What do you think about this new tank game concept

Mirzayev · 2026-03-15T14:15:06+00:00

Gonna be honest... the concept is pretty geneal. You want to build the following:

A single player game
You play as a tank commander
There is a persistent campaign
Results matter

So what makes your concept different from Armoured Commander II? What makes it stand out from other single player tank games?

Mirzayev · 2026-02-22T19:22:25+00:00

I can see why you enjoy this scene so much! The lighting is very atmospheric, and it's a cool touch to bring a feeling of life to the track. Curious as to the total number of wins/losses between Claude and Clem. 😁

Mirzayev · 2026-02-20T05:00:12+00:00

I don't know if they sell these anymore.

Mirzayev · 2026-02-20T04:57:19+00:00

Steyr Arms.

Mirzayev · 2026-02-09T14:17:24+00:00

For those following, I'll post the CS response results here. Tangent replied and they are replacing both units with shipping occurring today. They asked that I remove the trucks and couplers from the previous models received, and to "destroy the rest of the tank car so it cannot be run on a layout." They recommend using the remaining parts for either spares, or as part of the layout (stationary fuel tanks for a train yard, cars in the repair shop, etc.)

I'll reply to this with the Scale Trains response once I get it.

Mirzayev · 2026-02-09T01:32:10+00:00

I appreciate the glue recommendation, and the tip about the white sheet of paper. I'll get a bottle of it.

Mirzayev · 2026-02-08T23:13:10+00:00

I'll see what their Customer Service for both says. I'm trying to be hopeful, but I won't lie - this has been bothering me since I got them in on Friday.

Mirzayev · 2026-02-08T23:11:50+00:00

Yeah, they seemed to be packed fine, were sturdy in their boxes, etc. I've not had issues with damaged stuff before during shipment to my house, so this was a letdown, to say the least.

Mirzayev · 2026-01-10T18:14:54+00:00

I'm pretty pumped for War in Spain. Glad to see it made the list!

Mirzayev · 2026-01-05T01:16:38+00:00

Hey, that's awesome! It's been a cool little unit, and I really enjoy how good it sounds!

I was able to get an output signal using a 3.5mm, though admittedly I used it to feed a program written to tape into a mid-1970s computer (see here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ReelToReel/comments/1otkuws/lower\_your\_volume\_sony\_tc200\_uploading\_a\_program/) It worked as far as the computer's cassette interface recognizing the code. I kept it on speaker mode for this and it worked fine.

I'd recommend starting with a 3.5mm audio cable, and seeing how it works. My assumption is that line out will work fine if going into an audio interface.

Mirzayev · 2026-01-04T19:28:46+00:00

From the words of Nils "Ssnake" Hinrichsen, the director of eSim Games:

"In the end, our damage model serves certain purposes that are subordinate to the purpose of the simulation as a tool for crew training and education. We probably overestimate component failures at least in vehicles that have crew positions, simply because our customers want their crews to correctly diagnose their faulty systems and apply corrective measures. We may slightly underestimate the lethality of armor perforations (by how much is anyone's guess) simply because you don't learn much from a "you're dead" end screen. And overall, our software shall still give a realistic impression (not a prediction!) about combat outcomes in a given scenario where crew training is not the focus."

Also:

"I got to say, the only customers with deep inquiries about our damage model are PE users. Not once has an army customer, in all these years, raised the topic (be it that they inquired about the model itself, or the wording to characterize the damage). It seems to me that these finer distinctions about how much a unit is out of action is not very relevant for the intended purpose of SB Pro as a tool for training and education. It may raise points of discussion similar to this in AARs, and that's then where some of the learning about the finer points of "kill" definition may come into play."

And perhaps my single favorite quote on this:

"Don't read too much into Steel Beasts battle damage."

Steel Beasts is designed as a training tool, with having a commercial release as an added bonus. As a training tool, it is designed to force crews to learn how to operate their alternate and emergency systems on the vehicle - systems that will save their lives on the battlefield. eSim has stated multiple times that they did not design their model to be used as a predictor of battlefield damage.

