Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[Gibsonm]

3 minutes ago, Hedgehog said:

Is there a specific reason as to why the ASLAV-25 is Crewable and LAV-25 is not?

 

I suspect because we paid for it?

 

Its also a little different inside the turret.

 

Edited May 30, 2021 by Gibsonm

[Hedgehog]

27 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

 

I suspect because we paid for it?

 

Its also a little different inside the turret.

 

But what's stopping the LAV from using the ASLAV / NZLAV FCS?

And the ASLAV turret in SB is as basic as it gets, yeah yeah "classifed"

[Gibsonm]

1 hour ago, Hedgehog said:

But what's stopping the LAV from using the ASLAV / NZLAV FCS?

And the ASLAV turret in SB is as basic as it gets, yeah yeah "classifed"

 

Well I wasn't involved in the contract but I know different countries have different versions and maybe the lawyers put in a clause that said "IP purchased by the ADF only for use in an ADF model" or similar.

 

i.e. An application of "if you want the milk, buy the cow".

 

Not everything is limited by just its classification.

Edited May 30, 2021 by Gibsonm

[Maj.Hans]

On 5/29/2021 at 5:23 AM, Rad said:

 

Are the Hellfires on there to give it a secondary anti-armor role or an anti-tank defensive capability, or are they actually intending to use them as a surface to air missile?

[Rad]

On 6/1/2021 at 9:57 PM, Maj.Hans said:

Are the Hellfires on there to give it a secondary anti-armor role or an anti-tank defensive capability, or are they actually intending to use them as a surface to air missile?

Yes, AGM-114R (Hellfire Romeo).
Produced: 2012–Present
Target: All Targets
Range: 8,000 m (8,700 yd)
Guidance:
Semi-active laser homing
Warhead: Multi-function warhead, reduced net explosive weight for low collateral damage (R-9E and R-9H).
Weight: 49 kg (108 lb)
Speed: Mach 1.3
Length: 180 cm (5 ft 11 in)
Unit Cost: $99,600 (All-Up Round, 2015 USD)

https://web.archive.org/web/20150722083430/http://www.msl.army.mil/Documents/Briefings/JAMS/HF_Romeo_Public Release Briefingrev1.pdf

Edited June 3, 2021 by Rad

[Rad]

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Cold War Armor

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/north_korea/north_korean_tanks.php

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/north_korea/m1981-shinheung/

[Lumituisku]

Still wishing for loader position to be crewable...  one day  hopefully.   

 

Also wishing for identification pictures / numbers. In Finnish army they use "Hearts, Spades, Diamonds ja Clubs"   as platoon vehicle tags.   I am not sure witch one is witch though.

One day perhaps.    

 

  I am pretty sure these both have been mentioned many times, already over the years, but sometimes one wants to get bit of feel of these places so got bit of screenshotting  done while wishing.   And heh.. I am not only one...  most of my friends  I play with roughtly 8 wish for these too.   

 

 

[Maj.Hans]

On the Leopard 1 & 2 I wish for the ability to move the Loader's MG over to the commander's side so that I can get my hands on it.

[Rad]

Every playable infantryman shoot from all small arms standing and kneeling.

 

[Grenny]

13 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

On the Leopard 1 & 2 I wish for the ability to move the Loader's MG over to the commander's side so that I can get my hands on it.

Nope, the Loaders position should be modelled.

The is no physical option to move the MG to the TC side

[iamfritz]

Now hear me out before you judge me:

 

I play War Thunder with my son a lot. He loves tanks and planes and it's one of our connection points. Don't spoil a father's pride...

 

But one thing I've learned with WT is that forest shadows make very effective hiding places for the enemy, or myself. To be sitting there, looking into a tree line and not seeing anything until "Pop"-"TANNGGGGG!!!" just to the right where you were looking is very unnerving.

 

So if we could add shadows to the trees (make it an option for the fps challenged, of course) it would be a tactical enhancer to the simulation.

[iamfritz]

Another wishlist item- enemy that retreats when they lose a certain percent of their force.

 

I know this can be "programmed" into scenarios via the mission creator, but I think it should be in the basic AI code. All modern wars the enemy knows when he's beat and withdraws.

[iamfritz]

On 4/22/2021 at 12:41 AM, Rad said:

And now for the IL-2: The second new technology is Dynamic Visual Damage (DVD) that visualizes the hit marks from various projectiles on aircraft and tanks. Please note that is a visual tech that is intended to make the battle damage more vivid and interesting. Just like the tactical codes, this new tech already works on all Tank Crew tanks, P-51D-15 and Nieuport 28.C1 planes. Again, we plan to enable it for all other 60+ aircraft this year.

Maybe not modelling it so precisely ((I can definitely see the challenges in this), but when a tank blows up catastrophically, have a burnt out skin to put on it, or over its existing skin with alpha channels.

