Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[Bond_Villian]

Someone mentioned this recently after a TGIF game, and it seemed like a good idea; Limited 'burn time' (perhaps 5 minutes or so) for things that can be set on fire (vehicles, houses namely). Frame rates really do take a hit when you have entire towns churning out smoke and fire.

Also; 'burnt/destroyed' textures for vehicles and buildings would be nice (if even possible i dont know).

Cheers

 

 

 

 

Also also; Crewable PT76, AMX13 and Scorpion!

 

[daskal]

Chinese Type 99

[dpabrams]

New M1 family of models. Still a pretty good looking model but not as detailed as more recent 3D model additions. Same goes for the Bradley being updated. I would especially like to see the M2/3A0 and A1's, playable. Then perhaps a M163 Vulcan. One can wish.

[Grenny]

...the M2A3 would be a blast too.

[mpow66m]

I tbink a vulcan would be great.

[ghostdog688]

I’m sure it’s been mentioned to death, but I’d really like a t-64 variant of some description to pair with the t72’s. That or a t80. Is this an issue with modelling or is this is a contract/legal issue?

[Nike-Ajax]

1 hour ago, ghostdog688 said:

I’m sure it’s been mentioned to death, but I’d really like a t-64 variant of some description to pair with the t72’s. That or a t80. Is this an issue with modelling or is this is a contract/legal issue?

That would also make sense in a Ukrainian campaign

[ghostdog688]

It also makes sense for an 80s era “red tide” or fulda gap scenario. The t-64 was fast, low profile and with its barrel fired  atgm’s in the later upgraded models, deadly from a distance. It would’ve represented the cream of the crop and the very tip of the spear for a soviet advance. The t72’s would’ve followed closely behind as the backbone of the advance too.

Edited January 11, 2018 by ghostdog688

[Ssnake]

A playable T-64 - I'd love to add it, but the number of countries operating them is limited, pretty much all of them are in an undeclared war and have other things on their mind than supporting a German/US game developer with access to the vehicles and to their user manuals. The same goes for a T-80. I won't rule out that at some point an unexpected opportunity might present itself. Even then we'd still need an open slot in the development work plan, and if I'm doing my job as the sales force, such an open slot would never emerge. Fortunately for you I'm only a mediocre sales guy.

[ghostdog688]

I totally understand. After all, it is a wish list...

 

if someone (not me - I’m not clever enough) were to submit user-made interiors for your approval would this help at all? Just wondering if the fans can crowd source their way into the tanks they want a la FSX.

i realise here would be several QA related issues with this, and I certainly don’t want your inbox flooded with “offers”. But I know the PE crowd will always take a back seat to the actual military contracts (rightly so and fair enough), and older tanks like this, while greatly appreciated, are less and less likely to show up for the reasons mentioned. Hypothetically, If the talented modellers in the community can build it, would you be tempted to work towards integrating it(acknowledging it as not officially supported of course)?

Edited January 11, 2018 by ghostdog688

[Ssnake]

QA really is the issue here.

To be honest, if the community had access to the necessary documentation for adding a vehicle that would allow you to create a model with a sufficient level of detail you could just as well give us access to that documentation and then we would build it for you. I think this would be the by far more efficient approach because we could task artists with it that have the necessary experience.

Sure, there's still the issue of potential scheduling conflicts. But whether the project doesn't fly because of quality problems with a submitted model (and don't forget, eSim Games would still have to program the fire control system model around that 3D user interface shell) or because of our scheduling is, at the end of the day, irrelevant for the PE community. The only difference is that the former requires you to put a lot of (fruitless) effort into this which probably only helps to increase frustration levels on all sides.

 

Also, hobbyists are notoriously unrealiable which is a serious problem with scheduling even "no deadline" projects - particularly if they are combined with deficient communication habits (you bust a deadline? I can typically work around it, but at least let me know - in advance). Typically amateurs totally underestimate the amount of work and are unwilling to compromise the level of quality because they don't realize (yet) that they will run into scaling issues:

Say, all 50 components are modelled to the highest standards (disregarding "minor details" like polycount and texture space) which may take "3 time units each", you end up with a total project time of 150 time units; our professional artists might only do 10 components at level 3, another 10 at level 2, and the remaining thirty at "level 1" resulting in a project time of 30+20+30=80 "time units", or roughly half the time; next, they can work eight hours a day on such a project rather than two - so, another factor four; finally, they are typically at least two times more productive because they have established workflow and experience with the tools. So the professional artist will probably finish such a project between eight and sixteen times faster than the amateur (whose end result, provided it ever gets finished, may actually look great - I'm not debating that).

 

Also, communication behavior with hobbyists is typically bad (we would not get informed about delays even IF there was an agreement about a certain delivery deadline) until after the deadline has passed (and with it the window of opportunity to actually integrate the model). Then come the hilarious stories why the model couldn't be finished, like (and I kid you not, these are real-life examples that I personally witnessed):

• Gangrene in right hand (cat bite)
• Computer crashed, forgot the backup discs in the summer house in Normandy
• Oh no, thieves raided the house in Normandy
• Got arrested for helping a neighbor moving house (because the neighbor smuggled cocaine in the furniture)
• Outbreak of schizophrenia
• Bipolar disorder (can work only during the manic period)
• NASA called, urgent request to replace a sick astronaut on the ISS

(Okay, one of these I made up.)

 

Last but not least, it feels unfair to exploit hobbyists for serious work. That contributes to the communication issues because I don't want to be the typical management lizard poking the volunteer with a weekly "Is it done yet? Is it done yet?" email. He is, after all, a volunteer, not a wage slave. But a good manager does this because it's actually necessary to learn about problems early on.

[Marko]

You could always buy one.

http://www.russianmilitary.co.uk/for-sale.php?headers=land

But i don't think Missis Ssnake would be pleased,

Plus you would get terrible mileage although parking would not be a problem. LoL

[Captain_Colossus]

On 1/8/2018 at 7:16 PM, Bond_Villian said:

Someone mentioned this recently after a TGIF game, and it seemed like a good idea; Limited 'burn time' (perhaps 5 minutes or so) for things that can be set on fire (vehicles, houses namely). Frame rates really do take a hit when you have entire towns churning out smoke and fire.

Also; 'burnt/destroyed' textures for vehicles and buildings would be nice (if even possible i dont know).

Cheers

 

 

insofar as that would become an adjustable detail option then that shouldn't be a problem. larger and more persistent fire and smoke was probably number one on my wish list since steel beasts 1.0, not simply because it looks better, but for orientation and navigation purposes it's much more useful. up until recently, you could park a vehicle next to a large pile of burning vehicles and often not even see anything unless they were right in front of you a meters away, because the smoke and fire were these diminutive, under represented plumes and whatnot. now with smoke visible on the horizon for many kilometers away, you can observe and orient yourself to where action is happening, as it should be.

 

i'd hate for steel beasts to reverse on this, i want them to keep going with more environmental effects as much as they can moreover, but if it were a graphical option for the end user to play with, that would be a great solution for everyone.

[ghostdog688]

SSnake i totally get where youre coming from. I anticipated such an answer to be honest, but i figured it was better to ask and put it out there. You dont know if you dont try after all

I hope to see it eventually, but not at the detriment of the things you have prioritised. the reason i wanted the t64 (besides the fact its an iconic tank) is the ATGM from the barrel facility. i think it would add a new tactical dimension to your OPFOR - both AI and crewed. the only reason id prefer crewed (other than the obvious one of us driving them and commanding them ourselves) is that the AI doesnt react as fast as id like to threats. If thats realistic, fair enough. But hey, they call this a wish list for a reason...

 

[smg13]

Hello you all. My first ever post on this forum.

 

Five items that would be interesting to see on future Steel Beast editions (my own particular wish list; SB is already quite amazing and close to perfect):

 

1. The possibility for the AI to fire by mistake on same-side units. (Maybe this is already possible?). It could be set up in the mission editor with a probability % of happening. This will force player to plan tactics considering the need to minimize the possibility of friendly units crossing the field of fire of other friendly units... I am sure this is very important in RL tactics. Also, there is a bit of a "cheat" where you can wait to get the "identified" call from the gunner to know what you are firing on... maybe add the ability to allow the gunner to proceed firing after a "fire" order from the TC even when he can't identify the target? If the TC is able to order "fire" on unidentified targets it weight heavily on the TC (player) to take responsibility of knowing what he is firing on.

