cold war service tank. So it would be viable to have in SB, but nonetheless both of them ( even Base T90) would still offer very worthy improvements over the T72B. The T80U is still in Russian service, and to a lesser extentUkrainian Service, so it would continue to be a relevant tank for post Cold war scenarios. At this rate anything to bridge the performance gap would be good, Even if we dont get something better or literally on par with the M1A1, which is why i think the aforementioned tanks would be not just welcome, but necessary for SB. again by no means am i saying it has to be added Asap but it would be really good to have the SB executives decide to include it somewhere down the developmental roadmap. In any case the soon to be added Crewable T72B variations for SB 4.0 is a good start, and a baby step in the right direction of having more competitive Eastern bloc armor against Western based tanks, which will hopefully pave the way of the additions of T80u, T90, and maybe, just maybe the T90A/S model as it is from the same year as the M1A2 Sep. Edited March 14, 2018 by Kev2go 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 17 minutes ago, Kev2go said: Yea in understand. something like the T90MS is just too modern. Would have classified stats and what not, just like it would be unreasonable to expect an M1A2 Sep v2 anytime soon. ultimately why i listed that T80U and a T90. Reasonable suggestions as they are older tanks, but still improved and better matchups agains natos newer gen tanks of 80s cold war period, even if the later T90 technically is post Cold war service tank. So it would be viable to have in SB, but nonetheless both of them ( even Base T90) would still offer very worthy improvements over the T72B. The T80U is still in Russian service, and to a lesser extend Ukrainian Service, so it would continue to be a relevant tank for post Cold war scenarios. at this rate anything to bridge the performance gap would be good, Even if we dont get something better or litteraly on par with the M1A1, which is why i think the aforementioned tanks would be not just welcome, but necessary for SB. again by no means am i saying it has to be added Asap but it would be really good to have the SB executives decide to include it somewhere down the developmental roadmap. In any case the soon to be added Crewable T72B variations for SB 4.0 is a good start, and a baby step in the right direction of having more competitive Eastern bloc armor against Western based tanks, which will hopefully pave the way of the additions of T80u, T90, and maybe, just maybe the T90A/S model as it is from the same year as the M1A2 Sep. I can see where your coming from and many has asked for the same thing but In the the mean time For MP games I would suggest think tank retro. M-60A3 when 4.0 is released v T-72B/M1 Leo-AS1 stand in for the A4 V T-62 etc. by disabling a few components of the fire controls on the 60. You can turn it in to a AO/or A1. cant wait I reckon the TVT engagement will be more tense and brutal in the Retro tanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted July 4, 2016 Members Share Posted July 4, 2016 4 hours ago, Kev2go said: its nice to see the T72B upcoming in 4.0, but a crewable T80U as well as possibly the T90 tank are must have at some point, because IMO the T72B is still not quite advanced enough to fight the M1A1 without disadvantages. The path to happiness leads through the lands of self-discipline and expectation management. A playable T-80 or -90 is easy to demand, but very difficult to fulfill unless we'd somehow be very lucky within the next two to four years. If you don't like my derivative of Zen, here's the "in your face" version: "Balanced and symmetrical" forces is for those lacking tactical imagination. The T-72B is "inferior"? Create a scenario that offsets the imbalance, be it by superior numbers, terrain that negates the standoff distance, additional engineering and artillery assets, air strikes, helicopters, ATGM teams (lots of them). You can challenge the latest generation of tanks even with a T-55, provided that you get off a flank shot. That may require a concealed approach, but there are ways to achieve that. Like urban battlegrounds, or forested terrain with lots of ravines and ridge lines. Create diversions, and get the timing right. Immobilize the opponent, then blind him with artillery. Admittedly this is all easier said than done ... like getting a T-80 or T-90 into Steel Beasts ... but in the process you may get to hone your tactical skills so you're more comfortable fighting when the odds are not in your favor. Also, you will probably have to accept that certain combinations of terrain and force compositions simply are unwinnable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furia Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 