Do SABOW has a good perspective as tanksim?

As we know, there is a new version of SABOW is available: remastered. But let's answer the question: is it game or it is a training program? And has this game a future?
Unfortunately, all my answers are no
This game has a huge potential, but it's not available for the users. Let's say users may get ~10% of what game has. And these 10% are not fun anymore, at least for me. I like missions, I like to know what should be done and who win and WHY! I want user to get decision abt. victory, but not AI. And there is no "Polygon Editor", which does - user have to play ONLY on the default maps.
Anyway, I'd like to suggest a vote and see what users thinks abt. Of course, this vote does nothing, but who knows, may be our opinions does smth. for somebody.

I've just stated playing SABOW so it is 'early days' for me, - but I think perhaps your question is a bit like asking, 'Is Rowan's 'Battle of Britain' [or its successor, 'BoB2'] a good combat flight simulator?' Or 'Is 'Rome - Total War' a good simulator of ancient battles?

The answer in all three cases, for me anyway, is 'Yes, but not as good as they would have been, if they had been designed just to simulate that thing.'

Andrey recently said on the Graviteam forum that people complained that SF didn't give the player enough control over his troops. SABOW goes to the other extreme. While you CAN command a tank platoon (or a tank) when the fighting starts, you are the commander of all the forces on your side. So you have two roles to learn, master and play - well three, really - company combat team commander, tank platoon commander, and tank crewman (commander or gunner).

I want a tank sim to put me in the role of a tank commander who is also a platoon leader, in a battle somebody else (the mission designer) has planned.

A LITTLE more control over (and interaction with) your Steel Fury platoon would be nice- like more hotkeys for common commands; and receiving radio messages (like reports of targets or events) from your platoon mates. Like in Panzer Elite. But I don't want to control the whole force. That's a separate role, a distraction from the tanksimming I want to do. In SABOW it's a whole extra set of stuff to learn and to do. The extra sophistication may be a whole new level for fans of WW2 tactical wargames but for me, from a purely tanksim point of view, it's not a plus for me.

From what I recall from the original version, Steel Beasts also provided you with the tools to play as the force commander. But its included and user-made missions were scripted, so that you could just play as a tank platoon commander, and let the mission designer-scrpted AI run the overall battle. You didn't have to place all your units and tell them where to go and what to do. During a battle, you didn't HAVE to step back into the force commander's boots from time to time, 'Let's see now, how are we doing...our advance has stalled over on the right but the left is going ok, maybe it's time to throw in my reserves and roll 'em up from left to right'.You didn't have to manage the overall battle, you could stick with your platoon.

To an extent, you can do this in SABOW as well. There is a 'quick battle generator' which lets you set up a mission very easily and then just jump into a tank and fight. I think you can save a quick mission but maybe only so you can jump back into it, next session. A recent patch has added an even quicker method, click on the main menu icon of either T-62 or M60A1 and you are dropped right into a fight with no need to set up anything. There is mention of training missions being added.

You can certainly do quite a lot in tanksim mode in SABOW but like SF, there are still too few hotkeys; you have to call up the 'head up display' and click on icons to issue many commands that would be better issued via a hotkey.

I need to spend more time in SABOW to see just how well it can perform as my kind of tanksim, rather than a wargame with a built-in tanksim. So I'm not voting yet!

33lima wrote:I've just stated playing SABOW so it is 'early days' for me, - but I think perhaps your question is a bit like asking, 'Is Rowan's 'Battle of Britain' [or its successor, 'BoB2'] a good combat flight simulator?' Or 'Is 'Rome - Total War' a good simulator of ancient battles?

No. I wanted to say: is SABOW a game or this is a training program?
This is a very important questions, coz at this answer depends what users will take this game. I mean: do u need to be skillful to get over this program and thus increase er skill more or u just want to get a fun and shoot the bricks? Of course, we may have discussion, but speaking frankly, I'm sure this is a training program, but not the game anymore. Thus, this program was not organized for the huge audience with a common use. It is organized for the very specific community, who knows what it does and why it does.

Andrey recently said on the Graviteam forum that people complained that SF didn't give the player enough control over his troops.

It's true. U may compare ability to control troops from Panzer Elite with Steel Fury and conclusion will be obvious. BUT Panzer Elite - it is a true GAME and tanksim. Well, SABOW it is a emasculated strategy with ability to shoot from the tank gun. It is smth. kinda "Men Of War", but much worse as for tanksim and strategy at all, though it still has a charm of predecessor "Steel Fury".

