Jump to content

Mech Inf in multiplayer


Tjay

Recommended Posts

The ONLY way to make this game close to perfection is the advancement of a virtual reality online game. This is not going to happen. Therefore, I think we are stuck with goofy infantry movements (as a former grunt, I can tell you that infantrymen are wierd), lowsy shooting and bullet fodder. But that's ok, for me it's just a game until a Warrior takes a main gun round in the face.

Then it's hilarious

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The ONLY way to make this game close to perfection is the advancement of a virtual reality online game. This is not going to happen. Therefore, I think we are stuck with goofy infantry movements (as a former grunt, I can tell you that infantrymen are wierd), lowsy shooting and bullet fodder. But that's ok, for me it's just a game until a Warrior takes a main gun round in the face.

Then it's hilarious

Find a armour simulation that can compare with SB in terms of accuracy

There are a few pretenders but none that match SB.

I have raised issues with other aspects of SB such as air support etc

And will admit to having tunnel vision on the subject.

As I have stated before no developer can simulate every aspect of the modern battlefield

With the same level of fidelity for each weapons platform.

The task would be a mammoth endeavour for even the biggest development houses

And the stark reality is the market for high fidelity simulations is just not there for a Company to make that type of investment if it was the big company's would have already Done it. Company's like Esim and DCS have a fan base and military contracts.

But its taken them years to get where they are.

In fairness to Ssnake he has been very honest about the what esim is capable of doing.

Currently, plus who knows what the future holds ,

Maybe some military customer will pay for a lot of things we have been asking for,

Better infantry better air support etc.

Then they can afford to hire more people.and implement more stuff

PS

Great to read a new terrain engine is in development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore, I think we are stuck with goofy infantry movements (as a former grunt, I can tell you that infantrymen are wierd), lowsy shooting and bullet fodder.

About the shooting, I think that has to do with two assumptions

1. They are under fire, in reality I'd assume that you would want to avoid exposing yourself any more than is absolutely needed. This includes while aiming. Pop up, shoot, pop down. Though I have never been on the two way firing range so I can't say for sure.

2. Much of the time the infantry is running (or otherwise on long humps with heavy gear). Again I'd assume that after a good run your aim might suffer.

Is it simplistic, not conforming to all cases, etc? Yes, but it probably represents most firefights better than assuming that all soldiers are unsuppressed crack shots who are rested. That said I'd love to see a system where heat, weight of gear, energy states and moral play roles in accuracy of infantry, but that I'm sure would take quite a bit of programing time away from other things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steel Beasts isn't yet The Perfect Combat Simulation. I doubt it ever will be. But I think it is also important not only to look at the current state of things, but to consider the trends, and I think that most trends in SB Pro development go in the directions that our customers want - both military and civilian. It is somewhat permissible to extrapolate those trends to imagine what future versions of SB Pro may look like. I won't join those speculations, mind you. But it's pretty safe to assume that we will continue to make the infantry parts better, probably also artillery and other combat support elements.

Also, I'd like to point out that I have free reign to direct our software development since mid 2012. I have certainly influenced it pretty heavily before, don't want to imply otherwise. But since that time I have ramped up our personnel from "2.5 programmers and 1.5 artists" to five programmers and about four artists. I have tried to adjust the fundamental team organization. We haven't fully made up the rising personnel expense in earnings; I'm considering it an investment in the future of eSim Games as a company, and SB Pro as our primary product.

So, there's a "pre SB Pro 2.6 era" and a "post 2.6 era", and I think the difference is by now clearly visible.

Some truths haven't changed however. A significant part of our software development is still project driven. Customers approach us for modifications/expansions in functionality. Whenever I am at liberty to choose between more than one development contract for a given time period, I try to pick the one that advances SB Pro as a product better, that will on average deliver the biggest increase in training value to all our customers. Higher costs in personnel however also means that I can't be too picky. That's the price to pay for an acceleration of the overall development pace.

The relevant metric is whether we can accomplish what we possibly can, with the means at our disposal - time, budget, and talent. And I think that we score very well in that respect.

Of course, everybody would love to see things moving forward at a higher speed. It's just that great ideas can be had at a dime per dozen. Actually implementing them in a non-destructive manner (that is, keeping the software both functional and with a reasonable performance) - transforming the legacy code is a major effort.

For a year and a half we've been working on a new terrain engine. (No, I won't show you anything of it until it's ready). It will probably keep us occupied for another year, to work in all the implications and work out the complications and bugs that may be coming from this change. We're working on substantial expansions in the infantry field, and have made good progress. Unfortunately this is all done in a development branch that isn't compatible with 3.0, so we can't roll out these changes just yet (and they still need to mature). But, we are essentially on track with the schedule that we presented at last ITEC, so that's a good sign.

