Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[Apocalypse 31]

 

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/14648-hand-crank-turrets/

[Bond_Villian]

Martian Fighting Machines (Tripods) and horse drawn artillery

 

[Arch]

8 hours ago, Legodude9 said:

I bring a new feature requests to the Wishlist!

-Unsighted Cupola traverse bindings. (T-72 style cupola buttoned up, M113 Cupola buttoned and unbuttoned are the best examples)
-Also BMP-1 with the pain's that come with the AT-3 Sagger/Malyutka.
-T-55AM, AM1 is non ATGM in GDR/DDR (I don't know how the Soviets marked/numbered their versions) service AM2 has the Bastion ATGM for the gun barrel, a really cool upgrade to the vehicle in my opinion, a cool modernisation just like the T-62M (Soviet designation, unsure if there were others).

Edit: BTR-90 would be cool too, always loved the look and probable ease of manufacture over the BTR-80A

T-62M had the BDD armor, V-55U instead of V-55, improved FCS (and NVG?) and gun barrel ATGMs.

T-62M-1 was the above, but a V-46-5M engine.

T-62M1 was T-62M but with no additional armor and no gun barrel ATGMs.

T-62MK was a command variant with no gun barrel ATGM and the usual command tank things, so radios, probably less stowage etc.

T-62MV is T-62M but with Kontakt-1 instead of BDD.

T-62M Obr. 2022 was an upgrade for the Syrian army but now in service in Ukraine with BDD turret armor, Kontakt-1 hull armor, slats on the turret and sometimes cope cages and 1PN-96МТ-02 thermal imager, allegedly a new production but really is a soviet tech with about 2km range or so.

 

Not 100% sure if it's all correct, so don't take it as gospel. I too would like the T-62M.

[Froggy]

12 years later, I still miss an icon editor to draw units on the map 

[Ssnake]

There's "the" radio voice, and a separate one for each crew member. Also, only radio voices come with a squelch sound. It is pretty clear, IMO.

[Parachuteprone]

Wish the ability to click on a unit to see it's ammo state could be moved to the personal edition.

It's pretty important to know when deciding whether a unit should retreat.

Actually jumping to the unit takes you out of the loop a bit.

 

[mpow66m]

On 8/23/2023 at 8:42 AM, Froggy said:

12 years later, I still miss an icon editor to draw units on the map 

Forgot all about that

[Kev2go]

On 8/17/2023 at 8:54 PM, Arch said:

T-62M had the BDD armor, V-55U instead of V-55, improved FCS (and NVG?) and gun barrel ATGMs.

T-62M-1 was the above, but a V-46-5M engine.

T-62M1 was T-62M but with no additional armor and no gun barrel ATGMs.

T-62MK was a command variant with no gun barrel ATGM and the usual command tank things, so radios, probably less stowage etc.

T-62MV is T-62M but with Kontakt-1 instead of BDD.

T-62M Obr. 2022 was an upgrade for the Syrian army but now in service in Ukraine with BDD turret armor, Kontakt-1 hull armor, slats on the turret and sometimes cope cages and 1PN-96МТ-02 thermal imager, allegedly a new production but really is a soviet tech with about 2km range or so.

 

Not 100% sure if it's all correct, so don't take it as gospel. I too would like the T-62M.

 

 

would also be nice to just see the existing crewable T62 get a full interior.

[iamfritz]

On 8/27/2023 at 12:09 AM, Ssnake said:

There's "the" radio voice, and a separate one for each crew member. Also, only radio voices come with a squelch sound. It is pretty clear, IMO.

*Goes back and plays

*Notices radio squelch

*Hangs head in embarrassment, nigh shame

[Ssnake]

Eh, everybody has that one moment, once in a while.

[Grenny]

...again: SOME WAY TO SHOOT THE RIFLE TEAM AT WEAPONS as this is som frustrating to manouvre the team into a near perfect shot positions, and then nothing happens except that the infantry refuses to fire and the tank picking them off.

 

tanks move to easy in forests because of that here

 

[Hedgehog]

Sure it has been asked before:

A headless server version of SB.

With minimal graphic interface.

That could be run with basic graphical interface, with remote user management through another SB instance.

 

Under current setup the host has to play the scenario in the 3d world.

Which is less than ideal when the host is engaged in direct close combat, in wooded terrain, as well as running a large scenario, with a battalion sized elements on both sides.

 

 

[Lumituisku]

2 minutes stare off.. without firing NLAW, no matter what I pressed and did.   

+ Fire at will

+ Shoot this target      and nothing.   

[Gibsonm]

11 minutes ago, Hedgehog said:

Under current setup the host has to play the scenario in the 3d world.

Which is less than ideal when the host is engaged in direct close combat, in wooded terrain, as well as running a large scenario, with a battalion sized elements on both sides.

 

No they don't.

 

If the person hosting chooses to fight in the 3D world that's up to them, they don't have to.

 

You can easily host and stay in the map view, or host on a second machine and just access it when you need to.

 

[Hedgehog]

1 minute ago, Gibsonm said:

host on a second machine and just access it when you need to

which is when a headless client would be useful.

[Gibsonm]

13 minutes ago, Hedgehog said:

which is when a headless client would be useful.