I want a tank sim to put me in the role of a tank commander who is also a platoon leader, in a battle somebody else (the mission designer) has planned.

Then it should be smth. similar to SF, but with ability of PE controlling, I think.

In SABOW it's a whole extra set of stuff to learn and to do.

Yes, the wall for casual player is a HUGE. There is a special topic how to start the game. But this wall cut off any other ones who likes simply play the game. It is dilemma.

The extra sophistication may be a whole new level for fans of WW2 tactical wargames but for me, from a purely tanksim point of view, it's not a plus for me.

As my point, strategy game is a style of Gravyteam now. I think, they've lost a nature of tanksim game.

There is a 'quick battle generator' which lets you set up a mission very easily and then just jump into a tank and fight.

As I've understood, this smth. a very strange and weird type of "quick battles", coz u never know what the victory parameters and conditions does.

You can certainly do quite a lot in tanksim mode in SABOW but like SF, there are still too few hotkeys; you have to call up the 'head up display' and click on icons to issue many commands that would be better issued via a hotkey.

Moding in SABOW is ridiculously complicated. There are no utilities except obsolete DOS programs (who cares and remember DOS???) and smth. completely out of mind with "flat/unflat" exercises. That's wrong.

I need to spend more time in SABOW to see just how well it can perform as my kind of tanksim, rather than a wargame with a built-in tanksim. So I'm not voting yet!

Let's see what we can do!

Sabow is not that complicated. It's not anymore complex on the operational level than the tactical games GT puts out. It's true that there is another level of complexity added by learning to operate the tank. The problem, for the English player, has been abysmal documentation and manuals. The recently updated manual is an improvement but it still suffers from "Russlish" and should be proof read to improve this.

For me that has been the perennial problem with all of GT's games. With proper documentation, nothing is really that hard to learn. Lack of documentation initially put me off Op Star and Sabow. Fortunately there are good youtube videos for both.

Sabow has the campaign mode in which there are objectives to achieve. Did SF have a campaign? I don't remember the plain vanilla SF.

QBs in Sabow have the goal of wiping out the opposing forces. Pretty simple. Although, if you damage the opponent severely enough the ai offers a cease fire. This is pretty similar to what happens in most SF scenarios. One of the things that occasionally bothers me about SF scenarios is the need to hunt down that last surviving soldier in a foxhole or trench somewhere before the scenario will end.

The process for updating or patching all the GT products is "eccentric". I can never understand why one cannot download an .exe file, point it at the correct directory, and execute it.

But I digress. Definitions are slippery things. I'd define Sabow as a game because I play it for the enjoyment I get out of it and not to improve my skill as a tank crew member.

Tanker wrote:Sabow is not that complicated.

C'mon, if u think SABOW is not complicated, then what it is SF? It is the hell complicated game just for playing! And make a note, it was ~20s years ago. There were no infra-red optic devices, auto-target range-finder, PC and other things, which tanks had in SABOW. If u think SABOW is not complicated, then I don't trust u.

The problem, for the English player, has been abysmal documentation and manuals.

OK, agree. Usually, there are no complains as for documentations from non-Eng players, but "specialized topic: how to start" is a good evidence that game demands an appropriate skill. Yes, I know there are a very complicate simulators like "IL-2" and "Black Shark", but both are the GAME (get a fun to be detailed).

Sabow has the campaign mode in which there are objectives to achieve.  Did SF have a campaign?  I don't remember the plain vanilla SF.  

Well, yes. SF has a campaign, but they are not dynamic. I mean, user don't lose his crew/tank. He doesn't has ability to be promoted/rewarded (though there is statistics, which does nothing). Well, user's hero even doesn't has the name. U may disclose campaign in SF only thanks to the brief text and some backgrounds pictures. In fact, campaigns in SF are fake, but I've to confess they have been implemented.
May I suppose that in SABOW there is a system of promoting/medal rewarding, tank/crew changing? And u may see all of them after mission (or whatever they called) completed?

QBs in Sabow have the goal of wiping out the opposing forces.

SF has a much more abilities with mission success, then standard "wiping out" .
U may do almost everything, of course it depends on the missionmaker lazy

 One of the things that occasionally bothers me about SF scenarios is the need to hunt down that last surviving soldier in a foxhole or trench somewhere before the scenario will end.

