CV90 variants

[Marko]

I have been testing all four versions of the CV90. witch one do you think is the most Combat Effective.I tend to favor the CV90/35

[Ssnake]

I haven't made up my mind yet, but the 35mm variant has significant limitations, especially the relatively low amount of ammunition that is ready to fire. Of 35 rounds each, only 14 can be used before the end of belt signal kicks in. That's not too bad for the KE rounds, but with the classic four round bursts for the KETF ammunition against area targets you only have four targets to engage before you have to make the decision to either pull back to add more rounds to the belt before it disappears in the feed chute, to to continue firing until the entire feed is empty.

The CV90/30 has a lot more rounds available, but lacks the more sophisticated fire modes with the programmable timer fuze. By instinct, I'd go with the CV90/30, but it may be that you need disproportionally more ammo to defeat the same target arrays so that the number of "stowed kills" may not quite be what the pure comparison of the number of rounds in each ammo feed would suggest.

The 40mm isn't bad, as long as you have at least one troop member in the back to quickly reload your magazines whenever possible.

[TankHunter]

I like the CV9040, whatever you are shooting at is going to be in bad shape.

[Kingtiger]

My favorite is the CV9040B, the 40mm Bofors sure packs a punch. the 90C got better armour but less ammo, so I tend to prefer the 90B over C.

[Gibsonm]

All I know is that any of them when paired with Leo 2's are a PITA.

All the more reason for a playable (or partially playable) Marder.

[Marko]

All I know is that any of them when paired with Leo 2's are a PITA.

All the more reason for a playable (or partially playable) Marder.

I would like to see a playable marder to. But realistically a Puma IFV would be more likely.

If the Bundeswehr wonted a marder we would properly have one by now.

[Grenny]

I would like to see a playable marder to. But realistically a Puma IFV would be more likely.

If the Bundeswehr wonted a marder we would properly have one by now.

Maybe, one day, it will receive the same kindness from esim as the T-72 did.

One can but hope ;-)

[Hedgehog]

Maybe, one day, it will receive the same kindness from esim as the T-72 did.

One can but hope ;-)

I concur the Marder 1 is the new T-72!

So what your saying Ssnake is that the CV9040 effectively needs a 3 man crew?

[Eisenschwein]

No, Leop 1 with cast Turret is our new T 72!

But the Marder would be a nice and wanted Follower......

[Marko]

Maybe, one day, it will receive the same kindness from esim as the T-72 did.

One can but hope ;-)

With all the wish lists that will appear till the next upgrade.why don't we have a poll.

That way Esim will have a good idea what the majority of its customers would like

To see in the next upgrade.

[Grenny]

With all the wish lists that will appear till the next upgrade.why don't we have a poll.

That way Esim will have a good idea what the majority of its customers would like

To see in the next upgrade.

Great Idea, wonder why nobody else thought about that?

;-)

[Ssnake]

About 80% of an upgrade's content is driven by (military) training requirements. The rest depends on opportunity. For example, let's say that the majority of PE customers would vote for a playable Zulfiqar tank model. Even with 100% votes for it, chances that we could actually implement would be very low as long as we wouldn't find a way to get access to it - and the chances of that happening are probably very low.

I mention this just so that there are no illusions about the sway that public opinion (or public pressure) has on our development activities. We spend a disproportionate amount of our work on the Personal Edition (with about 10% of the annual turnover and about 20% of all the development time), so the PE community actually has a bigger influence on what we do than a military customer of the same size. Still that doesn't mean that poll results automatically pop winner items to the top of the priority list. There must also be a realistic chance to make it happen, and it must match our ideas of the general direction in which we want to go with our product.

[Marko]

About 80% of an upgrade's content is driven by (military) training requirements. The rest depends on opportunity. For example, let's say that the majority of PE customers would vote for a playable Zulfiqar tank model. Even with 100% votes for it, chances that we could actually implement would be very low as long as we wouldn't find a way to get access to it - and the chances of that happening are probably very low.

I mention this just so that there are no illusions about the sway that public opinion (or public pressure) has on our development activities. We spend a disproportionate amount of our work on the Personal Edition (with about 10% of the annual turnover and about 20% of all the development time), so the PE community actually has a bigger influence on what we do than a military customer of the same size. Still that doesn't mean that poll results automatically pop winner items to the top of the priority list. There must also be a realistic chance to make it happen, and it must match our ideas of the general direction in which we want to go with our product.

