Armored Warfare in open beta

[Deputy276]

Well I guess this will be my last reply. No sense in beating the horse any further. .

1.As long as SB Pro remains as the "poor/neglected stepchild" (probably a better analogy than rejected son) of the military version, there is not going to be a lot of change for the better.

2. As long as people continue to sit back and accept what is, instead of asking for what could be, there will be little or no change. I hear a lot of excuses for not making changes to better the sim. Even excuses for it not having more realistic terrain and graphics that would also benefit military users. The excuse being "they won't pay for the extra cost". I see that as more of a marketing issue than anything else. Sounds like SB-military is in desperate need of some good salesman. Or perhaps I have lost sight of the fact the military works on a "lowest bid" style of purchasing :bigsmile: At any rate, I am glad when I served we had hands-on experience and training with tanks.

I'm sure everyone has seen the movie "Aliens" where they ask the Lt. in charge of the Space Marines how much experience he has:

Ripley: How many drops is this for you, Lieutenant?

Gorman: Thirty eight... simulated.

Vasquez: How many *combat* drops?

Gorman: Uh, two. Including this one.

Drake: Shit.

Hudson: Oh, man...

I know I felt sorry for Ripley when I heard that. :bigsmile:

3. Not sure how "niche market" tank warfare is. WOT certainly made big $$$, and is still making big $$$, even with all it's flaws and incompetence at management level. Armored Warfare, even while still in beta, is drawing in large numbers of players. I don't think SB Pro has to "dumb down" game play to bring in players. Just catch up with the rest of the current tank sims in other areas. If all of you are content to be described as, and take the attitude of being, is "free loaders", then all hope really is lost. Esim has you by the short hairs and are twisting them as they please. You people are paying customers just like the military. Doesn't matter if you aren't paying as much. And $115 samolies is not FREE. WOT is free. AW is free. You guys pay to play. That's a big difference.

I hope Marko is right about some fantastic changes coming in the next update. They are certainly needed. Take care and stay safe. :drink:

Dep

[Grenny]

Well I guess this will be my last reply. No sense in beating the horse any further. .

Hey, you brought up some interesting points, don't be lazy and bug out early ;-)

1....

2. As long as people continue to sit back and accept what is, instead of asking for what could be, there will be little or no change. I hear a lot of excuses for not making changes to better the sim. Even excuses for it not having more realistic terrain and graphics that would also benefit military users. The excuse being "they won't pay for the extra cost". I see that as more of a marketing issue than anything else. Sounds like SB-military is in desperate need of some good salesman.

For some these are exuses, some call it arguements. I have to work a lot with the "endcustomer" of many projects. Its is very often this way: "We want this feature and that feature." "Ok, but then it will weight more the 15 Kg" " Unacceptable the weight needs to be below 12Kg" "We can't do that." " Whats stopping you?!" "Physics" "damn, thats just a lame excuse...just ignore physics!"

So if we want a simulation that

-1.)has top noth graphics

-2.)runs on a normal PC

-3.)still able to rund a couple of 100 agents who are all shooting at each other

-4.)at least retains the 20x20km map with NO EDGES

So on some of these points you need to make a compromise. Perheps 1st there needs to be an agreement on what a better sim would or should look like.

Or perhaps I have lost sight of the fact the military works on a "lowest bid" style of purchasing :bigsmile: At any rate, I am glad when I served we had hands-on experience and training with tanks.

....

Hey whats makes you thinks that's different now. Simulation is used as an add-on to the hands on training. And in Many cases is makes the hands on training more effective. No sim short of a Star-treck HOLO-deck can replace hands on :-P

3. Not sure how "niche market" tank warfare is. WOT certainly made big $$$, and is still making big $$$, even with all it's flaws and incompetence at management level. Armored Warfare, even while still in beta, is drawing in large numbers of players. I don't think SB Pro has to "dumb down" game play to bring in players. Just catch up with the rest of the current tank sims in other areas.

having played WoT and its clones for some time, I have to say that the game styles are vastly different to something like Steelbeasts or ARMA. I doubts that a 2 digit % number of the players there might be even remotely interested in what?...Lacking a better word I'd say: "mil-sim" style games.

If all of you are content to be described as, and take the attitude of being, is "free loaders", then all hope really is lost.

Nah, 125$ if far from freeloading in my books. And Im sure esim is not handing our cash over to charity either.

