Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[Major duck]

On 2/15/2023 at 8:37 PM, Hedgehog said:

A hot key to tell the Platoon to swap sides.

 

In the context of platoon layout.

3 1 4 2 to switch to 2 4 1 3

Or 1 2 to switch to 2 1

 

Is best used when using a partially manned platoon

OR 2143 👍

[TSe419E]

Just installed 4.377.  Still lovin' the heat blur.  Would love it if, in future updates, its persistence would be affected by temperature and wind.

 

Also, can't wait for the intensity of the illuminated daylight reticles to be adjustable.

[DanTDBV]

I have 2 wishes for the Maps installer.

 

1. That you show on the download page when the installer was last updated.

 

Then it is possible with a quick glance in our local SB downloads folder to see whether or not it needs to be redownloaded, by just looking at the downloaded file  date.

 

2. To get a “Do this to all files” checkbox for Yes or No to replacing files when reinstalling into an existing maps folder.

 

It takes quite a while when you have to chose for each file when reinstalling everything.

 

It could be to install the rest of the maps, as an attempt to repair a corrupted install, or as I did a full reinstall because I was not certain that I had the latest version.

[Ssnake]

The basic map packages are not going to change. The map packge installer won't change for the foreseeable future. The whole point of separating the maps from the rest into a separate installer is that you don't have to re-download, re-install it every time that Steel Beasts gets updated.

[MTLB-CMDR_Finn]

Well, I would love the following:

 

- Loaders place in tanks. Not a lot to do, but adds to immersion, lets additional crewman to spot and use MGs if equipped. 

 

- Recoilles rifles and Soviet cold war AT-guns (infrantry operated, like HMGs) and towed artillery. Would make missions more varied and interesting.

 

-More dynamic way to issue commands commander to gunner. In the way of "Put one HEAT in that building", "Fire again to make certain its dead", "Fire at will against that treeline" 

 

-Issue orders to loader considering LMG, like "Supress infrantry at the front". Loading would obviously stop for duration of that order

 

-Way for the commander to dismount and do short recce, like going to check whats over that ridgeline.

 

-Snipers and infrantry would target vehicle crews. Would teach to keep your head down. 

 

-Simulate tank terror for infrantry. Most soldiers would run if whole company of Leo 2A6s charge towards them or they hear tank engines in darkness and receive fire that they cant return.

 

-Way to choose if you tank has ERA panels, loaders machine guns or soviet log, etc.

 

-Way to use said log. Also, way to use T-72s bulldozer blade to dig firing position.

 

-More of a personal thing, but I would love to use modernized T-55s.

 

-T-90M.

 

 

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by MTLB-CMDR_Finn

[Gibsonm]

8 hours ago, MTLB-CMDR_Finn said:

Well, I would love the following:

 

- Recoilles rifles and Soviet cold war AT-guns (infrantry operated, like HMGs) and towed artillery. Would make missions more varied and interesting.

 

-More dynamic way to issue commands commander to gunner. In the way of "Put one HEAT in that building", "Fire again to make certain its dead", "Fire at will against that treeline" 

 

 

 

There is a SPG-9 on a technical. Whilst its not dis-mountable, you can use an RCL.

 

As for the fire control, unsure what you mean by "dynamic", but you can certainly use:

 

1. Use the "Suppress" tactic and ensure you include the building in the arc.

 

2. The AI wont fire, if the tgts already dead, but I guess you can always jump into F6 and hit the space bar.

 

3. The fire control menu choices, which includes "fire at will" and target a location.

 

They may not be exactly what you want, but should get you a bit to closer to what you are after.

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Gibsonm

[Hedgehog]

When tanks cook off ammo apart froma fireworks display nothing else happens (No shrapnel / overpressure)

As a temp fix a hard wired IED device using remaining ammo?

AS a way of teachin softskin and inf to not hang around Tanks.

 

We had a Kanium game where @Major duck's tank blew up from a AT-11/AT-14 hit

and my teeny tiny recce jeep was just like "Meh" parked about 50 meters away.

 

Think a 60 tonne tank going boom might at minimum rattle some heads?

 

@Lumituisku's image

Edited March 12, 2023 by Hedgehog

[Ssnake]

Well, if the turret doesn't pop, the shockwave is confined by the tank itself, and then vented upwards through the hatches. It's also usually not a detonation, but rather a conflagration, as far as ammo propellant setting off is concerned; longer lasting overpressure, but without the super-severe spike.

 

It's true; maybe there should be some effect and there isn't. Ist just that this particular example might not have been so bad in real life either, from 50m away. 

[Lumituisku]

9 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Well, if the turret doesn't pop, the shockwave is confined by the tank itself, and then vented upwards through the hatches. It's also usually not a detonation, but rather a conflagration, as far as ammo propellant setting off is concerned; longer lasting overpressure, but without the super-severe spike.

 

It's true; maybe there should be some effect and there isn't. Ist just that this particular example might not have been so bad in real life either, from 50m away. 

 

Well turret did pop. Not seem here because AAR picture.