So can you lead us is the right direction.would it be possible to let us know what would be Possible with out divulging To much IE a playable BMP. etc. I am not trying to push this issue.I just think i mite stop speculation for the rest of the Year.if every member had one vote.with the understanding that it may not be possible for Esim to implement it.but Could act as a guide to what the majority of private users would like in terms of vehicles.

[Gibsonm]

With all the wish lists that will appear till the next upgrade.why don't we have a poll.

That way Esim will have a good idea what the majority of its customers would like

To see in the next upgrade.

Probably the because the choices listed in the Poll are determined by the person who wrote it (as with all surveys / polls).

So I could write one with responses for:

CV-90

Leo1

Warrior

Scimitar

and they would be the only choices you'd have.

If you want a Marder then your choices are to either not vote or vote for something else.

The only other option would be some huge list covering all the "missing" vehicle types, all the included but not crewable vehicle types, all the AI changes, all the graphical changes, and all the interface changes where you'd be asked to select one item from maybe a 100+ (and the forum is limited to ten choices per poll).

Edited January 29, 2012 by Gibsonm
Fixed typos

[Gibsonm]

So can you lead us is the right direction.would it be possible to let us know what would be Possible with out divulging to much IE a playable BMP. etc

So there you go.

Now Ssnake has to workout if you want a playable Marder or a playable BMP (and BTW he doesn't know if you mean BMP-1 or BMP-2) and which of those three has the highest priority (for you).

Sorry for the hijack - back to CV09 variant centric discussions.

[Marko]

Probably the because the choices listed in the Poll are determioned by the person who wrote it (as with all surveys / polls).

So I could write one with responses for:

CV-90

Leo1

Warrior

Scimitar

and they would be the only choices you'd have.

If you want a Marder then your choices are to either not vote or vote for something else.

The only other option would be some huge list covering all the "missing" vehicle types, all the included but not cre3wable vehicle types, all the AI changes, all the graphical changes, and all the interface changes where you'd be ask to select one item from maybe a 100+ (and the forum is limited to ten choices per poll).

Agreed we don't need a comprehensive list but a realistic one. posted by somebody who has the community in Mind not Just there own agenda

[Marko]

So there you go.

Now Ssnake has to workout if you want a playable Marder or a playable BMP (and BTW he doesn't know if you mean BMP-1 or BMP-2) and which of those three has the highest priority (for you).

I don't have a Agenda Gibsonm just trying to avoid a year of argumentation.

[Gibsonm]

Sorry, wasn't suggesting that you did.

All of the poll limitations are why I put my suggestions in the Wiki's "The List" where you can pretty much write what you like and there is no requirement for "someone" to spend time and effort researching all the previous requests and distilling it into a "top ten" requests poll:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/The_List

[Marko]

Sorry, wasn't suggesting that you did.

All of the poll limitations are why I put my suggestions in the Wiki's "The List" where you can pretty much write what you like and there is no requirement for "someone" to spend time and effort researching all the previous requests and distilling it into a "top ten" requests poll:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/The_List

As usual you make a lot of sense. I did not realize there was a limit on the amount you can Enter in a poll. may be we could be categorical MBT/ IFV/ APC. i think it would be more Realistic to pick none playable vehicles already implemented in SB.

[Kingtiger]

So what your saying Ssnake is that the CV9040 effectively needs a 3 man crew?

well yes... Driver, Gunner, Commander. that's 3 right?

[Ssnake]

So can you lead us is the right direction.would it be possible to let us know what would be Possible with out divulging To much IE a playable BMP. etc. I am not trying to push this issue.I just think i mite stop speculation for the rest of the Year.

I don't think the speculation will go away; or maybe it will be replaced by constant arguing that we made the wrong choice if I came to announce in advance what we'd be doing.

If I have learned one thing in the past decade, it is not to publish any plans that we have, or fixed and firm deadlines. They are almost always guaranteed to backfire.

What I do promise is that I read your threads here and take them into consideration, and that we at eSim Games do everything we can to find the best compromise between functionality, reliability, and realism, with a little bit of fun sprinkled on top.

