homepage Forums Land & Armor Combat Armor Simulations - General M1TP2 v steel beasts Gold.

is steel beasts gold worth getting or is it not that much different from m1tp2?

Anti-Plato
Member
Member # 6481  posted 01-08-2001 03:49 PM                   

I just really started trying to play it. Here is my take:
All missions just boil down to attack or defend, which in practice really means there is just one, and that is attack. On defense missions, I simply pull back my supporting elements and hide them somewhere throughout the battle and send my tank platoon straight up the map. Eventually we stumble onto a reinforced motorized rifle battalion, which we annihilate. And that's all there is to it, since the very short arty splash times means to stay in one place and defend is suicidal. And the defense-in-depth, contrary to all the banter in the manual about strategy, is pointless. To retreat to a better firing position means to expose your rear armor to the enemy, who doesn't really do anything too aggressive anyway, except sit there and engage at long range.

Steel Beasts often gets hammered for lack of air units, but in this game, they serve no real purpose other than target shooting. Enemy and friendly air resources get routinely shot out of the sky. When I first saw two Su-25's and a Hind 24 circling about me, I nearly soiled myself. However, it didn't take me long to figure out that the M1 is a very effective mobile armored air defense weapon as well. Air units simply offer themselves as a sacrifice at the engagement ranges of every ground unit in the vicinity and circle lazily as if taking their girlfriends out for a pleasant ride.
Furthermore, I was amazed at how invulnerable the M1 is to the weapons on these aircraft. As a further comparison to SB, there is almost no feedback when your tank is hit. It doesn't jolt or rock or anything. It feels like wearing a suit of armor when some kid is throwing paper airplanes at the player. It's also hard to know who gets killed in the tank.

The thermal sights in SB are much better graphically. The missing raster lines in the display look very authentic in particular. In contrast, the thermal view in M1TP2 is just plain flat and ugly. The colors look exaggerated. When rockets are coming toward the player, they look rather cartoonish. The actual vehicle models look nice, but they aren't animated as well in most areas as SB, although they do have moving caterpillars. There are almost no quiet kills, and T-72's simply vaporize the same way every time they are killed. There is no dust or dirt kicked up at all.

The sky is refreshing. I like seeing the oil fires on the horizon, the overcast skies over eastern Europe, the haze on the horizon, and the night battles. The best reason for me to play this game is for gazing at the atmosphere.

I am having a hard time simply trying to get the game to work right. Maybe because I am running Direct 8X and the program doesn't appreciate the new graphic cards, but I have to reinstall the game every time I want to play because the opening menu always blacks out between sessions when I go out to Windows and then come back. The Direct 3D option gives me exquisite-looking vehicle models, but the terrain is always a neon green, flat soup. It is positively ghastly to look at, so I have to play in software render or in Glide, which do not look any different to each other. Speaking of which, does anyone know what happens if you go back and load an older version of Direct X? I've been too afraid of trying this.

The sounds are booming. They are different than SB's, but just as effective for what they are, but the more subtle, esoteric sounds are missing, like the turret brake.

Weapons effects are dull and cartoonish in general. They look too futuristic and contrived, without all the nice ricochets and sparks found in SB.

The desert terrain looks good, the color palette is better than SB's, but there aren't as many details like shrubs or a desert oasis; nor are there any dramatic hills or dunes in the terrain engine.

The desert skies look much better than SB's; they aren't as pretty and blue and have a nice, dirty horizon. The European terrain in SB wins out easily, but the houses and structures look better in M1TP2, and aren't depicted as that same red barn graphic.

I'll continue to play both games, but for different reasons. Since I played SB before I ever got to M1TP2, the latter is a newer experience for me, and so I'm busier with it at the moment. I guess when the pretty graphics wear off, there's really not much game there, since the sole advantage gameplay wise was supposed to be the dynamic campaigns, but the predictable and passive AI all but negates this advantage. As aws mentioned above, this game is best for that firing from the hip urge we get from time to time.




