Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[Liudas32]

On 5/16/2020 at 7:04 PM, Grenny said:

Infantry?

They do use bunkers and buildings? If the scenario designer puts the infantry in a wrong position, its not the fault of the "AI"...

 

Helicopters?

SB has no real flight model and ECM suits for the Helicopters. That makes them more vulnerable then they would be IRL.

They should be better at picking battle/firing positions. But "suicidal" they are not...only if given stupid commands by players/sce designers.

And what command should be given to the infantry so that the soldiers keep their positions behind the fence and not in front of it? Yes, if the infantry in the mission sits in one place and stupidly holds one point, it’s still somehow possible, but if you try to maneuver to change positions, to put it mildly, it turns out badly
A bunker that does not even protect against a machine gun is not even a bunker at all, but an imitation of a bunker
The same goes for infantry attempts to hold positions in buildings
So here I can’t assume that the creator of scenario is to blame for everything or that he does not know how to give commands correctly
As for helicopters, I don’t think it’s impossible to teach them to use their weapons correctly or to give them an active defense system

[Grenny]

3 hours ago, Liudas32 said:

And what command should be given to the infantry so that the soldiers keep their positions behind the fence and not in front of it? Yes, if the infantry in the mission sits in one place and stupidly holds one point, it’s still somehow possible, but if you try to maneuver to change positions, to put it mildly, it turns out badly
A bunker that does not even protect against a machine gun is not even a bunker at all, but an imitation of a bunker
The same goes for infantry attempts to hold positions in buildings
So here I can’t assume that the creator of scenario is to blame for everything or that he does not know how to give commands correctly
As for helicopters, I don’t think it’s impossible to teach them to use their weapons correctly or to give them an active defense system

Move the into the right point, give  a "Stay" order...job jobbed

 

[Mirzayev]

3 hours ago, Liudas32 said:

And what command should be given to the infantry so that the soldiers keep their positions behind the fence and not in front of it? Yes, if the infantry in the mission sits in one place and stupidly holds one point, it’s still somehow possible, but if you try to maneuver to change positions, to put it mildly, it turns out badly
A bunker that does not even protect against a machine gun is not even a bunker at all, but an imitation of a bunker
The same goes for infantry attempts to hold positions in buildings
So here I can’t assume that the creator of scenario is to blame for everything or that he does not know how to give commands correctly
As for helicopters, I don’t think it’s impossible to teach them to use their weapons correctly or to give them an active defense system

Infantry are ridiculously difficult to dislodge in Steel Beasts scenarios, due to their occupation of buildings and bunkers. They automatically go into any building or bunker nearby if certain tactics are used, such as "defend." The entirety of this is detailed in the Steel Beasts 4.163 Manual. 

 

So yes, if infantry aren't doing this, it is definitely the fault of the scenario designer for not giving them the proper command. Again, all of this is in the manual. 

[Ssnake]

I appreciate the attempts to point out things that work, but I can't say that I'm entirely satisfied with the infantry behavior in Steel Beasts myself. Now, being dissatisfied is easy, fixing it is an entirely different matter. Still, I suppose we can all agree then there's always something that can be improved.

[Apocalypse 31]

Wish: A map pointer tool. A small blip on the map, something to draw people's attention to parts of the map so that you can brief easier - but not only limited to briefings. 

 

The ArmA ACE mod uses this feature and it's a very helpful tool. 

[Mirzayev]

2 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

Wish: A map pointer tool. A small blip on the map, something to draw people's attention to parts of the map so that you can brief easier - but not only limited to briefings. 

 

The ArmA ACE mod uses this feature and it's a very helpful tool. 

Agreed. Would definitely be useful. 

[daskal]

Would be a nice addition to the have this one: TR-85 M1 tank:

 

https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model/8c1f92d6-3f35-4700-91c8-4cdbbf28e8a6/TR-85-M1-main-batle-tank

[Grenny]

This one!....and playable please 🙂

 

 

[Ssnake]

Plastik Am Himmel...

[Hedgehog]

On 5/19/2020 at 3:36 PM, Apocalypse 31 said:

Wish: A map pointer tool. A small blip on the map, something to draw people's attention to parts of the map so that you can brief easier - but not only limited to briefings. 

 

The ArmA ACE mod uses this feature and it's a very helpful tool. 

A pointing stick.

The tool of officers since time immemorial!