I am in desperate need of having the possibility of trasnporting at least 2 Reccon soldiers in the Centauro as it was possible on the first release of the vehicle some years ago. Those observers are game changers for a thinly armoured tank hunter. Pls pls pls 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev2go Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ssnake said: The path to happiness leads through the lands of self-discipline and expectation management. A playable T-80 or -90 is easy to demand, but very difficult to fulfill unless we'd somehow be very lucky within the next two to four years. If you don't like my derivative of Zen, here's the "in your face" version: "Balanced and symmetrical" forces is for those lacking tactical imagination. The T-72B is "inferior"? Create a scenario that offsets the imbalance, be it by superior numbers, terrain that negates the standoff distance, additional engineering and artillery assets, air strikes, helicopters, ATGM teams (lots of them). You can challenge the latest generation of tanks even with a T-55, provided that you get off a flank shot. That may require a concealed approach, but there are ways to achieve that. Like urban battlegrounds, or forested terrain with lots of ravines and ridge lines. Create diversions, and get the timing right. Immobilize the opponent, then blind him with artillery. Admittedly this is all easier said than done ... like getting a T-80 or T-90 into Steel Beasts ... but in the process you may get to hone your tactical skills so you're more comfortable fighting when the odds are not in your favor. Also, you will probably have to accept that certain combinations of terrain and force compositions simply are unwinnable. isnt it really easy to tell people to use tactical imagination, or learn to "get better" with worse technology when players with Western Nato tanks dont actually have to. i think its a bit hypocritical. A equally good Simmer will win with better tech. Again i get you have other priorities like rolling out with V 4.0, updated models, updated Terrain. but afterwards? if there isnt a lack of information or ability to obtain such info on those tanks ( due to classified restrictions, or gov't not giving permission etc) then i see no reason why the T80U and/or T90 should be disregarded off the table. i have stated in a prior statement that I dont demand anything, nor expect these tanks asap only that it should be put for the developmental roadmap in the distant future ( if it hasnt been considered already). If its a issue of time & effort vs profit you can always just offer additional Tank varations to the base game as individual DLC for those willing to pay for them. From a consumer perspective ( after all PE pro is for civilian market) having somewhat comparative tanks is important for Multiplay. Is it really wrong to expeereince the more technologicaly innovative champions of russian armor of the cold war, not just the common cruder tanks. Ultimately i do praise the team for adding the T72B variants as well as the inclusion of older generation tanks as the m60a3 because its a step in the right direction, in expading tank eras, and not making this game so focused on Nato tanks. Its simply a nice change of pace to experience simming in foreign tank designs, especially if they are comparatively close in capabilities to other nations counterparts. After all this is a wishlist thread. whats the point of wishlisting if i get scolded for wanting things, especially if its not unreasonable and actually makes total sense. I didn't make a request for Chimy chungas to increase tank crew morale. Edited July 4, 2016 by Kev2go 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 Well if you want to see the results of "near peer" (albeit Red uncrewed) have a look at the Rolling Thunder 16 AARs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted July 4, 2016 Members Share Posted July 4, 2016 1 hour ago, Kev2go said: isnt it really easy to tell people to use tactical imagination, or learn to "get better" with worse technology when players with Western Nato tanks dont actually have to. i think its a bit hypocritical. Not at all. You can easily set up vulnerable Western forces, e.g. with mech forces bereft of MBT support. Or gun platforms like the Centauro and other "medium" forces. Or you pick older vehicle models (M60, Leo 1), give them crappy ammunition, disable thermal imagers. There is nothing in Steel Beasts Pro that forces you to pick the latest and greatest Western equipment as BluFor, or to pick it in equal numbers. Parity of equipment and forces, IOW perfect symmetry, is a game concept. Reality is pretty much always at least somewhat asymmetrical. I know of not a single chance encounter in post-WW2 military history