Esim has you by the short hairs and are twisting them as they please. You people are paying customers just like the military. Doesn't matter if you aren't paying as much. And $115 samolies is not FREE. WOT is free. AW is free. You guys pay to play. That's a big difference.

I can't remeber anyone putting a pistol to my head and say: You have to buy this. But esim never made any false advertising. I knew exactly what I will get. (They are not VW in that sense :-D ) And I found that offer reasonable. So, I don't see any hairpulling here. As a customer you have a vote, and your voting ticket are these little rectangular paper pieces called money. Once you spent them, you voted for that product. I mean you don't go to the car dealer and say: I want that Van over there for X$ ,and buy it. A day later you return and say: Well actually I want it to be more like a sports-car, make it a sports car now, you have to I'm a customer

[Grenny]

I hope Marko is right about some fantastic changes coming in the next update. They are certainly needed. Take care and stay safe. :drink:

Dep

On that one, 100% agreed.

[dejawolf]

3. Not sure how "niche market" tank warfare is. WOT certainly made big $$$, and is still making big $$$, even with all it's flaws and incompetence at management level. Armored Warfare, even while still in beta, is drawing in large numbers of players. I don't think SB Pro has to "dumb down" game play to bring in players. Just catch up with the rest of the current tank sims in other areas. If all of you are content to be described as, and take the attitude of being, is "free loaders", then all hope really is lost. Esim has you by the short hairs and are twisting them as they please. You people are paying customers just like the military. Doesn't matter if you aren't paying as much. And $115 samolies is not FREE. WOT is free. AW is free. You guys pay to play. That's a big difference.

Dep

well, in my short foray into war thunder i noticed this:

war thunder has a more sim-like mode, where there is no highlighting of targets,

and you only take 1 hit to the ammo, then you're dead.

for the standard highlighted target arcade mode, you can jump into a game almost immediately.

for the other mode... well... i waited 15 minutes. and no games.

i read a bit on the forums too, someone asking why nobody played this other mode.

and they said, well, it's just no fun driving around and suddenly dying from a shot from an unknown location.

another quote from AW youtube vid:

"Realistic game about modern tanks would be ... well you get one shooted from god know's where by god knows who driving god knows what... not exactly fun for the most of gaming community."

so yeah, 90% of people want short-range knifefights with highlighted targets, and twitch shooting gameplay.

which means SB, even with improved graphics, still won't be a contender.

[Rotareneg]

And $115 samolies is not FREE. WOT is free. AW is free. You guys pay to play. That's a big difference.

Yes, there is a big difference. You don't need to grind your way through countless battles full of players who are often so terrible they would probably increase their own teams chance of winning if they immediately AFKed. You don't need to grind through crappy tanks to get a "good tank", which often starts with terrible equipment. You then need to grind to get upgraded to the point that it actually becomes effective. You don't need to grind away to get your crew upgraded to give you magical special powers (like 6th sense.) You don't have to deal with a terrible matchmaking system that ignores vehicle equipment and crew skills, meaning your new bare-bones stock tank with a crew with no skills is considered an even match to fully upgraded ones with a highly skilled crew with all the perks.

It's true, you don't pay to play those games. Rather, you pay in a desperate attempt to make the grind a bit faster by getting premium time, which is so much funner! :heu:

As for AW goes... I guess you might call it highly realistic if you consider glowing outlines, hit point bars, automatically knowing if someone has seen you, and otherwise essentially being WoT with modern tanks as "realistic":

You can give War Thunder credit for at least trying with their realistic battles, but AW? Hah!

Trying to criticize Steel Beasts by comparing it to WoT and AW is like trying to criticize Photoshop by saying it's not nearly as easy to use as MS Paint, making it difficult for anyone to take you seriously.

In my opinion, SB's greatest negative point is simply how slowly it has evolved, which I believe is a result of them being a very small team of people having to deal with code that, at it's core, is getting very dated, while having to support and maintain multiple branches for various customers.

[12Alfa]

As long as SB Pro remains as the "poor/neglected stepchild" (probably a better analogy than rejected son) of the military version, there is not going to be a lot of change for the better.

Crystal ball?:c:

It seems to me that you are promoting a GAME here on a SIM forum, as in your words, it won't fly.

I think a better forum would be ARMA or WOT, game sites.

I could be wrong.