 

2. Snipers. Adding the danger of snipers in SB would make the player think twice before unbuttoning. Right now it is so tempting to pop out the head for a look around all the time. But I bet in RL this not so... maybe some of the veterans in the board can correct me on this assumption? Specially around building and urban areas (where snipers seem to congregate) being able to add them in the mission editor would add a new dimension for the player to consider, forcing a more realistic way to operate. 

 

3. Better "destructible" terrain and buildings that deforms with explosions and demolitions.

 

4. The set of tools to make maps. I am aware that these tools are available on the professional edition (a business decision... probably a really good one to only give them to the professional clients). And there are a gazillion maps available. And if you ask nicely some users with access to the tools might make the map you are looking for. But still I want to add this to "my" wish list... having access to the tools, in my case in particular, I would use them a lot. Reading about the process from other forum posts, it seems the process for making maps is intricate and tedious, but not complicated. The process sounds very (VERY) similar to making maps for IL2-1946. I do my own maps for IL2-1946, so finding and working with DEMS and making heightmaps, and importing them and doing corrective work with software is nothing new. It would be nice to make my own maps for specific scenarios I want to try and practice on, or make specific maps for missions in Syria, Cuba, Persian Gulf, South America, Taiwan, Australia... maybe future editions will include these tools for us lowly mortals without a security clearance?

 

5. Add the M551 Sheridan to the tank lineup.

[Gibsonm]

Welcome,

 

FWIW, Snipers are in the game already so you already have a 20% success rate.

[TSe419E]

Also, blue on blue and red on red already happens.  The occasional instance of AI driving in front of, or trying to shoot over, a friendly unit, and hitting, does happen.  Misidentification of a unit across the way, by AI, does not (which is what I think you are asking for).

[MDF]

2 hours ago, smg13 said:

1. The possibility for the AI to fire by mistake on same-side units. (Maybe this is already possible?). It could be set up in the mission editor with a probability % of happening. This will force player to plan tactics considering the need to minimize the possibility of friendly units crossing the field of fire of other friendly units... I am sure this is very important in RL tactics. Also, there is a bit of a "cheat" where you can wait to get the "identified" call from the gunner to know what you are firing on... maybe add the ability to allow the gunner to proceed firing after a "fire" order from the TC even when he can't identify the target? If the TC is able to order "fire" on unidentified targets it weight heavily on the TC (player) to take responsibility of knowing what he is firing on.

 

I would love to see this improvement to the information environment as well.  The immediate obstacle is (I suspect) that the simulation does not perform detection (e.g., line-of-sight ) checks between units that are friendly or neutral towards one another, in order to conserve computing resources.  And this would explain the occasional AI fratricide -- it occurs not because the victim was misidentified, but because a unit generally has no conception of the whereabouts of friendlies/neutrals.  (The main exception to this ignorance would be that platoon members know where the platoon leader is in order to maintain position in formation.)  This is all semi-educated guesswork on my part.

Edited January 15, 2018 by MDF

[smg13]

Snipers already on the game? Ok... I am going to be looking tonight on the editor... wish you had told me the Sheridan is in the game already, I would prefer this to sniper!

 

Yup, target misidentification is what I was thinking about for blue-on-blue events. Last night I made a mission where it all became a very chaotic scene with units crossing all over shooting, ect... I thought to myself -"ummmm, in RL this would never be planned this way for the danger of fratricide, with units crossing sideways over the killzone designated for other units..."- Right now SB allows you to "cheat" knowing you can go all over the place without fear of being hit by your own units.

[Ssnake]

Note that snipers will fire ONLY on enemy personnel that has been configured as an HVT (high value target). Note also that you can set the look of snipers to be civilians. Finally, the choice of weapon is doe via the ammunition menu.