Yeap, that's a very tedious situation, but this is because missionmaker didn't want to be bothered to make mission interesting  with variations.
BTW
Can u tell me the name of these missions, then I'll have a look. Also don't forget - people are strange. I mean, someone likes to move over the polygon to hunt down the last soldier.

The process for updating or patching all the GT products is "eccentric".  I can never understand why one cannot download an .exe file, point it at the correct directory, and execute it.

That's a typical "love story" of the Graviteam games User is always wrong
Anyway, let's vote and see the final result.

LOL Lockie I didn't know this was a trust issue. I thought it was about opinions.

It sounds like you have never even played the game, is that right? It's pretty hard to form an accurate opinion, especially a strong one, about something you have not personally done.

Almost every game has a basic section on how to install the game and start playing. The mere fact that Sabow has a section like that does not imply that it is over complicated.

Flight simulations such as Lock On, and Flaming Cliffs are much more complicated than Sabow as they deal with modern aircraft and all the modes of radar and displays. Even the WW2 flight sim, Battle of Britain, is more complex with check lists needed to even start the airplanes.

The operational phase in Sabow is a bit cryptic and some of the information and personnel management screens could be simplified or explained better but the actual game play and tank management is nowhere near the huge barrier that you imagine it to be. If you've played Op Star you are already familiar with the map use and the tactical level platoon and squad management that is used in Sabow. The ranging and various gunner and commander sights are more complex in Sabow than in SF. That's to be expected as the tanks are more advanced.

I found SF to be a bit impenetrable at first. I've seen (and asked) quite a few questions over time about how to see through the commander's vision blocks or how to control the tanks, etc, in that game too.

Well, I've played it enough now, not to learn all its little foibles, but to write a mission report of sorts - started now over at CA, as usual.

http://combatace.com/topic/85814-steel-armor-blaze-of-war/



In short, for me, it's not really a tanksim. I suppose it's stating the obvious but it's a hybrid  - a wargame with tank simulator elements. I think it could play more like a conventional tanksim, if using a 'full mission editor', people could create battles scripted to allow the player to take only the role of a tank platoon commander (with no need to plan or manage a wider part of the battle). And perhaps step outside some of the other wargame elements, like the turn-based approach. I would prefer that. Players who value the wargame element may like it better as it is now - it's like Graviteam Tactics wargames, with the bonus that you can jump into some tanks.

Lockie when you asked if SABOW is more like  a training software you must have had Steel Beasts in mind. Because Steel Beasts ( or SB) is indeed a tank training software turned into a game-like tank simulator. What I have seen and read of SABOW indicates it's much more a game & simulator than a training simulator.

Yes, that was a very interesting and amazing fact, when training program became the game. I think, smth. similar happened with SABOW, but in reverse way, when there is tendency to be as more close to the training program as possible.

Yes I think Frinik is right. Although the Graviteam site says they also develop 'military training complexes', SABOW is primarily a wargame (with a tanksim element). There may be a relationship between SABOW and Graviteam's 'training complexes', the same way there is between Codemaster's Operation Flashpoint mil sim and their military VBS1 training software - but both SABOW and OFP are mainly games.

Steel Beasts is now a training sim with a tanksim spin-off but the spin-off is actually a very good pure tanksim - the main limitation I think is the lack of a career mode but the mission editor enables users to create good single missions or campaign-like mission sets. If SABOW had such a mission editor, it too might be able to do the same.

33lima, have you used Steel Beasts? It looks very good as a cooperative game/sim in the youtube videos I've seen.

I have only played the original Steel Beasts, which will not run on modern video cards as it uses unaccelerated graphics and a very low screen resolution & bit depth. Apart from better graphics, more playable AFVs and other upgrades, I think the current SB Pro PE is basically similar, gameplay-wise.

I don't do any multiplayer so that side doesn't attract me. And drilled to value and adhere to strict radio discipline and voice procedure, the chatter that seems to go on during many MP games puts me right off!


However as an SP game it's an excellent tanksim, the best technically. Most stuff you could think to ask for, it's in there. Decent simulation of the radio net, speed of sound, great sound effects, realistic crew drills, sensible use of on-screen aids, good AI eg they train their cannons out to 'cover their arcs' in each formation, jockey (change position) in between firing and make good use of hull-down. A tanker's tanksim.