Reason why we thought about this is that there has been lot of examples of tanks that don't have much left of them afterwards. Mainly T-series but also seen Merkava and some infamous Turkish 2A4s.  Not to forget about some lighter vehicles. 

 

Recently there was video of APC in Current ongoing conflict that was burning. And as it was being by passed from side it cooked and likely destroyed yet another vehicle.  And in comments it was said. - never pass burning vehicle that close or that might happen.

 

So when we saw what happened in picture and thought about poor scouts we got quite sure that it wasn't good place to be for such light vehicle.  And also we were thinking about the learning / educational value it might have for Steelbeast so we thought to put it here for you guys to think about.

 

We were especially concerned about shrapnel that might fly off from catastrophically exploded vehicles. 

Edited March 13, 2023 by Lumituisku

[Ssnake]

Yeah, in real life it's a serious hazard.

Not sure how we could adequately represent it in Steel Beasts, other than the overpressure of the TNT equivalent of the propellant mass going off (which will vary from one event to the next; and as mentioned, there is actually not real equivalency with TNT in conflagrations).

The big hazard are the heavy fragments that will be catapulted, up to several tons heavy (if you consider an entire turret assembly as a "fragment"). I don't think there's an adequate mathematical model for this.

[Lumituisku]

46 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Yeah, in real life it's a serious hazard.

Not sure how we could adequately represent it in Steel Beasts, other than the overpressure of the TNT equivalent of the propellant mass going off (which will vary from one event to the next; and as mentioned, there is actually not real equivalency with TNT in conflagrations).

The big hazard are the heavy fragments that will be catapulted, up to several tons heavy (if you consider an entire turret assembly as a "fragment"). I don't think there's an adequate mathematical model for this.

 

I was going to ask if we're such whiners about (oh that explosion was too big, my tank had almost no ammo left)  and then i though back and realised that oh yeah. I have seen such whining here and maybe guilty for such myself too.   - i can understand urge to get things present correctly though perhaps it would be more important to have somekind of modest blast wave happen in addition to turret pop as a danger and further consideration for not getting too close other tank. 

 

 

Btw i think one thing that already happens in Steelbeast is that turret pops may happen with delay. Not often but sometimes and that is really nice. 

 So  actual explosion would be a  consideration not to get too close to a burning vehicle. 

[MTLB-CMDR_Finn]

2 hours ago, Lumituisku said:

 

Well turret did pop. Not seem here because AAR picture.

Reason why we thought about this is that there has been lot of examples of tanks that don't have much left of them afterwards. Mainly T-series but also seen Merkava and some infamous Turkish 2A4s.  Not to forget about some lighter vehicles. 

 

 

I remember reading that Turkish Leo 2A4s extensive damage originates from Turkish Air Force, as after their crews abandoned their tanks/they got hit Turks bombed their own Leos to prevent them from falling into enemy hands. Im not 100% sure about this though.

[CalAB]

I think the Turks employed their armor wrong in the first place, like one tank sitting on top of a hill all alone and begging to be slaughtered. That type of thing. 

[Ssnake]

5 hours ago, MTLB-CMDR_Finn said:

I remember reading that Turkish Leo 2A4s extensive damage originates from Turkish Air Force, as after their crews abandoned their tanks/they got hit Turks bombed their own Leos to prevent them from falling into enemy hands. Im not 100% sure about this though.

I'm not convinced that this actually happened.

At least one of the Leopard 2s had the hull split open exactly where the hull ammo bunker is (forward left corner), with a full quarter of the whole hull disintegrated:

 

That one clearly is a result of a deflagration of the hull stowage, and it should surprise exactly nobody. Steel Beasts predicted that this would happen some 20 years earlier (well, the turret separation part).

In this example, it's the turret bustle rack, which seems to have worked as designed, at least initially:

 

This example reminds more of the first, except that the ammunition deflagration either involved fewer rounds, or was staggered enough to lift the turret out of the hull, but was not so severe as to rip open the hull:

 

Absent in all cases, craters from aircraft bombs.

[Hedgehog]

13 hours ago, Ssnake said:

other than the overpressure of the TNT equivalent of the propellant mass going off

This is what I was thinking.

It'd be a good first step.

 

Do HE and HEAT warheads use "Insensitive" explosives? (I.E. won't go bang by being getting too hot)

[Grenny]

1 hour ago, Hedgehog said:

Do HE and HEAT warheads use "Insensitive" explosives? (I.E. won't go bang by being getting too hot)

Depends on which type and who made them....

 

[Ssnake]

We don't really track that kind of information in SB Pro, and the question is what purpose it would serve if we did. There's different degrees of insensitivity, like the amount of time a certain type of munitions can be exposed to what kind of fire before it sets off, and then the question whether it detonates, or just "rapidly burns" (this is also dependent on pressure and/or friction), and how you, the player, are expected to react to all that.

 

The primary point of the insensitivation is to make logistics easier. The less touchy explosives are, the less elaborate the safety precautions need to be.