[MDF]

well, in my short foray into war thunder i noticed this:

war thunder has a more sim-like mode, where there is no highlighting of targets,

and you only take 1 hit to the ammo, then you're dead.

for the standard highlighted target arcade mode, you can jump into a game almost immediately.

for the other mode... well... i waited 15 minutes. and no games.

i read a bit on the forums too, someone asking why nobody played this other mode.

and they said, well, it's just no fun driving around and suddenly dying from a shot from an unknown location.

another quote from AW youtube vid:

"Realistic game about modern tanks would be ... well you get one shooted from god know's where by god knows who driving god knows what... not exactly fun for the most of gaming community."

so yeah, 90% of people want short-range knifefights with highlighted targets, and twitch shooting gameplay.

which means SB, even with improved graphics, still won't be a contender.

And just to add to this, look at the past 25 years or so of PC games. How many tank games have there been that fall on the "simulation" side of the spectrum? And how many based in the modern era (which I prefer)? Very few that I can recall. Hardcore simulation is a niche market and, for whatever reason, it seems that aircraft, rather than tanks, are the vehicle of choice in this niche.

If the market were there, companies would be catering to it.

So, like the others, I am rather skeptical that an "if you build it, they will come" rationale for prettying up SB is going to work. And I say that sadly, because, like the OP, I would love to believe otherwise.

[Grenny]

@12Alfa, i think this was off topic and will lead nowhere (pleasant)

[12Alfa]

@12Alfa, i think this was off topic and will lead nowhere (pleasant)

Just wondering how he knows there will be no change for the better, you, myself, and others don't know the future. So when someone comes in here assuming they know the future, and the future of SB, and what it will look/do is a very bold statement.

I would as others here would like to know how he ascertain this, that's all.

(Tried to be as pleasant as I can on a Wednesday afternoon just before wine time)

[Ssnake]

My opinion, and that's all it is, is that SB Pro is trying to do too much in one sim.

Maybe, but we have an army customer for each of the different facets. Dropping one or more of these elements in order to streamline the product will mean to lose these as customers. On the other hand, if these army customers are happy with what we're delivering, then maybe we aren't doing such a bad job in creating an integrated simulation solution. It has, after all, one additional benefit: Junior soldiers, as they get promoted to higher ranks and assigned to new jobs will eventually bump into the same simulation again, just with a different purpose, and they're familiar with it already and don't need more than a quick refresher to use it effectively in their training.

And we DID drop one area because we realized we had bitten off too much: Steel Beasts as a game purely for entertainment purposes. That one WOULD look differently. And you will have to admit that we never marketed Steel Beasts Professional as a game. Heck, it's in the product name even.

We always said, "It's a training tool first and foremost, but you're allowed to also have fun with it".

I want it to be a big success.

Yeah, but you seem to want a different Steel Beasts to be that big success. Which is perfectly legitimate to ask for as a customer, don't get me wrong. But that wouldn't be the case by leaving everything else at it is and just drowning the code in visual splendor (irrespective of how realistic that course of action would be).

Early on when I bought the sim, I noticed there was no merchandise available for it. No mousepads. No t-shirts. No SB Pro patches. No car decals.

Some of that exists, we just don't sell it through our web shop. Because it would be a huge distraction from our real work. The reasons why we're not doing all of this may appear obscure to you, but I can assure you, they exist. The idea that we'd earn a lot of money through merchandise sales is ... extremely optimistic, to put it mildly. And if you're honest, I think you'd agree that you're trying to make a point in the discussion without having run the numbers first if it's a viable idea. How many T-shirts and mouse pads would we have to sell every year to make enough profit to allow us to hire one more programmer?

The other games/sims offer "Premium Tanks" for sale as individual items. Some are as much as $50 each. I wouldn't mind dropping $50 for a playable M60A3. Heck, I spent a lot more than that in WOT.

...so then, you spent more than that in WoT, but SB Pro with no grind and no premium tanks is too expensive at $39.50 a year?

[Ssnake]

All you have is that same "hard core of loyalists" that is supporting you

Not quite.

Well the support is as noted from the military, we are just free-loaders.

I don't want to let that assertion stand unopposed.

