Jump to content

Steel Beasts


Recommended Posts

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Turret Ring:

I've noticed some of you folks over at the Steel Beasts fourm. I really like it myself. What do you guys think?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not a programer or such......, however from what I can gather, it's the same basic trip as with CM. They were more interested in detail and realism in a technical rather than a graphical sense. They used their resourses to enhanse the sense of reality that we hard core WARGAMERS are most interested in rather than to provide eyecandy. That having been said......I find myself sucked in to the flash and movement quite often. The sound is exceptional and really pumps up the emotional side for me too.

------------------

"Then we shall fight in the shade." (Greek general's comment upon being told that the Persian archers could blot-out the sun with their arrows.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few of us CMers do get together for a co-op multiplay session every now and then, and the general view is that Steel Beasts is very good, especially with attention to detail and game play.

If you're interested, drop in for a chat at Madmatt's CMHQ one evening (especially on the weekend, you may find we have a session planned)!

Lookout out for Madmatt though, he hogs the glory and gets most of the kills! wink.gif

Masce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall, an emphatic thumbs-up from me on Steel Beasts (SB). To borrow a quote "Ssnake" who runs the SB forum, "it's the OTHER wargame I play" (while he in turn was referring to CM).

Granted, SB is primarily a "sim" instead of a wargame, with focus on only two tank types for player "crew choice" (the M1A1 & Leopard 2A4), but the map-planning and movement plots (as an option), the ability to set SOP's and platoon tactics, and coordination required with mech infantry & artillery provide a tremendous "wargame" interface if you are fielding more than a platoon of troops/tanks.

The graphics are indeed a bit limited. Even the worst naysayers of CM's graphics (whoever they may be) in the past months would say that CM is still more colorful than SB. But in terms of rendering 3D terrain, SB is quite impressive, with very smooth contouring of elevations. Working your tank (or your tank platoon) into a hull-down position is accomplished very realisticly.

Besides, if playing a gunner's position or playing tank commander and accessing the gunner's view through the gunner's primary sight extension (GPSE), I often opt for the infrared thermal imaging system (TIS) to pick out targets quickly. The graphics applied in TIS are done very realistically, and capture the 3D effect well.

One other limitation of SB to me is that air assets (helos, strike A/C) don't figure into that game---YET. But it's possible in the future. The SB design team have expressed the desire to incorporate more tank choices for "personal control" in a follow-on, possibly even some of the Russian ones. Maybe air assets will get in later with that.

One other impressive feature is the addition of multiple languages for the tank crew communications. If you want German language while playing the Leopard 2A4, you can use that. (All text is also printed in the chosen language too.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't play it because of the graphics. There, I said it. It did not meet the DECMRL (DeanCo Eye Candy Minimum Reference Level) standards, whereas CM squeaked by. Too bad, SB from what I saw of it (a bit of the demo) looked pretty cool. I especially appreciated the extensive tutorial that comes with it to bring new players up to speed.

DeanCo--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...