[Gibsonm]

2 hours ago, iamfritz said:

Maybe not modelling it so precisely ((I can definitely see the challenges in this), but when a tank blows up catastrophically, have a burnt out skin to put on it, or over its existing skin with alpha channels.

 

So the turret being some distance away from the hull and the pillar of fire from the turret ring isn't clear enough?

[Ssnake]

3 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

So the turret being some distance away from the hull and the pillar of fire from the turret ring isn't clear enough?

It's not always such a clear case, and our vehicles don't burn for days to relieve stress on the particle system to maintain good frame rates even at late stages of a battle, so: No.

[Mirzayev]

6 hours ago, iamfritz said:

Another wishlist item- enemy that retreats when they lose a certain percent of their force.

 

I know this can be "programmed" into scenarios via the mission creator, but I think it should be in the basic AI code. All modern wars the enemy knows when he's beat and withdraws.

 

Do they? Just today I watched an entire BN die after bumbling into an enemy's kill zone. They just kept throwing combat power at a problem that wasn't going to be solved by throwing more combat power into the meat grinder. Just sending one company in after the other until they all died on terrain that could have been taken using other means. 

 

This doesn't also account for specific triggers or conditions (in the tactical sense, not in SB terms) that are made based on incomplete information, wrong information, or just not made at all. Many a unit has died in place because they had no idea on when to displace. 

[Gibsonm]

I think when he refers to AI that he means scripting options.

 

"Retreat if ...", etc.

 

[Ssnake]

We had a feature like that in SB 1, and we removed it - probably because people at the time didn't like it. The question is, should all units displace immediately on a general vector "away" from the opposing party (where is "away" on a 360° battlefield that seems to characterize modern conflict?). Should the enemy switch to a fighting withdrawal? where fast units stay longer to buy time for the slow ones?

 

Once that you look into the finer detail, the answer to the question "what to do if you're losing" becomes shrouded in complexity. We decided back then that the mission designer should decide how and which units should do what if a general "Retreat" event became true rather than a general (and forced) rout of everybody, everywhere.

[Bond_Villian]

Wish;

All available munition types quantities shown in the Support dialogue box. Currently the player doesnt know how much (if any) airstrike or precision munitions are available

[iamfritz]

On 6/11/2021 at 8:48 PM, Gibsonm said:

 

So the turret being some distance away from the hull and the pillar of fire from the turret ring isn't clear enough?

But that doesn't always happen. Now my missions are usually only with company size forces (occasionally btln if I have time), but tanks and IFVs do not always blow up catastrophically. Sometimes they just smoke, and about 1/4 of the time they just stop working because the crew is incapacitated but the tank is still kinda intact.

[Grenny]

13 minutes ago, iamfritz said:

But that doesn't always happen. Now my missions are usually only with company size forces (occasionally btln if I have time), but tanks and IFVs do not always blow up catastrophically. Sometimes they just smoke, and about 1/4 of the time they just stop working because the crew is incapacitated but the tank is still kinda intact.

Well, no fire in that case then...and to see the damage IRL, you'd also have to be rather close to the vehicle. Don't know what you expect to see in SB??

[Gibsonm]

1 hour ago, iamfritz said:

But that doesn't always happen. Now my missions are usually only with company size forces (occasionally btln if I have time), but tanks and IFVs do not always blow up catastrophically. Sometimes they just smoke, and about 1/4 of the time they just stop working because the crew is incapacitated but the tank is still kinda intact.

 

You should often see the gun depressed (as the hydraulics fail), or a thin smoke trail, or similar indications that all is not well.

 

Admittedly not obvious at longer ranges, but then again those indicators aren't obvious in real life either.

 

This results in some doctrinal engagement drills to "shoot until it burns". The intense heat of a fire tends to ruin the armour too so if the vehicle is recovered its not just a case of patching the hole and sending it back out again.

[Maj.Hans]

On 6/11/2021 at 1:49 AM, Grenny said:

Nope, the Loaders position should be modelled.

The is no physical option to move the MG to the TC side

 

Seems to work okay.

[Ssnake]

That the loader's MG mount is compatible with the TC's hatch ring is undisputed. But moving it to the TC's hatch makes it then the TC's MG. As long as it is the loader's MG the TC can't operate it.

Not sure how widespread the practice to put the MG on the Leopard commander's hatch was, outside of Greece. For Germany at least it runs completely against the doctrine of relieving the commander from all weapons handling so he can concentrate on the task of supreme importance, commandeering.

[Gibsonm]

11 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

That the loader's MG mount is compatible with the TC's hatch ring is undisputed. But moving it to the TC's hatch makes it then the TC's MG. As long as it is the loader's MG the TC can't operate it.

Not sure how widespread the practice to put the MG on the Leopard commander's hatch was, outside of Greece. For Germany at least it runs completely against the doctrine of relieving the commander from all weapons handling so he can concentrate on the task of supreme importance, commandeering.

 

We didn't do it in Australia either - same rationale.