Questions about 3.0 Ask the Boss.

[Gibsonm]

But if the Leclerc isn't modelled ...

[Froggy]

It might change...

[Marko]

Will we see the inclusion of some sort of Dynamic campaign In the update.

I remember there was talk in the community, and some posts a while back.

I think Ssnake was trying to put a team together to help create a campaign.

Is there any update on there progress.

[Maj.Hans]

When you drop to say 40 rounds on say a M1A2, you can't maintain the same variety without sacrificing quantities within natures.

When I was on Leo AS1 we had 59 rounds roughly broken up as:

75% APFSDS (44)

25% HESH (15)

Smoke and APERs (when carried) came out of the HESH slice but would not exceed more than 2 or each.

I thought the M1A2 had 42 rounds total, due to some changes in the bustle rack storage? :wink:

I guess I always figured that rounds like MPAT or an HE-Frag would be carried in a manner similar to the APERs and HESH rounds you mention.

Then again, like I brought up before there may be situations where you don't expect to encounter much if any armor, like a modern Iraq or Afghanistan situation, where you might want to carry a variety of explosive rounds for use in different places.

In any case, this really isn't a big issue for me anyway, just something I thought would be nice. I'd rather have more T-Tanks to shoot at like T-72s with reactive armor and a T-64 or something.

[Toyguy]

Will we see the inclusion of some sort of Dynamic campaign In the update.

I remember there was talk in the community, and some posts a while back.

I think Ssnake was trying to put a team together to help create a campaign.

Is there any update on there progress.

Search is your friend - Ssnake has posted on this before. Here's a brief snippet:

"An Operation is a string of scenarios - a mission tree - where you will be automatically presented the follow-on scenario after finishing a previous one.

SB Pro PE 3.0 will include at least one Operation, maybe two."

[Tjay]

Then again, this may just be from me playing far too many WW2 tank sims where having a whole bunch of different rounds to choose from isn't at all unusual. For example, a mixed load of AP, APCR, HE, HEAT, and Smoke wouldn't have been terribly unusual.

'Scuse bleedin igrance, but why did WWII tanks carry such a wide range of ordnance? Ta.

[Ssnake]

It was partly due to a lack of manufacturing capacity, or raw materials. For example tungsten - there weren't many sources known, the then world's biggest resource of it some beach in Australia (a fellow told me when we were visiting it), so only few rounds could be distributed to the individual tanks. Or it was a scarcity/production limit on shell fuzes. The Panzermuseum in Munster has an exhibit of a collection of shell fuzes of WW2, in some rather obscure corner. Few people even notice it, let alone recognize its significance. Back then there were no electronics, they were all mechanical that had to work with precision yet also be robust enough to withstand the shock of being fired through a gun tube with several hundred if not thousands G acceleration.

Finally it was also a matter of logistics. As much as scarcity of resources was a problem, there was also overproduction; there were stocks that had to get fired even if they were only marginally effective because it was either this shell, or none at all, and no new ammo would come until the old one was used up. It's similar with the short guns on Pz III and IV - they were still produced in large quantities well beyond their battlefield obsolescence because certain challenges in production of the longer barrels were only overcome slowly, yet a steady supply of tanks was needed to make up for the losses on the front. So they were still made with short gun barrels for lack of an alternative.

[Maj.Hans]

Ssnake covered most of the points, but there were also performance issues as well.

For example, a standard AP round (Quite often actually an APCBC - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APCBC but that's a different story) would have better performance than an APCR round at medium and long ranges.

You can think of an APCR round as being a sort of 'non discarding sabot'. A small core of tungsten is surrounded by a lightweight adapter to make it fit the barrel. This gets you lots of muzzle velocity, but also lots of drag. So APCR rounds are very expensive, very effective at short ranges, but less effective than normal AP rounds beyond just a few hundred meters.

So you carry only a few APCR rounds, and use them only in situations where you absolutely need to use them to penetrate your target.

HEAT shells back then would have been far more primitive than a modern one, and sometimes had issues with oblique impacts. I understand that they had the advantage of being able to punch a hole in a given thickness of armor at any range, if you could score a hit, but low muzzle velocity and problems with poor accuracy make them best suited to use in guns that simply couldn't fire an effective AP round (like the 75mm L/24) or as a replacement for a portion of an HE ammo load as they can be used as an HE round, though are less effective in this role.

For some reason, I think the concept of using HEAT rounds against light armor like APCs and IFVs is a relatively modern one related to Sabots being less effective against light armor than older AP rounds.