 

Well in that case you can already do it.

 

Just buy a second machine or run it on a remote server that you can access via a KVM or other remote access software (e.g. TeamViewer).

 

You don't need a dedicated executable.

 

I can easily run it as a Player and Host on the same machine in the same instance of the software.

 

Also given that Lumi apparently had issues "stopping the server" (what I heard over TS) then perhaps those performance issues influence his first person view attempt to engage vehicles (i.e. the display depicted a vehicle, but as far as the software was concerned it was no longer there, just hadn't refreshed the screen).

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by Gibsonm

[ingrahammark7]

16 hours ago, Hedgehog said:

Sure it has been asked before:

A headless server version of SB.

With minimal graphic interface.

That could be run with basic graphical interface, with remote user management through another SB instance.

 

Under current setup the host has to play the scenario in the 3d world.

Which is less than ideal when the host is engaged in direct close combat, in wooded terrain, as well as running a large scenario, with a battalion sized elements on both sides.

 

 

I have an AWS account which anyone interested can use for spare compute. 

[iamfritz]

Here's something that would make infantry ops easier: When I group infantry together as an Infantry Task Force, they fall together under one icon with some little "provisional unit" designator. So from then on  when I want them to move I dont have to nervously click around other units to give them movement orders... just click the provisional squad/task force icon and issue them orders together. The sergeant can relay the orders to the rest of the squad.

Also, How about the units dismounting M-2s or M-113s (etc.) are just two teams shown by icon? Or just a squad icon? If I want them dispersed a certain way (micro-managed) I can divide group and tell machine gunner go this way and Javelin gunner go that way.

[Higgs]

Would it be possible to make vehicle emplacements trigger based?
That way one could create a scenario with a force that can be chosen by triggers (for example Trigger 1=M1A2 Abrams, Trigger 2=Leopard 2A6) and still have working vehicle emplacements.

Some emplacements are compatible with the "wrong" vehicle, but especially tanks from eastern origin often don't work with emplacements of other vehicles.

[iamfritz]

Has this been discussed before?

The ability to order a unit or task force to attack a specific target.

An assault target oriented, not terrain oriented.

Like Right click a tank platoon, select "Attack...", then click a tank platoon. Or, infantry attack an enemy platoon. Etc.

[Ssnake]

14 hours ago, Higgs said:

Would it be possible to make vehicle emplacements trigger based?

No. But you can select the option for very much reduced earthwork construction times, and then have an engineer vehicle (or a small fleet of them) construct them after mission start. Of course, you'd still have to wait until they have been created.

 

Alternatively, create all emplacement types inside of a deployment zone, and let the player move the right type to the desired location during the planning phase.

[Lumituisku]

We have ability to spawn units. This helps keeping units in mission reasonable sized so that there isn't too much lag caused by sheer numbers. 

 

I wonder if it would be possible to get ability to "select to De-spawn"  units you don't no longer need or that aren't anymore a factor in the scenario.    

 

I know there is ability to make destroed units to disappear.  But what I am thinking is to have ability to make even alive units to disappear.  And to choose to keep some dead units.  Because those can be mission crusial.   For example..  tank colum destroed on a bridge, making it practically impossible to cross.        That wouldn't work if option for destroed units  to  de-spawn automatically was selected.  

Edited December 7, 2023 by Lumituisku

[Major duck]

And in that spirit get a teleport ability.
In a lot of the bigger scenarios i have made its always been a problem for a lot of AI units that's controlled by an opfor player to get across a bridge because a lot of AI units in a tight space just dossent work very well and as you wont give us the ability to move units with Gods hand like in the PRO version then could we have a teleport zone/Zones where we can drive them into 1 Zone and then they teleport to another zone that way we can avoid the driving into waterways fiasco or the enormous traffic jams. it would be like route move to end if   

MD

[Gibsonm]

On 12/7/2023 at 11:57 PM, Major duck said:

And in that spirit get a teleport ability.
In a lot of the bigger scenarios i have made its always been a problem for a lot of AI units that's controlled by an opfor player to get across a bridge because a lot of AI units in a tight space just dossent work very well and as you wont give us the ability to move units with Gods hand like in the PRO version then could we have a teleport zone/Zones where we can drive them into 1 Zone and then they teleport to another zone that way we can avoid the driving into waterways fiasco or the enormous traffic jams. it would be like route move to end if   

MD

 

I don't know what the issue is.

 

I have scripted Brigades to cross bridges and with some traffic management (convoy speeds, suitable pacing, etc.) it works fine.

 

Edited December 8, 2023 by Gibsonm

[Apocalypse 31]

On 12/7/2023 at 7:57 AM, Major duck said:

And in that spirit get a teleport ability.
In a lot of the bigger scenarios i have made its always been a problem for a lot of AI units that's controlled by an opfor player to get across a bridge because a lot of AI units in a tight space just dossent work very well and as you wont give us the ability to move units with Gods hand like in the PRO version then could we have a teleport zone/Zones where we can drive them into 1 Zone and then they teleport to another zone that way we can avoid the driving into waterways fiasco or the enormous traffic jams. it would be like route move to end if   

MD

A game master style click and drag feature would be really nice to offset the teleporting stuff.