[EasyE]

On 1/12/2018 at 4:09 PM, ghostdog688 said:

SSnake i totally get where youre coming from. I anticipated such an answer to be honest, but i figured it was better to ask and put it out there. You dont know if you dont try after all

I hope to see it eventually, but not at the detriment of the things you have prioritised. the reason i wanted the t64 (besides the fact its an iconic tank) is the ATGM from the barrel facility. i think it would add a new tactical dimension to your OPFOR - both AI and crewed. the only reason id prefer crewed (other than the obvious one of us driving them and commanding them ourselves) is that the AI doesnt react as fast as id like to threats. If thats realistic, fair enough. But hey, they call this a wish list for a reason...

 

 

I would be happy to get and pay for this, in the mean time I would also pay for more non drivable tanks and APCs. T-80B/BV, T-72M1989, T-62M, early T-90s, some modern Chinese tanks , heavy APCs, Challenger 1, Cheiftian Mk10/11, Leo-C2.  Don't need to be drivable.

 

Drivable, That would be ideal but perfect should never be the enemy of good.

 

[Gibsonm]

40 minutes ago, EasyE said:

I would be happy to get and pay for this, in the mean time I would also pay for more non drivable tanks and APCs. T-80B/BV, T-72M1989, T-62M, early T-90s, some modern Chinese tanks , heavy APCs, Challenger 1, Cheiftian Mk10/11, Leo-C2.  Don't need to be drivable.

 

I'm not sure what your "share" would be but if it were say $1,000 per vehicle (based on the $XX,xxx amount quoted a little while ago) are you still "happy"?

 

Then who do you play with?

 

If you have a playable T-64 and I don't - how does multi-player work?

 

Does everyone need to buy the same DLC (for want of a better term) in order to play either against you or with you?

 

I'm not trying to be overly critical - just working through the possible implications.

 

Edited January 16, 2018 by Gibsonm

[Bond_Villian]

8 hours ago, smg13 said:

Snipers. Adding the danger of snipers in SB would make the player think twice before unbuttoning.

Yeah as others have mentioned, snipers are available, and they will only engage units designated as HVT's, but you cannot designate crews in vehicles, or vehicles themselves, as HVT's.

 Cheers

 

[EasyE]

2 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

 

I'm not sure what your "share" would be but if it were say $1,000 per vehicle (based on the $XX,xxx amount quoted a little while ago) are you still "happy"?

 

Then who do you play with?

 

If you have a playable T-64 and I don't - how does multi-player work?

 

Does everyone need to buy the same DLC (for want of a better term) in order to play either against you or with you?

 

I'm not trying to be overly critical - just working through the possible implications.

 

For a playable vehicle I would pay up to 100$ for certain ones.  No playable depending on the level of detail.  For an update with a large number of cold war era and modern era vehicles I could see shelling out greater then 100$

 

"Then who do you play with?"

 

I am happy to use it in single player as I don't do multilayer much currently.  That may change when work slows down.

 

"If you have a playable T-64 and I don't - how does multi-player work?"

 

I suppose I drive it  and you shoot at me.

 

"Does everyone need to buy the same DLC (for want of a better term) in order to play either against you or with you?"

 

I don't see why that needs to be the case.  DCS works rather well with that model.

 

My thoughts are more along the line. I am willing to pay more for an update if there are popular AFVs included.

 

I will buy the next update regardless.

[Gibsonm]

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't get the whole set you are after for a mere $100. Maybe $100 each.

 

Ssnake may well expand on this, but I think the basic issue is you need to employ new staff to build these.

 

Say their wages + Super + = $70,000 per year (that's a completely random figure - I have no real idea).

 

Say they make 5 vehicles per year (given eSim's standards, plus time arranging access, taking photos, accessing documents).

 

Lets say airfares, accommodation, etc. to actually take the 'photos, etc. is say $4,000 per vehcile.

 

$70,000 + 5 x $4,000 = $90,000 / 5 = $18,000 per vehicle.

 

If you are one of say 100 people who want vehicle X then vehicle X is going to cost you approx. $180 ea.

 

You listed around 13 vehicles in your post so your set costs you = $2,340

 

Of course if only 20 people want "Leo-C2" your price for that one model is now roughly $900.

 

eSim has no idea who does and does not want these vehicles, unless you start signing contracts to say you will buy it, so they would need to assume fairly conservative demand / sales with a resulting premium price.