The main limitations I found are:

- it has no campaign mode at all, just the ability to create sets of scripted missions, using the excellent mission editor
- in common with many other tanksims, the missions just play out as scripted - it doesn't provide an AI force commander, who will intervene as may be necessary (although i think the player can step up a level and 'issue new orders' to all units - the role the 'Directing Staff' can play, in a networked military simulator;
- gameplay could perhaps have better implemented distinct roles - for example if you jump to the gunner's seat, the AI TC will spot targets but will really not take over running of the tank or the platoon, (although IIRC they may follow any existing script provided by the mission designer). Again most if not all tanksims are like this (or not as good).

Of all the other tanksims I have played, Panzer Elite comes closest to SB's technical achievement (plus of course it's got many more playables and excellent campaign coverage).

33lima wrote:
However as an SP game it's an excellent tanksim, the best technically.

Techinks without infantry does nothing, that's why I'd be very interested to see er opinion abt. infantry support. What du u think: does it work good in common sense in SB or it's just a furniture to shoot out? I mean, does infantry make a real danger for the tanks in SB?
In SF they are. U've to think twice (or better three times) before u gonna make a crossing over the trench full of the infantry. AFAIK, there is the same situation in SABOW: infantry is a very active element of simulation. Would be pleased to see, if u comparing with PE also how infantry acts.

The infantry in the original SB were animated sprites, a bit like those in M1TP2 and PE. Their AI isn't awful but isn't particularly clever either, if I recall right, and doesn't look much better in SB Pro PE.

And in the original SB, there were no field defences - no trenches to provide the troops with any cover. Nor could SB infantry operate from buildings (there was just one building IIRC, a 'barn' which could be textured to resemble a small house). Bridges were just dams of earth etc. SB Pro PE's graphics aren't brilliant but are much better, obviously

The SB infantry are not just targets or a threat to your own infantry. They have realistic AT capabilities and IIRC they can mount and dismount from APCs.

The 'grunts' in SABOW also appear dangerous, and they may be in field defences as in SF (which they can dig, during a mission, if ordered). My main gripe with them is that when in trenches, they tend to sit up with their heads and/or shoulders visible, like rabbits in a field. Snipe them with your co-ax and watch them fall or duck, but they will pop back up after a while, in the same spot - their infantry training isn't so good. No better than in SF, in that respect.

PE infantry seem better now than they used to be, as regards AI. The worst part is their jerky animation, which is still poor; they stand, run, kneel, crawl in little groups, moving in a pretty un-natural way. They can enter buildings, by sort of 'ghosting' through them. They rarely have trenches but include teams with bazookas, Panzerfausts or PIATs and they will kill your tank if you are not careful. Now that Aldo has added proper ballistic trajectories, it is scary to see the bright flare of an infantry AT rocket curving towards you, waiting for the bang. The PE infantry were originally very hard to kill off with tank MG fire but this now seems easier. Unfortunately, crew-served weapons like AT guns have no visible crews. Compared to the best previous WW2 tanksim, Panzer Commander, the PE infantry were pretty excellent - PzC had no infantry at all, just AT guns sited in little pillboxes!

Thank u very much, 33lima for the great and detailed explanation! I see PE is still the best as tanksim and beat their opponents inspite of old graphic and obsolete engine. No wonder that this game has so many admires and still in development.
As for infantry I was sure in SABOW it became much more smarter than in SF, but now I saw it is the same level. Perhaps, this is because of the Graviteam plans to make MP? Where the user don't need smart infantry and the whole unit itself.

Coding is what makes the AI stand out or not. I haven't played SB in a long time but I remember not being impressed by the infantry Ai. The armour AI on the other hand was much better probably because it is a tank training software and the devs worked a lot on it. You don't sell uninspired simulators to the US Army or NATO and hope to have recurring orders in the future...

Even in game simulators as sophisticated as Arma II or III ( I have both) the AI is either God-like in its abilities to spot and shoot you dead or falls short when it comes to accompanying you or obeying simple tasks when undertaking campaigns or single missions. Bohemia Interactive is a much larger and better funded company than Graviteam and still falls shot in that department. I think the progress we are seeing in computer and graphic processing not to mention virtual reality will improve the AI part of games to the point where the AI will have close to  human-like qualities. I said close because they are human traits such as emotions, unpredictability and other chemical factors at play in our bodies that make us up unique as a species and which will be impossible to replicate fully through a computer.

Still , yesterday I was playing  Far Cry 3( I love that game) and I was impressed in how human-like the AI was not only physically looking , but the dialogue, the reflexes, the way the designers made it react in given circumstances( just coding but the same could be said about us; we are just the product of chemical reactions(hormones) that make us react). I really felt like I was dealing with real humans. I can't but be impressed by the progresses made in computer programming and graphic design in the last 15 years to the point that now some games look better than the real world and feel like it...