where both sides were identical in numbers and technologically in perfect balance. It just doesn't happen. So you may just as well embrace asymmetry in all mission design. if there isnt a lack of information or ability to obtain such info on those tanks ( due to classified restrictions, or gov't not giving permission etc) then i see no reason why the T80U and/or T90 should be disregarded off the table. And right there is the rub. We're not magicians, we're engineers. We can simulate what we understand well enough. We can understand a fire control system well enough to implement it only with access to such a vehicle, or at least a subject matter expert who's willing to spill the beans. Let me know when you find one. I dont demand anything, ... only that it should be put for the developmental roadmap in the distant future If the term "roadmap" isn't supposed to lose all meaning (a.k.a. a white map with " ...'ere be dragons..." written on it) an item can only appear in it if there is sufficient ground to believe that by the time of the projected implementation there will be enough information available. Right now I have no idea where such information may be coming from. I don't own a Palanthir (and even if I did, I've been advised to wrap it in a cloth rather than use it for scrying). If its a issue of time & effort vs profit you can always just offer additional Tank varations to the base game as individual DLC for those willing to pay for them. That kind of a business model I'm happy to leave to companies like DCS. What's next, micropayments? Achievements? Steel Beasts has never been advertised as a game, and it would be ill-becoming to adopt these kinds of strategies after 15 years being quite consistent about our ways where there's a clear and fixed price to pay for a clear and well-defined set of features that you get in return. I can only advise to be careful in what you're wishing for. (after all PE pro is for civilian market) I disagree. We don't stop civilian users from buying it, and it's possible to have fun with it, but in the end it's still Steel Beasts Pro, Personal Edition or not. We never marketed it as a game. We never sacrificed realism and instructional value for better entertainment value. eSim Games, despite its name, is first and foremost a training company. We leverage gaming technology to drive down the costs of simulation assisted training. And we provide different versions and licensing concepts for different application cases. After all this is a wishlist thread. Fair enough. But some wishes have better chances of being fulfilled than others, and not necessarily for a lack of wanting on our end. Give me access to a T-90, and I'll return the favor with a playable T-90 in SB Pro PE. Short of being incredibly lucky, I just don't see it happening. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 (edited) I have always held to the hope you guys would be awarded a contract with say the Indian military after all there the biggest users of the T-90. Or some other user of the T-90/T-80U, realistically I think that's the only way you will get the information you need to build it. And that's also hoping the customer would let you use that information in the PE edition. Edited July 4, 2016 by Marko 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted July 4, 2016 Members Share Posted July 4, 2016 Yeah, that would be really nice. Just don't get emotionally invested too much, because while it may technically be a non-zero chance, it's still a pretty low figure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev2go Posted July 5, 2016 Share Posted July 5, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ssnake said: Not at all. You can easily set up vulnerable Western forces, e.g. with mech forces bereft of MBT support. Or gun platforms like the Centauro and other "medium" forces. Or you pick older vehicle models (M60, Leo 1), give them crappy ammunition, disable thermal imagers. There is nothing in Steel Beasts Pro that forces you to pick the latest and greatest Western equipment as BluFor, or to pick it in equal numbers. Parity of equipment and forces, IOW perfect symmetry, is a game concept. Reality is pretty much always at least somewhat asymmetrical. I know of not a single chance encounter in post-WW2 military history where both sides were identical in numbers and technologically in perfect balance. It just doesn't happen. So you may just as well embrace asymmetry in all mission design. And right there is the rub. We're not magicians, we're engineers. We can simulate what we understand well enough. We can understand a fire control system well enough to implement it only with access to such a vehicle, or at least a subject matter expert who's willing to spill the beans. Let me know when you find one. If the term "roadmap" isn't supposed to lose all meaning (a.k.a. a white map with " ...'ere be dragons..." written on it) an item can only appear in it if there is sufficient ground to believe that by the time of the projected implementation there will be enough information available. Right now I have no idea where such information may be coming from. I don't own a Palanthir (and even if I did, I've been advised to wrap it in a cloth rather than use it for scrying). That kind of a business model I'm happy to leave to companies like DCS. What's next, micropayments? Achievements? Steel Beasts has never been advertised as a game, and it would be ill-becoming to adopt these kinds of strategies after 15 years being quite consistent about our ways where there's a clear and fixed price to pay for a clear and well-defined set of features that you get in return. I can only advise to be careful in what you're wishing for. I disagree. We don't stop civilian users from buying it, and it's possible to have fun with it, but in the end it's still Steel Beasts Pro, Personal Edition or not. We never marketed it as a game. We never sacrificed realism and instructional value for better entertainment value. eSim Games, despite its name, is first and foremost a training company. We leverage gaming technology to drive down the costs of simulation assisted training. And we provide different versions and licensing concepts for different application cases. Fair enough. But some wishes have better chances of being fulfilled than others, and not necessarily for a lack of wanting on our end. Give me access to a T-90, and I'll return the favor with a playable T-90 in SB Pro PE. Short of being incredibly lucky, I just don't see it happening. Thanks for responding in a more informative manner, this answers my questions more. I just want to clarify I went in fully understanding when I purchased SB PE, this is a actual simulator not a "game", just a version of it for the civilian market . I have only use the term "game" very loosely as a simply a virtual experience. I am not expecting loss of realism just for entertainment reasons by no means. Also as one who comes from having simmed in aviation in in DCS ( still do) i mean that is also a study simulator in its own category ( aviation instead of armored vehicles). It is not a game despite their business model, they have also sold thier "modules" for Military training contracts. SO despite the differences, in many ways its a reflection of what you guys do. Anyways as a being a new user here im not familiar with how things work, or how decisions were made, which vehicles to develop etc, but thank you for shedding some light. Edited July 5, 2016 by Kev2go 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj.Hans Posted July 5, 2016 Share Posted July 5, 2016 (edited) As for the OPFOR T-Tanks, I definately understand the desire to get a better T-tank in game. I think we need to look at what constraints eSim has to work with and try to make reasonable requests. Like Ssnake pointed out, you can always downgrade BlueFor's tanks. For example make a mission that calls for T72B vs M1A2 SEP. Then play it. Blue wins easily. Next see what happens if BlueFor has to fight with M1A1/HA or M1A1, or maybe even IPM1's instead. As for what Esim can do here... As I see it, they have the following options: 1. Do nothing. Do not add enhanced OPFOR tanks. Players who wish only to smash the latest tanks of western spy squat and to destroy moose and squirrel (Boris reference, yes) may leave the sim for a game featuring poorly modeled T72BU, ahem, I meant, T90 which was most certainly NOT renamed T90 after horrible showing of T72 in Gulf War... Other players will simply play balance with numbers, terrain, support, or tech level in order to make "fair" multiplayer scenarios. 2. Take a wild stab at modeling the latest T80/90. Players wanting to get into the latest T-90MSUBVRK or whatever the hell the Russians invented this week will be overjoyed. Then someone who has actually been inside of a T-90MSUBVRK will show up and point out all the things that are wrong, and make E-sim look like fools. 3. Do the best with what we have and what we know. For example, the wiki page about the T72C4 says: "The fire control system is nearly identical to the one found in the Centauro, with independent commanders sight, thermal imager, and such." So, Ssnake, perhaps it's time to model the T72C4 as a playable tank? Use the fire control views from the Centauro, without a 3D interior (Much the same as the LeopardAS1 or T62) and let us have at it! Esim has already done this with the upcoming T72B1 models. I assume the gun launched ATGM is removed due to limitations of the engine, but this is what we need to work with. These tanks can always be used as "command" vehicles for sections or platoons of T72B's with ATGMs equipped. 