Nobody at eSim Games is looking at PE customers as "freeloaders". Collectively you ARE paying for one team member, so to speak, so it would make a difference if we gave it away for free rather than asking for its current price. And I know how long some people here have to work in order to be able to plunk down $115.- once (or $39.50 every year). And it's called WORK for a reason; one gets paid for it rather than being taxed for all the fun one's having with it. I very well remember how much sweat was converted into how little hard currency when mowing the neighbor's lawn on these terrible hill slopes ... with a hand operated mower, mind you.

[Deputy276]

LOL..I am reminded of that famous quote:

I see a lot of flight fans in this thread. As in Wrong Way Corrigan!! I never said I wanted SB Pro to be EXACTLY like AW. That would be just asking for a lawsuit. So let's put that myth to rest immediately. Do I enjoy playing AW? Very much so. What I would like to see SB Pro do is just come close to the amount of players using AW or WOT. Just come close. AW is still in beta and I have no doubt the far exceed total number of players of every version of Steel Beasts ever released. Now SB seems to take the attitude of "quality over quantity". Okay, be prepared to never even come close to the amount of $$$ made by the others.

Games vs "Sims"...I keep hearing this emphasis on SB Pro being a "sim". Well as a former President once said between BJs, it all depends on what "is" is. If you are gonna duck under the table, plug your fingers in your ears, and scream "sim! sim! sim!" a thousand times, not much this discussion can gain for you. As they say, "you've taken the Kool-Aid". How about "sim is in the eye of the beholder"? Or at least, the owner of the tank program. You can call pretty much anything you want a "sim". Quite honestly, anything played on a computer that simulates something in the real world is a "sim". Anyone remember Jane's Fighters Anthology? In it's time it was considered a sim. Nowadays, it wouldn't even come close to being one. How about "sim is relative". Or sim is just an opinion. Or sim is a clever marketing tool to get people to buy a product for a lot of samolies that they normally wouldn't? Just putting out possibilities.

Getting tanks for free vs working for them. Or being able to upgrade tanks you get. I sure don't have any complaints with working up a ladder/tier structure for tanks. For one thing, you get to know the vehicles much better. For another, you learn the intricacies of the sim as far as cammo and strategy is concerned. There is also the feeling of accomplishment in outfitting a tank exactly the way you want it. You don't have to use every upgrade in AW. I have bypassed quite a few upgrades after researching them. They either didn't fit my playstyle, or they offered very little benefit for the credits (not real money) spend. And before someone jumps on the term "playstyle", I also "play" SB Pro. So calm down.

"How many tank games have there been that fall on the "simulation" side of the spectrum?"

Actually, quite a few. And there are quite a few still being produced. Not all have the pretty graphics either. Some are really quite bland, with the old style NATO counters being moved around a map. Technically, those are sims. There are also sims that use graphics still being produced. Again...it depends on your definition of a "sim".

"Just wondering how he knows there will be no change for the better, you, myself, and others don't know the future."

I'm an old fart. I've been computer-gaming since Radio Shack had the early black and white comps. I've seen the past and I've seen sims come and go. Many many of them. It's called "learning from experience". If you live to be as old as me, you can make that claim and postulate your own opinions based on it. One of the few perks our wonderful government hasn't taken away from us...yet.

I am NOT promoting a game, sim, or anything else. I am simply informing folks of what is available. Not twisting anyone's arm to try it or like it. I get no kickbacks for talking about AW or anything else. Believe me, if I could, I certainly would. :bigsmile: Also not twisting anyone's arm to agree with me or even read this thread. That's your choice. Heck, if there is an ignore feature on the forum and you want to use it, please, feel free!

"You don't need to grind your way through countless battles full of players who are often so terrible they would probably increase their own teams chance of winning if they immediately AFKed."

LOL...thanks for giving me that chuckle! :luxhello: There are two modes of play in AW. PvE (player vs AI bots) and PvP (Player vs Player). One of the major attraction of the program is you don't have to play against humans. The bots are not dumb. Far from it. They are pretty dang good. Yes, they are based on triggers on the map, but they are not just targets rolling around to be shot at your leisure. At tiers 4 and up they are quite good. Treat them with disdain and you will be sitting on the sidelines very quicky.