We're also branching out into the appended trainer/containerized full mission simulator business, mainly for financial reasons. It won't help the average user much, but it helps us to stay in business, so in the end that's a good thing for every single one of our customers, including you. Besides, when complete, the installation in Austria will be awesome. I wish I could show it in full detail to everybody. Unfortunately that's just not possible.

Please keep a positive attitude. It is very easy to lose oneself in all the things that aren't there, that aren't perfect. God knows, we're our own hardest critics. We use it as a motivation to get better. But it's not enough to whip oneself. We also have to look back occasionally to see how much progress we've made. I'm not saying that you should treat everything that we deliver with unquestioning gratitude. But you can rest assured that the Personal Edition is receiving more development time than the profits that it makes justify. (We do this, because work on the PE also helps all our other customers with code consolidation and maintaining a somewhat straightforward user interface rather than piling one fire control system on another in a constant effort to deliver "more of the same".)

We don't want to always do "more of the same". One can make short term profit with it, but in the long run we have to advance the software itself. And I think that the transition from 2.6 to version 3.0 clearly shows how much transition is happening. That, I think, justifies staying optimistic about the future of Steel Beasts.

That's all. Thanks for listening.

Shouldn't this be an "announcement"?

ANyway, so potentially with this new development branch, SBv4.XXX maybe on the cards sooner rather than later?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Shouldn't this be an "announcement"?

No. It's an informal contribution to a discussion and needs to be seen in that context.

ANyway, so potentially with this new development branch, SBv4.XXX maybe on the cards sooner rather than later?

No. Preparing a PE release is disruptive to the rest of the development schedule so we can afford it only at about year-long intervals. The window of opportunity for this time has passed. Besides, things aren't mature yet. You don't want new stuff as quickly as possible. You want new stuff that works. Or, at least that's what we're offering, based on ten years of customer feedback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the input Ssnake!!

I'm all for it if someone want to "champion the mech. Inf. cause". But I'd love it to be a bit more specific. "All is doomed and people a leaving SB 'cos inf. is so bad" is not the way forward in my p.o.v.

It only leads to a certain aussi and a certain tommy banging their head together. But hey, they seem to love that :-P

What about a thread with specific and detailed problems and maybe solution ideas.

(Apart from "give them Human like AI and let them behave like real Infanteers")

I for one would like to see the "shoot here" option adjusted in a way that you can choose the weapon. Esp. the AT/RPG weapon when equipped with it.

"Shoot RPG here"...and then he should shoot f***ing RPG there. Not popping up 15 times and then getting maschine gunned, because the IFV, that is stationary and shows its broad side 150m , is partially covered by a tree!!

Sorry for the emotion, that just happend 3 times in a sce test 10 minutes ago and annoyed me to no end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah that is a slippery slope, sure, but I was specifically referring to posting PMs for the purpose of mud flinging within the community (he/she said this about me or him). I am positive that Tjay did not have any intent to do that here though.

I just wanted to clarify the original intent in case I caused any confusion or appear to show a double standard. ;)

Thank you. I have checked with the sender of the PM and he has said he is uncomfortable with the content being posted in the public forum even though it was unattributable and untraceable, and asked me to delete the post - which I will, of course, do. I should have checked with him first. Bad call on my part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Infantry couldn't even enter buildings in SB1. They were frankly a joke back then and were quite literally victims. Now try clearing woods of a company of them while using vehicles. It would be suicidal now, but possible then.

Presumably you mean suicidal THEN, but possible NOW. Or am I completely missing the point? :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite Grenny's jab. .... :)

Now try clearing woods of a company of them while using vehicles. It would be suicidal now, but possible then.
Presumably you mean suicidal THEN, but possible NOW. Or am I completely missing the point? :confused:

Pretty sure TankHunter means that:

In earlier versions it was quite possible to use only vehicles to clear a Company of Infantry in a forest.

Whereas:

In the current version it would be suicidal to use only vehicles to clear a Company of Infantry in a forest.

He was referring to the job from the vehicle's point of view, whereas I think you are looking at the same problem but from the Infantry point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Presumably you mean suicidal THEN, but possible NOW. Or am I completely missing the point? :confused:

Ähm, no. In the earlier SB day Inf. where even more of a pushover.

With their limited "dig in " ability they are harder to spot now and can give you quiete some pain.

I would not go so far as to say it is suicidal now, but more difficult then before.