4. Make an admittedly fictional OPFOR tank solely to provide a challenge. Many might argue that this is no different than Option 2, but at least if you have a generic "OPFOR Tank" that's a blend of commong T64/72/80/90 features you can claim that it's sole purpose is to provide a challenge to the Blue players without attempting to provide an accurate representation of an actual tank. Edited July 5, 2016 by Maj.Hans 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted July 5, 2016 Share Posted July 5, 2016 (edited) 17 hours ago, Maj.Hans said: As for the OPFOR T-Tanks, I definately understand the desire to get a better T-tank in game. I think we need to look at what constraints eSim has to work with and try to make reasonable requests. Like Ssnake pointed out, you can always downgrade BlueFor's tanks. For example make a mission that calls for T72B vs M1A2 SEP. Then play it. Blue wins easily. Next see what happens if BlueFor has to fight with M1A1/HA or M1A1, or maybe even IPM1's instead. As for what Esim can do here... As I see it, they have the following options: 1. Do nothing. Do not add enhanced OPFOR tanks. Players who wish only to smash the latest tanks of western spy squat and to destroy moose and squirrel (Boris reference, yes) may leave the sim for a game featuring poorly modeled T72BU, ahem, I meant, T90 which was most certainly NOT renamed T90 after horrible showing of T72 in Gulf War... Other players will simply play balance with numbers, terrain, support, or tech level in order to make "fair" multiplayer scenarios. 2. Take a wild stab at modeling the latest T80/90. Players wanting to get into the latest T-90MSUBVRK or whatever the hell the Russians invented this week will be overjoyed. Then someone who has actually been inside of a T-90MSUBVRK will show up and point out all the things that are wrong, and make E-sim look like fools. 3. Do the best with what we have and what we know. For example, the wiki page about the T72C4 says: "The fire control system is nearly identical to the one found in the Centauro, with independent commanders sight, thermal imager, and such." So, Ssnake, perhaps it's time to model the T72C4 as a playable tank? Use the fire control views from the Centauro, without a 3D interior (Much the same as the LeopardAS1 or T62) and let us have at it! Esim has already done this with the upcoming T72B1 models. I assume the gun launched ATGM is removed due to limitations of the engine, but this is what we need to work with. These tanks can always be used as "command" vehicles for sections or platoons of T72B's with ATGMs equipped. 4. Make an admittedly fictional OPFOR tank solely to provide a challenge. Many might argue that this is no different than Option 2, but at least if you have a generic "OPFOR Tank" that's a blend of commong T64/72/80/90 features you can claim that it's sole purpose is to provide a challenge to the Blue players without attempting to provide an accurate representation of an actual tank. Personally, I am happy to go retro with a numbers advantage if playing as opfor with T tanks. You make some valid points its certainly a conundrum for esim if they build it, And if the Guess/estimates on key components are way off. they run the risk of possibly loosing the credibility for the high level of fidelity they have already Achieved with other models. I would enjoy a playable T-80U or 90 or even better a T-90MS as much as any other SB player. but realistically Its not going to happen any time soon. So option 4 build a fantasy tank use the T-80-Hull/engine combo and give it a Turret something like the black eagle concept tank. . The Russians were developing but dropped to work on the T-14. and give it comparable fire control with something like the M1A1. That's of course assuming esim have to time to devote on such a project. for the update after 4.0 Edited July 5, 2016 by Marko 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocalypse 31 Posted July 5, 2016 Share Posted July 5, 2016 17 hours ago, Maj.Hans said: 4. Make an admittedly fictional OPFOR tank solely to provide a challenge. Many might argue that this is no different than Option 2, but at least if you have a generic "OPFOR Tank" that's a blend of commong T64/72/80/90 features you can claim that it's sole purpose is to provide a challenge to the Blue players without attempting to provide an accurate representation of an actual tank. Im all about stand-in systems, much like the current, in-game, RWS gun sights if it means that we get more playable equipment. Im also ok with not having a fully modeled vehicle interiors, much like the current, in game Challenger II. Functionality over eye candy. If not, the T-90 fans will never see the interior 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.