Player vs Player is about as crappy as it is on WOT. Loony kids yoloing all over the place. The big draw is you can grind for upgrades and better tanks in PvE, stay in PvE, or go into PvP. Some folks like to just play at a certain tier. They have multiple levels of difficulty inside that tier. Some want to move up as fast as possible. Those are mainly former WOT players. They tend to die rather quickly. Others prefer just PvP game play. That has been the biggest draw of AW. You can find a place to play where you are happy. I have the M60A2 and on on my way to unlocking the M60A3. I also have the T-62 and T-64 and am on my way to unlocking both the Chieftan Mk 5 and the T72 Ural. Here is a list of current tanks;

http://armoredwarfare.gamepedia.com/Vehicle

Premium tanks are still pretty limited, but interesting to play. I have the MBT-70, the RDF|LT, and the AMX 10P 90. All have individual play styles. And I find all far better than the premium tanks WOT sells. Again...no need to buy any Premium tanks. That is strictly your choice. And upgrades to tanks are purchased with credits you earn, not cash.

"In my opinion, SB's greatest negative point is simply how slowly it has evolved, which I believe is a result of them being a very small team of people having to deal with code that, at it's core, is getting very dated, while having to support and maintain multiple branches for various customers."

Very possible true. Two things come to kind. #1 Sell the public version and let someone else who has the backing spend the cash necessary to make it better. 2# Open up the checkbook and spend the money themselves. Again...you have to spend money to make money.

I mean are the developers of SB Pro all huddled together in a dank, dark office burning furniture to keep warm and eating Maruchan 3 times a day???

Why not do the program the justice it deserves and make it competitive, financially, with other programs?? Find some backers who will take the risk. Other people seem to be able to, no problemo. If this program s being run on a shoestring budget, with the "Lone Programmer" working on it day and night between bites of cold pizza, then hire some help. I mean we keep being told how successful it is with military use. Are they paying for it with Monopoly money or what???:confused:

[Grenny]

Very possible true. Two things come to kind. #1 Sell the public version and let someone else who has the backing spend the cash necessary to make it better. 2# Open up the checkbook and spend the money themselves. Again...you have to spend money to make money.

I mean are the developers of SB Pro all huddled together in a dank, dark office burning furniture to keep warm and eating Maruchan 3 times a day???

Why not do the program the justice it deserves and make it competitive, financially, with other programs?? Find some backers who will take the risk. Other people seem to be able to, no problemo. If this program s being run on a shoestring budget, with the "Lone Programmer" working on it day and night between bites of cold pizza, then hire some help. I mean we keep being told how successful it is with military use. Are they paying for it with Monopoly money or what???:confused:

Did you actually read that?

"There have been some interesting ideas mentioned.

A "more commercial" spinoff of steelbeast even was in the minds of esim at a time.

Right now Ssnake seems to have a viable business model to keep him and the crew employed.

Taking in at least double the crew to create a -state-of-the-art-graphics-combined-arms- sim+ tactical-shooter- would need a huge investment over a prolonged time.

There are considerable risks involved: Will it be doable at all? Will there be a big enough market to achieve a good RoI?

Well I would buy it...so yes go ahead. Then again my livelyhood does not depend on that decision Ssnake's does. So he is more qualified to judge

There is however a thing to consider too: as procurement agencies look also a finacial risks concerning their contract partners (least thing you want is your contractor go bust in the middle of a project=> been there, done that, got the T-shirt...and I can tell its a huge PITA)

So esim taking a big loan with a very uncertain RoI, will definetifely have a very negtive impact on getting government contracts."

And what do you think a good tank game should have game play wise?

[MDF]

"How many tank games have there been that fall on the "simulation" side of the spectrum?"

Actually, quite a few. And there are quite a few still being produced. Not all have the pretty graphics either. Some are really quite bland, with the old style NATO counters being moved around a map. Technically, those are sims. There are also sims that use graphics still being produced. Again...it depends on your definition of a "sim".

If you're equating SB with Flashpoint Red Storm or TacOps, you're getting disingenuous. How many virtual, real-time tank simulations -- not constructive simulations -- have there been in the past 25 years? And the inquiry is whether prettifying SB, while retaining its full "hardcore" qualities, will bring a commensurately larger consumer audience. So, to count as a "simulation," a program must make an attempt at realistic fire control, armor, and weapon modeling, etc. Battlezone, WoT, Armored Warfare, etc. don't count, for instance. Things like the Microprose M1A2 Tank Platoon, the M1A2 sim from DI, T-72: Balkans on Fire, Panzer Elite, and SABOW probably should. I doubt there are too many more. And then one must ask how the sales of these products stack up to flight sims and infantry sims. Not very well, from what I understand.