Still they are too easy to weed out, esp. given the reluctance of the AT weapon handlers to actually shoot. So something to hope for in further progess!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about a thread with specific and detailed problems and maybe solution ideas.

(Apart from "give them Human like AI and let them behave like real Infanteers")

I for one would like to see the "shoot here" option adjusted in a way that you can choose the weapon. Esp. the AT/RPG weapon when equipped with it.

"Shoot RPG here"...and then he should shoot f***ing RPG there. Not popping up 15 times and then getting maschine gunned, because the IFV, that is stationary and shows its broad side 150m , is partially covered by a tree!!

Sorry for the emotion, that just happend 3 times in a sce test 10 minutes ago and annoyed me to no end.

Hi Grenny

Your point about RPGs is well made, and is one of the most frustrating bugs encountered when working with infantry. I remember this being reported in 2011 when I first started playing SB.

In response to your very reasonable request for specifics, this debate started here: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showpost.php?p=266803&postcount=1 with a report about infantry behaviour submitted by Mark Gibson. Scroll down that thread a bit and you will find a list of specific frustrating behaviours encountered while running Cougar's 'Retake Fallujah' scenario.

As for solutions, I don't think many players are in a position to advise eSim on HOW to fix a bug - only to report that it exists in as much detail as possible to give them the best chance of nailing it. Which is all anyone wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ähm, no. In the earlier SB day Inf. where even more of a pushover.

With their limited "dig in " ability they are harder to spot now and can give you quiete some pain.

I would not go so far as to say it is suicidal now, but more difficult then before.

Still they are too easy to weed out, esp. given the reluctance of the AT weapon handlers to actually shoot. So something to hope for in further progess!

Oh, I see. Thank you. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was referring to the job from the vehicle's point of view, whereas I think you are looking at the same problem but from the Infantry point of view.

You are absolutely correct Sir! I really must try and get out of my foxhole more often. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're working on substantial expansions in the infantry field, and have made good progress. Unfortunately this is all done in a development branch that isn't compatible with 3.0, so we can't roll out these changes just yet (and they still need to mature). But, we are essentially on track with the schedule that we presented at last ITEC, so that's a good sign.

That is great news for all Mech Inf enthusiasts. Or should that be masochists? :)

And many, many thanks for sharing all that other information. I don't know of any other company that would do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the input Ssnake!!

I'm all for it if someone want to "champion the mech. Inf. cause". But I'd love it to be a bit more specific. "All is doomed and people a leaving SB 'cos inf. is so bad" is not the way forward in my p.o.v.

It only leads to a certain aussi and a certain tommy banging their head together. But hey, they seem to love that :-P

What about a thread with specific and detailed problems and maybe solution ideas.

(Apart from "give them Human like AI and let them behave like real Infanteers")

I for one would like to see the "shoot here" option adjusted in a way that you can choose the weapon. Esp. the AT/RPG weapon when equipped with it.

"Shoot RPG here"...and then he should shoot f***ing RPG there. Not popping up 15 times and then getting maschine gunned, because the IFV, that is stationary and shows its broad side 150m , is partially covered by a tree!!

Sorry for the emotion, that just happend 3 times in a sce test 10 minutes ago and annoyed me to no end.

+1

Trust a pair of level headed Germans to spoil a perfectly good argument. LoL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one would like to see the "shoot here" option adjusted in a way that you can choose the weapon. Esp. the AT/RPG weapon when equipped with it.

"Shoot RPG here"...and then he should shoot f***ing RPG there. Not popping up 15 times and then getting maschine gunned, because the IFV, that is stationary and shows its broad side 150m , is partially covered by a tree!!

Sorry for the emotion, that just happend 3 times in a sce test 10 minutes ago and annoyed me to no end.

You are checking the, to borrow an Aussie Acronym, BBDA?

And you have a clear line of fire to your target?

I.E. No invisible twigs that block even Invisible Lasers, (How do you think I got my Tree Asassin badge?)

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite Grenny's jab. .... :)

Pretty sure TankHunter means that:

In earlier versions it was quite possible to use only vehicles to clear a Company of Infantry in a forest.

Whereas:

In the current version it would be suicidal to use only vehicles to clear a Company of Infantry in a forest.

He was referring to the job from the vehicle's point of view, whereas I think you are looking at the same problem but from the Infantry point of view.

Exactimundo. I remember making a mission back in the dark ages where there were a company or two of tanks assaulting an infantry force of 600 troops or something like that. It went spectacularly badly for the infantry. Do it now and it would be a very nasty fight in favor of the infantry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactimundo. I remember making a mission back in the dark ages where there were a company or two of tanks assaulting an infantry force of 600 troops or something like that. It went spectacularly badly for the infantry. Do it now and it would be a very nasty fight in favor of the infantry.