Sorry if I digressed from the topic at hand. Just musing.

One area where I think SF can beat PE is the air strikes. This is one element where PE has a glaring lack although you have artillery strikes available which SF does not have ( in SF you have to implement them in a mission in advance no spontaneous ones you can call at whim). Overall PE is a much more complete sim than SF is however I find SF more modern immersive.

TBH I don't miss airstrikes in PE - ground troops preferred the (more available, more controllable and less risky) support of their own artillery or mortars and airstrikes would usually have been more common as pre-battle preparation, rather than intervening directly anywhere near an ongoing battle, where the risk of fratricide was so high.

Likewise I don't expect too much from infantry AI in a tanksim...after their complete absence in PzC and the crazy little ants running around in AF3, the infantry in PE, SF and SABOW are mostly good enough for me.

Back on SABOW topic, I see Graviteam have put out another update, this time adding a neat firing range option: http://combatace.com/topic/85814-steel-armor-blaze-of-war/?p=691212



I'm still not sure if it's as good a tanksim as SF (I mean, technically; SF is far ahead in scope, thanks to the modders, and I'm always going to prefer WW2) but I'm finding the re-released SABOW a pretty good tanksim, and it's continuing to improve. So now, I'm voting 'Yes', to the poll.

I really like the target range feature and targeting tips. Great help for the new player.

Yes, the new firing range is an excellent feature. Now that I have begun to understand how to work with the tank commander, I'm hearing crew drills which seem about as authentic as Steel Beasts. The corrections of the fall of shot are often very good, including 'X targets right [or left]' as well as over or short. Co-ax tracer burns out at about 1100m which is also very realistic.

33lima wrote:the new firing range is an excellent feature.

I see there is "Battle editor" option feature. Does it mean u may create a quick "edited battle" (or whatever it is called) and share it with other user? (I mean smth. similar to SF mission). Or u've ability to create only campaign, which consist of the several steps/stages?

When you exit a battle you created using the Battle Editor, you have the option of saving it. If you do, the option 'Battle Editor' will display instead as 'Continue Battle' and you can start off the battle at the point where you exited.

In the 'user' folder, in a subfolder there's a file 'qbattle.cfgpack' which MAY be where this is saved but I'm not sure if SABOW would support multiples of this which could be loaded at will - I'm gessing the 'continue' option just opens that file and can't offer you a choice of multiple saved battles.

There are separate files for each campaign, though, so it may be you can create missions as additional campaigns. Flashburn made a SABOW Angolan campaign for the previous release, which he is trying to adapt for the new one. So it does seem possible for users to create such additional content.

http://graviteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=11855.0

The new SABOW seems more demanding than the original one, but my dated PC can handle it if I dial back the smoke effects and shadows a little, although the FPS can be a bit low in the very detailed Angola terrain...still playable though.

33lima wrote:When you exit a battle you created using the Battle Editor, you have the option of saving it. If you do, the option 'Battle Editor' will display instead as 'Continue Battle' and you can start off the battle at the point where you exited.

That's a very useful feature. Unfortunately, in SF u've to play the whole mission to the end without saving and sometimes it takes ~ 1 hour.
BTW
How long u may play one battle in SABOW?

I like flora on the picture. It looks beautiful!

I'm not sure how long quick or instant battles can last, yet. there are time limits for the 'turns' in campaign missions - the night battle I reported over at CombatAce seemed to end very quickly, after less than 10 minutes. I think that may be unusual, though - one of the manuals says 'A turn lasts for approx. 4 real time hours (depending on your operation settings.)' I'm not really sure yet how the whole campaign thing works. The set of Youtube videos by simDeck attempts to illustrate the campaign in action:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfEhPSLnoVY

I have seen Andrey say somewhere recently that they are considering sets of more conventional missions, without the wargame element. That would be good. But while it is still a distraction from running your own tank platoon, I'm beginning to think the wargame side is a real asset to SABOW - that it is a good wargame and a good tanksim and that once you 'learn the ropes' it adds a whole new tactical dimension for the tanksimmer to enjoy.

I see the T62 driver has raised his head out of his hatch. Whenever I press O in the driver's position the hatch opens but the driver does not have his head exposed as he does in that screen shot.

I think he will keep his head down, if the main gun is in action or too close!