[Ssnake]

Games vs "Sims"...I keep hearing this emphasis on SB Pro being a "sim". ... If you are gonna duck under the table, plug your fingers in your ears, and scream "sim! sim! sim!" a thousand times, not much this discussion can gain for you.

You're setting up a straw man at best. Nobody here is sitting under the table with fingers plugged into ears ... except, maybe, you:

1. So far pretty much everybody has agreed that "better graphics would be nice". Doesn't sound like "we're not listening!" to me.
2. Anecdotes from other games suggest that the large number of players that they have aren't interested in game modes that are more realistic than the knife-fights that are usually played.
   Your initial claim that if only Steel Beasts would look better, millions of other players would surely come to buy it may not yet have been completely debunked, but I'd say that at least the onus is on you to show us why this anecdotal observation is irrelevant for your case.
3. So far you seem to have ignored all reasons that WE gave YOU why "making the graphics better" is neither as easy as it may appear to you, or what the costs of that move could be. You haven't yet acknowledged that there may actually something like a trade-off.
4. First you argued that Steel Beasts would sell massively better if only the graphics were in the AAA game league.
   Now you have shifted your argument to "Steel Beasts needs better looks and it should shed the complexity that is dragging it down" - well, so you essentially want it to be something entirely else.
   Surprisingly, there already ARE a number of games that are something entirely else than SB Pro.
   The point I'm trying to make is that Steel Beasts Professional isn't supposed to be massively different from what it is. As a game it may be mediocre at best, I agree. But SB Pro doesn't attempt to be a game in the first place. We don't do false advertising.

You can call pretty much anything you want a "sim". Quite honestly, anything played on a computer that simulates something in the real world is a "sim". ... How about "sim is relative". Or sim is just an opinion. Or sim is a clever marketing tool to get people to buy a product for a lot of samolies that they normally wouldn't? Just putting out possibilities.

Now you are, sadly, regressing to semantics; not the first time that someone does this in an internet discussion. Sigh. Well, even going with your deconstruction of the word "simulation" maybe we can at least agree that there are different degrees of fidelity, and that "fidelity" in itself is an undefined category without metrics by which you compare how close the replication comes to the original.

Now, our metrics (=the ones where we try to achieve) are

• Procedural accuracy
  
• Accuracy of outcomes
  
• (Audio-) Visual accuracy

SB Pro scores very high in the first category, does a much, much better job in the second than most titles mentioned here (and, I daresay, is still decent for its areas where it works best in comparison to OneSAF and certainly JCATS - particularly when costs of license and costs of operation are concerned). Steel Beasts merits in the third category are, depending on whom you ask, justifiably ranging from "not-so-great" to "actually quite decent".

You are of course entitled to your opinion that metric #1 and #2 are of lower importance (to you) than #3, but if you're fair and open minded you'll probably agree that if other customers have different priorities than you do, their opinion is worth just as much as is yours - are you still with me on that?

I sure don't have any complaints with working up a ladder/tier structure for tanks.

That's your opinion, others will disagree. But this is more of the discussion "should Steel Beasts rather be Armored Warfare" (or some other title of preference). Fine, I guess you have made your point.

I'm an old fart. I've been computer-gaming since Radio Shack had the early black and white comps.

You think you're unique?

Quite the contrary. We've always had players of Steel Beasts who were in the army in the 1970s and later, and I think the median age of people watching our YouTube videos is around 45.

Not dismissing age and experience, but if you're working from false premises extrapolative predictions will lead you in the wrong direction still.

Heck, if there is an ignore feature on the forum and you want to use it, please, feel free!

Keep going, you're on a roll...

[12Alfa]

I don't want to let that assertion stand unopposed.

Nobody at eSim Games is looking at PE customers as "freeloaders". Collectively you ARE paying for one team member, so to speak, so it would make a difference if we gave it away for free rather than asking for its current price. And I know how long some people here have to work in order to be able to plunk down $115.- once (or $39.50 every year). And it's called WORK for a reason; one gets paid for it rather than being taxed for all the fun one's having with it. I very well remember how much sweat was converted into how little hard currency when mowing the neighbor's lawn on these terrible hill slopes ... with a hand operated mower, mind you.