 

For the best effect I recommend Goldfinger's pool cue.

 

(Brings a bit of polish to the scene)

🙂

Edited May 29, 2020 by Hedgehog

[Hedgehog]

On 5/23/2020 at 8:07 PM, Grenny said:

This one!....and playable please 🙂

 

 

Don't forget the Gazelle too

[Bond_Villian]

14 hours ago, Hedgehog said:

Don't forget the Gazelle too

You're forgetting the mi 2 & 4... these ugly bastards would fit right in here

 

[Marko]

Can i stick my nose in.

 

 

[Apocalypse 31]

I'd rather the existing choppers be fixed first!

[Major duck]

On 5/19/2020 at 4:36 PM, Apocalypse 31 said:

Wish: A map pointer tool. A small blip on the map, something to draw people's attention to parts of the map so that you can brief easier - but not only limited to briefings. 

 

The ArmA ACE mod uses this feature and it's a very helpful tool. 

+1

[Apocalypse 31]

Wish: OPFOR Infantry model used the AK-74M instead of the SCAR. I understand the purpose for having a 'more modern' weapon for OPFOR, but the SCAR is just out of place. 

 

Edited June 2, 2020 by Apocalypse 31

[Ssnake]

This is precisely why I didn't want to have hand weapon artwork in the first place. They are all Boom Sticks. Aside from the ammunition caliber and the associated max range, these are nothing but window dressing. There is no functional difference worth discussing in the context of Steel Beasts Pro and this simulation's focus.

 

Squint.

 

Harder.

[Bond_Villian]

43 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

This is precisely why I didn't want to have hand weapon artwork in the first place

...you would prefer infantry models dont show weapons?

[Ssnake]

I was happy with the generic assault rifle in 3.0 and earlier. "Let's add two or three rifles", they said, "just the M16 and AKM", they said. "It'll make the infantry guys happy".

 

Result: Countless hours expended on redundant rifle artwork that doesn't contribute anything but to make small arms weapon fetishists unhappy, who now demand more and more and more and more redundant rifle artwork. You will never be happy. There will always the "the one rifle that doesn't fit"

 

 

Yeah. Deal with it.

[Apocalypse 31]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

Squint.

 

Harder.

Right. That's the spirit.  

[Ssnake]

[Japo32]

Long time without posting, and suppose already said, but for me are important:

 

1. More axis freedom in trackir motion (possible vr in future? but I don't see the VR too much as in this sim we are a good ammount of time in the map)

2. Hotkey assignation to grouping units. That way I can select them fast with hotkeys as the RTS games do. It was discussed that there is a method to group in SB but I didn't like it so much the way it is done.

3. Lights! Normal visual ones, and IR Lights! Of course visible from long distance.

4. I wish we could use a AWSD method to use the infantery in first person view with right mouse button aiming, as any FPS game. I know this is not a FPS game. 

5. More campaigns. I liked the China Farm one, but I need more!

6. And the impossible to make. Reduce the price of the full PE to 50% of it forever. I know.. it is impossible. But maybe you sell the double and make the profit, and I could play with more  poeple that they don't buy because the "expensive" price.

 

I understand the "NOs" to all of them from the developer, but those are my wishlist to make this good sim, a great one.

[Ssnake]

WRT #6, I present you the one-year license at $39.50.

For all I can say, the suggestion that price reductions will be overmatched by an increase in sales is not supported by observable sales reactions whenever we put Steel Beasts on offer. Also, given that a $125.- classic license usually sells for $80.- on eBay (thanks to CodeMeter), the effective price is $45.-

In short, if you want high quality simulations from independent developers that are being supported for decades, you have to be ready to support the required price structure.

 

WRT #5, make one.

[Grenny]

Another game with infantry polishing their nails instead of doing soemthing against an OPFOR tank...we need manual control of AT weapons!!

 

 

[Gibsonm]

Mission Debugger - Duplicate IDs add a "go to" or "select" button.

 

I've just spent over an hour scouring the map trying to find the nominated units that apparently have Duplicate IDs.

 

A visual check could find them so I just deleted everything and started again.

 

Also it only appears to generate results when you do a test run of the scenario, not just by opening the scenario in the Mission Editor as Volcano's post suggests (i.e. there is no mention of hitting the "test" button prior to step 2).

 

Edited July 4, 2020 by Gibsonm