[ijozic]

You can think of an APCR round as being a sort of 'non discarding sabot'. A small core of tungsten is surrounded by a lightweight adapter to make it fit the barrel. This gets you lots of muzzle velocity, but also lots of drag. So APCR rounds are very expensive, very effective at short ranges, but less effective than normal AP rounds beyond just a few hundred meters.

The Wiki page mentions that the problem is not drag, but smaller weight. Interesting that the Tiger tank penetration data shows that the German PzGr.40 APCR maintained its penetration advantage over the PzGr.39 APCBC throughout the envelope, but I guess accuracy suffered then in longer ranges.

[Ssnake]

Most anti tank grenades of the time were full caliber kinetic energy rounds with an additional HE charge that was supposed to explode inside of the target after the outer shell had been penetrated. Later grenades had less HE filler as the armor of the targets became thicker. So it is no surprise that the PzGr. 40 may have outperformed the 39 model in terms of penetration depth, but it may have been inferior in its behind armor effect.

[OnAlienware]

For the boss: Are these extra months of development allowing unannounced features to be added? Thanks!

[Grenny]

For the boss: Are these extra months of development allowing unannounced features to be added? Thanks!

Unannouced bugs get killed...thats for shure ;-)

[Tjay]

Many thanks for all the replies. By the time I die - not that far away - I might know just a little about this tankie stuff.

[Tjay]

For the boss: Are these extra months of development allowing unannounced features to be added? Thanks!

Wrong thread?

[Tjay]

Ssnake covered most of the points, but there were also performance issues as well.

For example, a standard AP round (Quite often actually an APCBC - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APCBC but that's a different story) would have better performance than an APCR round at medium and long ranges.

That's got to be a classic case of fixing one problem only to find you've developed another.

[Azure Lion]

That's got to be a classic case of fixing one problem only to find you've developed another.

If it's warranty work, sometimes it's, "If it isn't broke, fix it till it is." :biggrin:

[Tjay]

Must remember that one.

[Colebrook]

This questions are about next updates,not exacty 3.0.

Are there any plans for improving infantry?,i think inf. is the weak point of the game.Maybe allowing inf moving more loosely,and look for cover positions or "hulld down" individually,not stayng always on line formation.

Can you add more detailed contour lines on map?,atm, lseparation lines of 1m,2m,and 5m are almost useless,because you cant see anything.

[Gibsonm]

Well Ssnake has already said:

Our focus was on increasing survivability and making behavior more intelligent in complicated terrain. So they can now crawl (and walk, crouch, sprint). They will no longer stand up to reposition themselves, especially not after taking losses; that should by and large mitigate a certain exploit where the human gunner shoots the only visible member of a squad and then they all stand up (and get mowed down).

They can be scripted to dismount their vehicle, and to mount a nearby vehicle (does not need to be the original one, but given the choice they will still favor the old one). There's a stamina model to let them do short sprints (but not endless ones).

Special infantry like dismounted forward observers will need an extended period of uninterrupted line of sight to be recognized as "not just infantry" on the map screen, which again should help a lot with their survivability.

Speaking of survivability - they go prone much quicker now if coming under fire. Some infantry units are now better protected against (weak) bullets (=at long range) with protective vests - other less (no helmet).

Infantry may now storm occupied buildings (combat resolution is still somewhat abstracted however).

The nav meshes are the crucial foundation for further improvements of semi-automatic behavior. Team leaders will now always find the way to a target location, circumventing eventual obstacles that might block the direct path from A to B. That said, squad members haven't yet the capability to do so so their obstacle avoidance may still occasionally fail. But we're working on it, and I'm confident that we'll have that issue solved within the next months.

[Azure Lion]

Just... wow. So many goodies coming out in 3.0, I feel like a kid that can hardly wait to open their presents!

[Flanker15]

Can we have a look at some wip of the new particle system after 3 is out?

[Ssnake]

Not if it's good for release this weekend (you can then have a look at it for yourself). The decision about the release date will be made tonight after the programmers' conference. Should we decide that another week is necessary, I'll make a video for YouTube.

[Flanker15]

Cool you guys got it working better in time! Last i heard it was gonna take way to long to put in 3 so there was just going to be improvements to the current particles in the mean time.

[sunsun]

"Nice let it go." Sometime less is more. 4 me your track record is reliable.:remybussi: Free,or paid. Keep up the good work!

[Maj.Hans]

Not if it's good for release this weekend (you can then have a look at it for yourself). The decision about the release date will be made tonight after the programmers' conference. Should we decide that another week is necessary, I'll make a video for YouTube.

Hell, I don't care if it's glitched, I want it...No, I need it!