Do I need to post for my statements, it was a funny, this forum , to quote the Joker "needs enema`.

Really :c:,we all know were not free-loaders (), and a great deal of work is needed to produce SB.

I`m going to throw in a few more :wink2: , just to be sure I`m not taken the wrong way.

[12Alfa]

Well, from this old fart that has trained and ran mil sims for 30 some years ( some would call this experence ) I would call a sim if:

1. No hit points

2. Targets do not light up, well they sometimes do if hit correct :gun:

3. Don`t buy things

4. No ladders, well on side of AFV and building maybe

5. No picking crew from a roster

6. Has a AAR feature for post mission training.

7. Outfitting a tank exactly the way you want it,NOT

8. No Grind for upgrades and better tanks

9. No Unlocking anything.

It seems to me that your definition of a sim is not what most people that have worked in this area call a Sim. It can be confusing true, how ever once you take training in one , then one tends to see the difference right away, there is little fun, and a lot of learning to do your job,task.

One would not step out of the simulation and say, now I can buy a M-70, or I grind my way through that mission, and up the ladder I go.

I hope you can see the difference, hoping that (and as I`m finding out with my dog)...You can`t teach a old dog new tricks.

Enjoy your game, we are enjoying the Sim, and the way it has developed thought the years.

I`m adding a few:wink2::wink2: to the post.

[Lt DeFault]

I, for one, give up. This guy just isn't listening. :bangin:

[mpow66m]

I dont care to much about graphics,ill be glad when the AI is fixed around water and bridges and in the forrest.

[Grenny]

I dont care to much about graphics,ill be glad when the AI is fixed around water and bridges and in the forrest.

But that will take away the "random breakdown/got lost" numbers that Gibson need to get realistic results of high echelon troop movements ;-)

[Grenny]

Do I need to post for my statements, it was a funny, this forum , to quote the Joker "needs enema`.

Really :c:,we all know were not free-loaders (), and a great deal of work is needed to produce SB.

I`m going to throw in a few more :wink2: , just to be sure I`m not taken the wrong way.

Actually you do.

Written speech sucks in communitcating the "meta-message"(tone of voice, facial expression etc etc).

It's fair to hold up the "joke" "irony" and "sarcasm" billboard when needed :-P

[mpow66m]

But that will take away the "random breakdown/got lost" numbers that Gibson need to get realistic results of high echelon troop movements ;-)

i can do w/o my troops acting like lemmings,lol.But SBPPE is by far the most realistic Armor sim EVER and IMHO the best.

[mpow66m]

1. No hit points-''Sarge Tommy is down to 3 HP what should we do?""never seen that in real life,lol.

2. Targets do not light up, well they sometimes do if hit correct-''Capt.I cannot ID,oh wait it lit up red,so its the Eny''.ummm yeaaahhhh.

3. Don`t buy things-''Sarge the armor sucks,how long til we can buy a better armor kit?"

4. No ladders, well on side of AFV and building maybe

5. No picking crew from a roster

6. Has a AAR feature for post mission training.

7. Outfitting a tank exactly the way you want it,NOT

8. No Grind for upgrades and better tanks

9. No Unlocking anything.''Sarge we need some Rifles,how long until we unlock them,lol""

[Tjay]

Well, from this old fart that has trained and ran mil sims for 30 some years ( some would call this experence ) I would call a sim if:

1. No hit points

2. Targets do not light up, well they sometimes do if hit correct :gun:

3. Don`t buy things

4. No ladders, well on side of AFV and building maybe

5. No picking crew from a roster

6. Has a AAR feature for post mission training.

7. Outfitting a tank exactly the way you want it,NOT

8. No Grind for upgrades and better tanks

9. No Unlocking anything.

It seems to me that your definition of a sim is not what most people that have worked in this area call a Sim. It can be confusing true, how ever once you take training in one , then one tends to see the difference right away, there is little fun, and a lot of learning to do your job,task.

One would not step out of the simulation and say, now I can buy a M-70, or I grind my way through that mission, and up the ladder I go.

I hope you can see the difference, hoping that (and as I`m finding out with my dog)...You can`t teach a old dog new tricks.

Enjoy your game, we are enjoying the Sim, and the way it has developed thought the years.

+1 :luxhello:

Mind you, this old dog is still trying to learn new tricks. Not always with great success of course....

Edited October 30, 2015 by Tjay