Anti-Plato
Member
Member # 6481
The infantry are abstracted and resemble the infantry in Panzer Commander. True, there are individual soldiers per se, but they behave like a clustered unit that just sits there as one entire body, like the infantry gun crews and light pillboxes in Panzer Commander or in Gunship 2000.
The infantry "fences" in M1TP2 look and act like cutout targets taken from a shooting range except that they occasionally fire an ATGM at the player.

I find that there really are no mission profiles other than hasty attacks. Even on the defense, you have no real choice other than to scrimmage forward. Driving in reverse or retreating to a better firing position or defensive line just exposes the rear armor of your platoon to the enemy. Your platoon mates aren't too
smart not to do this. And how does the enemy know where your starting position is at the beginning of each battle? Immediately you have to go on the defensive, or move your units in some obscure location because a huge artillery barrage awaits you at the start of every mission. See my next comment.

Because of the limited mission profiles, this game seems to play out exactly the same in every mission, no matter what (except that terrain features sometimes shake things up a bit enough to keep them refreshing and interesting). The incredibly short artillery times cements the game to a very narrow formula and scope. You must constantly stay on the move because artillery is called in on your position every thirty seconds if you sit still. So you must move forward, essentially putting you on the attack, because to take a stand or move backward is suicidal. The AI drivers in the platoon constantly get hug upon each other and bang around when a change of formation is ordered (they are also very good at getting stuck in bogs. They always reverse with their rear areas facing the enemy. On the other hand, this constantly charging forward with guns blazing can be interesting if taken for what it is. It is certainly very frantic, if not altogether action-packed; however, as a serious treatment of armored warfare, it can't be taken too seriously, because very few battlefield tactics actually seem to hold much water in this game.

It's essentially your platoon (and if you are fortunate enough to get assigned a supporting M1 platoon, so much the better) against the armies that any dictator can muster; your few supporting platoons will get wiped out immediately if you try to use them. You have to perpetually stay on the map screen moving them around so they don't stay in place long enough (about 10-30 seconds)to get an arty strike called in on them. On the other hand, if you micromanage them in this matter, you are neglecting your own platoon's situation. Support aircraft are best used as expendable scouts; they WILL get shot down on regular intervals as the rule rather than the exception. Enemy aircraft are just as useless. Their SU25's shoot green laser bolts using really awful Kentucky Windage, and even if they connect, I have never been so much as scratched by one. Shooting them down is nothing more than a minor inconvenience.
Weapons effects are strange. Whether using the .50 cal or main gun, I feel like I am shooting slow-moving suns and stars at everything. Only the coax tracers in Panzer Commander looked worse. However, that isn't to say they don't look bad in M1 either.

Actually, yes, so to answer the question I do play it, but only in the desert theaters. This avoids the clunky forest blocks and ridiculous advantage in material that the old Warsaw Pact Forces get in the European scenarios. Also, the desert terrain looks much better here than in Steel Beasts, which I play for every other reason.

In one sentence each of the modern tank simulations:


* M1TP2 is where all really started 20+ years ago, very promising (AI and Gunship!->M1TP3 saga) never really finished (the market was not big enough for both M1TP2 and SB so MPS VIPs decided to fold).

* SBGold has great single and multi gameplay and indeed poor graphics detracting from the overall positive experience.

* Iron Warriors: T-72 Tank Command - sorry, but that is not something I would risk my time on (the price is <5 bucks on Steam now which is kind of warning!)

* SBProPE is positively the greatest of them all and yet unappealing maybe because is so real! (?)

* SABOW was so far totally overlooked by me and Graviteam's reputation should be recommendation enough. I will follow and research this title more closely while waiting for the Steam spring sale. Thank you 33lima for the heads up here!

Speaking of which...

Mod:
T-72 Tank Command Gastello mod

Red