Absolutely no doubt that defensive infantry works much better than even three years ago when I first started. Apart, that is, from the reluctance of soldiers toting RPG/AT4 to engage AFVs as detailed by Grenny.

I'm assured that the dreaded stop/start bug has now been fixed so IFVs should now be able to stick to the plan and get to their destinations on time without individual attention from the player. That is a tremendous step forward.

If infantry path finding in urban and semi urban environments could be fixed so they don't, for example, get stuck behind large buildings, go to ground for no apparent reason, and keep stopping enroute like the IFVs used to, not to mention losing every firefight with insurgents they get into, that would pretty much be job done.

But comments from Volcano and Ssnake make it clear that this is a particularly thorny problem to solve - and I totally accept that. It would be nice if it could be raised up the priority list somewhat because reliable, offensive AI infantry operations would greatly expand the type of scenarios that could be written and revolutionize the sim. IMHO, goes without saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If infantry path finding in urban and semi urban environments could be fixed so they don't, for example, get stuck behind large buildings, go to ground for no apparent reason, and keep stopping enroute like the IFVs used to, not to mention losing every firefight with insurgents they get into, that would pretty much be job done.

So why not fight to your strengths in meantime.

If you keep fighting in urban terrain in Infantry Vs Infantry fights, that you know isn't currently modeled well, then it just seems to me you'll just get more and more frustrated/disappointed/pi**ed with the standard of Infantry modelling?

Take the fight out of the town or have different sorts of battles.

Or maybe stay in the town but defend - surely the attacking AI will have the same issues?

Alternatively maybe adjust the scale so that instead of a player controlling a Platoon maybe they control a vehicle so they can micro manage the vehicle / squads in the 3D world and achieve the desired outcome (i.e. to an extent, remove the AI from the equation)?

Didn't Einstein once say that a working definition of Insanity was: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

Edited by Gibsonm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why not fight to your strengths in meantime.

Didn't Einstein once say that a working definition of Insanity was: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

Sun Tzu,

All warfare is based on deception.

images.jpg.7b3688c3e58da44fb528b3a28666a

images.jpg.7b3688c3e58da44fb528b3a28666a

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why not fight to your strengths in meantime

That is what I shall do 'in the meantime'. When it comes to quotations one of my favourites is this:

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Selection and maintenance of the aim:

"eSim Games is an independent software developer specialized on vehicle-centric simulations of combined arms combat tactics at battalion level and below"

Sure. And I don't think anyone is suggesting that that should change. Certainly not me.

But the introduction of multi-parties, civilians and other innovations in v3.0, suggested that the eSim were very sensibly keeping up with the times and adding counter-insurgency operations to the sims capabilities. As you know, this type of operation normally takes place in urban or semi-urban environments in which Mechanised Infantry play a significant role. You can't clear insurgents out of houses while being careful not to kill innocent civilians without putting boots on the ground.

Unfortunately, the problem with infantry path finding in urban enviromnents is currently negating all the great progress that has been made so far. We are so close, it seems a shame that a final push to get this sorted can't be moved up the priorities list. Once put to bed, it's 'job done' - for good.

That's all I'm saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you know, this type of operation normally takes place in urban or semi-urban environments in which Mechanised Infantry play a significant role.

Apart from:

Malaya

Borneo

Vietnam

Northern Island

Ivory Coast

Mali

...

There is a whole world outside of Iraq and Afghanistan (where a whole bunch of the fighting happened/happens outside of "urban or semi-urban environments" and wasn't done by Mech Inf anyway). ;)

Once put to bed, it's 'job done' - for good.

Actually I suspect it (Infantry modelling) would never be finished (just like the vehicle people want new stuff - e.g Hedge asking when ver 4.0 was coming out less than a month after 3.023 had hit the streets).

Yes, your portion might be able to be done quickly, but others want:

FPS shooter capability

Able to throw Grenades

Able to put in mouse holes and firing ports

Molotov Cocktails

Modelling different small arms

Modelling different MGs

Adding more support weapons

....

Then there's the raft of stuff after that "second tier" such as treating and extracting wounded, interacting with the civilians, KLE, etc.

By then of course the "Air Lobby" will be pushing their case too on the grounds of "what about me".

In the meantime the vehicle centric crowd will want Leo 2 A7, a crewable Marder, Puma, ...

It just keeps going. :)

Edited by Gibsonm
Added a few more places.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...