Originally Posted by Woofie_Dog


Careful not to confuse the argument...I'm not comparing the FCS's ...there's no contest.But the play-ability of most assets IS the argument. Simply put there should be more.Especially for OPFOR.Also if we compare TYPES of assets...arma wins hands down,ie a helicopter or AAA,or infantry etc etc.Its a long list.
As for the other issue of multiplayer\dlc there are two ways to address it.One way is like Bohemia did it ,or in DCS case,simply include an asset that most people own.In steelbeasts we already have an established set of assets.In DCS for example there's almost always a plane in a mission to fly on a server.Almost everyone owns Flaming Cliffs or they can buy one cheap(a FC plane costs what...5$ now?).Never really a problem...and when there is It's addressed pretty quick.I can't think of a time when I couldn't fly a mission on a public server due to not having a plane.And I've used DCS since day one. If you play with yer buddies,then I'm sure they can plop in a tank that you have.

In conclusion in my participation to this thread,I've said my piece...I'm not alone in my thinking that I can assure you as I've played and discussed this with many a veteran player.Now if there is a final video that ssnake is keeping under wraps for the release date that address my issues...then I will eat my words...but I think that is a pipe dream.


And here we differ again: I rather have a well done playable vehicle, then a sloppy model(and yes, that requires a model of the FCS) like in ArmA. Because, where is the point to have those?

And the model question: In these games, you don't jump between units in game time, as it is often required and done in SB. You could not use realistic unit setups, but would have to make "rag tag mix" stuff of vehicles that people own.

Last edited by Ronin_germany; 07/03/19 06:37 PM.

NEC CUPIAS, NEC METUAS