There's also, maybe, the chance to delay the big kaboom by a few seconds to allow, hopefully, for emergency evacuation. That emergency evacuation is primarily a physical activity. There's no way how it could be represented with adequacy in a desktop simulation.

Therefore, my gut response is to declare this as "out of bounds" for the purposes of our model of reality.

[Hedgehog]

13 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

We don't really track that kind of information in SB Pro, and the question is what purpose it would serve if we did. There's different degrees of insensitivity, like the amount of time a certain type of munitions can be exposed to what kind of fire before it sets off, and then the question whether it detonates, or just "rapidly burns" (this is also dependent on pressure and/or friction), and how you, the player, are expected to react to all that.

 

The primary point of the insensitivation is to make logistics easier. The less touchy explosives are, the less elaborate the safety precautions need to be.

There's also, maybe, the chance to delay the big kaboom by a few seconds to allow, hopefully, for emergency evacuation. That emergency evacuation is primarily a physical activity. There's no way how it could be represented with adequacy in a desktop simulation.

Therefore, my gut response is to declare this as "out of bounds" for the purposes of our model of reality.

 

 

Well, can get IED Capability for the light stuff like PCs, BMPs, trucks etc?

That way if we, as mission designers want to simulate kaboom  we can

(Apparently the BMP 3 is very good at tearing itself apart if hit)

 

 

With the understanding that if you start abusing it you're going to get weird results.

[Ssnake]

At this point, I'm hesitant to commit to such a development effort. I'd rather have the team focus on working on V5, just so we get that done faster. It will make so many feature developments so much easier.

[Captain_Colossus]

given lessons from current events where artllery and precision munitions characterize the nature of modern high intenity conflict, where positioning and repositioning naturally come from that as a result, steel beasts might arguably need to abstract some form of counter battery behavior, that is, perhaps at the very least a simplified representation of counter battery radar or more or less physical representation of mobile radar systems on the map as targets, which probably implies some automation of computer smartly displacing its own artillery units to compete against human players in real time (though i am sure this is hardly a trivial matter to develop, nevertheless, it does seem to be an essential matter with all the obvious caveats considered)

Edited March 14, 2023 by Captain_Colossus

[Ssnake]

How much more complicated can we make Steel Beasts before we lose the majority of people for whom it isn't too complicated already?

[Captain_Colossus]

i do not know- but then, that is a rhetorical question. the retort to that might be: granted, what happened came as a bit of a surprise to everyone that it turned into this, but how much can it be ignored given this IS what it is? maybe it would be better suited for your professional customers if accessibility is a problem for the consumer market, but if they arent requesting it, i suppose that is tbe answer

[Lumituisku]

26 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

How much more complicated can we make Steel Beasts before we lose the majority of people for whom it isn't too complicated already?

 

Isn't it in the end mission creators choice whether to or not use Complicated items / features.  Those who want it easy... Will use it easy those who want the burden of a feature... Probably have  audience of those who are interested of it. 

 

 

That is btw major reason why I love Steelbeast.  You can have a lot. But you don't need to use or know everything as it works with AI just as well. ❤️

Edited March 14, 2023 by Lumituisku

[Gibsonm]

54 minutes ago, Lumituisku said:

 

Isn't it in the end mission creators choice whether to or not use Complicated items / features.  Those who want it easy... Will use it easy those who want the burden of a feature... Probably have  audience of those who are interested of it. 

 

 

That is btw major reason why I love Steelbeast.  You can have a lot. But you don't need to use or know everything as it works with AI just as well. ❤️

 

Its only a finite team.

 

Surely its better they focus on stuff a large group want "fixed" or introduced rather than implement (and then troubleshoot) a feature that so far say 2 people want (I get that some people may want it but have yet to post).

 

I can just imagine the "feedback" if they say:

 

"We have stopped work on Helicopters or Infantry anti armour weapons or ... to model cook off blast effects on vehicles"

 

Yes, its a wish list but that doesn't mean you'll get it.

 

Edited March 14, 2023 by Gibsonm

[Captain_Colossus]

yes, finite resources are implied in any request- however that wasnt the explicit reason against it but that it was rather hinted that it might be technically overwhelming for consumers (and that is what lumituisku was driving at given the  sandbox nature of steel beasts which scales with user preferences); in any case it goes without saying whatever happens is esim's decision. i proposed what i said because i do not believe it is a sideshow or some small event but the main act we are seeing now, at least in this phase. it really does appear this is what it looks like when two combatants have access to similar capabilities in long range missiles, artillery, precision munitions and real time capabilities to detect and fire on one another's positions more or less- something no one has really seen perhaps since the iran iraq war. this is why trench warfare suddenly returned and you see routinely these cat and mouse pursuits where parties are hunting one another's artillery, radar sites, air defense sites and vehicle concrerations. maybe this is calculated as outside the scope of the simulation for the investment of resouces, but any party would ignore as a fluke or a one off at their own peril. be that as it may,  it is not my business decision to make, but i must respect where that comes from

Edited March 14, 2023 by Captain_Colossus