We are working in a rather dynamic business environment. What looks like a robust and solid plan today may turn out to be no longer feasible because a planned contract doesn't materialize, or gets shifted, or some other contract turns up at short notice. Someone may have promised me access to a certain vehicle, and when I get around to make the visit, all of a sudden it isn't possible anymore.

It simply doesn't make sense to report all the shifts, twists and turns. It just creates the impression that we have no idea what we're doing when in fact we have a pretty firm bearing for our course. It's just that we're a small boat and there are strong winds and turbulent currents to deal with.

Let's just look at the T-72 history. We started as early as 2002 a serious attempt to get it into SB; our publisher went belly up, we had to salvage the remains, find a new market, and develop a new engine that would utilize 3D hardware acceleration. We tried a restart in 2005 and got as far as a 3D model of its interior, but from 2007 on we were flooded with development contracts that prevented us continuing the work on it until about spring 2011. Eight months later we made good on our promise.

What I want to illustrate with it is that we try to not forget about promises that we made, even if it takes us longer than anticipated to deliver. It taught me that once such a promise is given, we can get scolded every single day for years if we happen to be late, even if the reason why we're late is perfectly legitimate and rational (e.g. yes, accepting military contracts that forced us to suspend the work on the T-72 was a decision that we made voluntarily. Not accepting these contract would have probably forces us out of business, and nobody would have profited from that).

I said time and again that we would jump at the first opportunity to finish the T-72, but few if any would actually believe me. If there had been no campaigning for the T-72 at all, it wouldn't have been released a day later (nor could it have been released earlier).

All this taught me one thing, that I should be as non-committal as possible in my external communication. If the price to pay is to create the impression that I'm a piece of jell-o that you can't nail to a wall, I will gladly accept it. In fact, I think that this is the very mechanism that makes politicians be evasive in all their statements and to use phrases rather than straight talk, simply because there's no reward in it. If you deliver what you promised, it's taken for granted, and if you don't for legitimate reasons, or reasons beyond your control, you get lambasted for failing.

I will freely admit that I want the cheer and praise for the team that I represent. So if I don't promise anything but we still deliver some of the things that you want, the theory is that the audience will then rejoice for a brief moment (which usually is enough to motivate us to keep going).

[ARM505]

Well, then let me just say again that the introduction of the T72 was epic, Steel Beasts is awesome, we're all very thankful for the PE, and you do a damn fine job of keeping us informed actually.

Thread thoroughly derailed now

On a mildly rerailing note, please forgive my ignorance - can anybody spare a moment to clue me in: in the CV90-40's, who actually loads the magazines? Does the gunner have to jump up and do all of this? Does some hapless trooper have to sit there in the back doing the equivalent of a junior trooper on a shooting range, albeit with giant cartridges? If so, what is supposed to happen if there's nobody in the back? Where is the ammo loaded from - inside the turret or from the compartment in the back? Again, apart from the basic image we have in the turret from SB (ammo lying under the 'floor'), I can't really tell. And obviously I haven't played the CV for a while now, because things seem different too - lots of clanking and whining when I change ammo etc. Nice!

[Marko]

I don't think the speculation will go away; or maybe it will be replaced by constant arguing that we made the wrong choice if I came to announce in advance what we'd be doing.

If I have learned one thing in the past decade, it is not to publish any plans that we have, or fixed and firm deadlines. They are almost always guaranteed to backfire.

What I do promise is that I read your threads here and take them into consideration, and that we at eSim Games do everything we can to find the best compromise between functionality, reliability, and realism, with a little bit of fun sprinkled on top.

I totally understand and respect your statement.

I am not trying to draw you out on future plans,i fully understand That the military Contracts are the Life blood of Esim.and must take priority over the private users.

I was simply trying to get a consensus on what the membership would like if possible.

And a vote would be the fairest way of relaying that to Esim.as we know some

Members are a lot more vocal then others.

[Froggy]

Sorry, wasn't suggesting that you did.

All of the poll limitations are why I put my suggestions in the Wiki's "The List" where you can pretty much write what you like and there is no requirement for "someone" to spend time and effort researching all the previous requests and distilling it into a "top ten" requests poll:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/The_List

Some parts of The List have to be removed in the Wiki, as they appeared in 2.640... (ie 1- crewable T72)

[SeanPatrick]

So...remove them.