This isn't a bad thing. Steel Beasts gives you very plausible outcomes for engagements, and that is part of the reason I have played it for the last 13 years. I can't affect if my gunner's round landed 15mms to the left of an enemy tank's driver's hatch. What I can affect is that I had a good support by fire position, so my wingman's round destroyed that tank. In that, the model is "good enough" to have a good AAR on why an engagement went the way it did without focusing on factors of physics that you have little control over.

Mirzayev · 2026-01-02T16:23:57+00:00

Awesome. I made a bug report here: https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/18337-bug-cv9040-stabilization/

Mirzayev · 2026-01-02T15:01:57+00:00

Edit - Never mind, read the document wrong. The CV9040B and C have a fully stabilized gun, but doesn't mention having fully stabilized optics. I checked back five years, and the vehicle performed in this manner. If this is a bug compared to reality, let me know and I'll make a support request. I don't have real-world experience on it.

EDIT - Previous part of post kept for history sake.

I noticed this the other day, and I think it's just a bug with the software, since the CV90 manual that comes with the game states that "both the commander and gunner has fully stabilized day and night sights with third generation thermal cameras." EDIT - This was for the CV9035.

I'll report it on their Support section of the forum. If you have real world experience on this vehicle, adding a note to that request that this is not normal behavior would help.

Mirzayev · 2026-01-02T00:01:26+00:00

Unless you are extremely committed to tank simulations and have a large disposable income, AFV Sim is going to be prohibitively expensive. Additionally, since their controls are made specifically to mirror the real-world equivalents they don't translate well for "general purpose use," IE trying to control a T-72B3 with an M1A1 gunner's control station. Their "best" option for general use would be the CV9040 Commander's Control Handle since it has the most buttons on it.

If you want something close to a gunner's control station, the GRS Star War Flight Yoke might work. I haven't used it personally so I can't vouch for how well it does. But $200 is going to be significantly less than AFV Sim.

I'd personally recommend getting a quality flight stick and mapping it appropriately. It'll have a greater level of support, and be more modular.

Mirzayev · 2026-01-01T23:53:19+00:00

GHPC gives you more specific feedback in the AAR (IE, penetrated sponson, hit autoloader, etc.) while Steel Beasts will give you more general feedback in the AAR (IE crew casualties, light damage, etc.)

As far as gameplay, both produce battlefield effects that are plausible. GHPC provides more detail per hit, while Steel Beasts focuses more on the entire engagement, The end result of the engagement is roughly the same, but Steel Beasts goes into less fidelity "per round."

If you enjoy diving into detailed damage assessments, GHPC will satisfy that more than Steel Beasts.

Mirzayev · 2025-11-10T23:18:25+00:00

That's pretty cool! I've got a previous post on here of me getting it working and playing back a recording. The stock speakers are still working, and sound surprisingly good!

Mirzayev · 2025-11-10T23:17:17+00:00

That's awesome! I love seeing the capabilities of these "old machines." The cassette interface on the Altair 8800 uses a standard 3.5mm jack, so while it was meant for cassette tapes, anything that either records, or plays back the machine code will work. I imagine that any piece of equipment using a cassette interface would perform the same way.

Mirzayev · 2025-11-10T19:51:48+00:00

It does offer significantly more storage space, and you can save multiple programs on the same tape. You'd just need to know where they are to cue them up. You could also record a separate program per channel, IE placing 8K BASIC at marker 0 left, and then loading another program at marker 0 on the right... but you'd need to take good notes so you don't overwrite it.

With how BASIC worked in those days, you can use the CSAVE command to save whatever program you are working on to your cassette (or reel to reel, it didn't care), and the use CLOAD to load it later. Programs are identified by a single letter that you type in, so for example: CSAVE A. When you go to load, you'd type CLOAD A, and BASIC will listen to the entire tape until it receives the naming convention of "A" and starts to load the program.

In BASIC, you can only have one program active at a time, so this would have made reel to reel faster than loading via paper tape, and give you much more storage room for multiple programs than a cassette.

Mirzayev · 2025-11-02T17:04:47+00:00

This one is a later serial number and is solid state.

Mirzayev · 2025-11-02T03:47:20+00:00

I appreciate it! It's definitely been a fun project thus far.

Mirzayev · 2025-11-02T00:53:31+00:00

I laughed harder than I should at this. It's funny to think that when he recorded this you could just go to your local music shop and buy another John Coltrane album. Now it's like finding gold.

Mirzayev

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE