Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[Captain_Colossus]

add a rattling / vibration / air distortion effect with high explosive bursts within appropriate range of the user's camera or view. can toggle on and off as a setting per user preference

[Higgs]

The ability to set a speed for a route but in reverse.
We did a convoy scenario today and all the vehicles were going about 25km/h. It would have been nice if I could have set my tank to follow a route in reverse at 25mk/h but if I tell my vehicle to move backwards it goes full speed.

With the Heckabweiser of the Leopard 2 it would be neat to be able to have the hull point backwards and still follow a set speed.

(Obviously limited to the max reverse speed. But at around 30km/h of that on some vehicles you could choose betwenn 10, 20, 25 and 30km/h as you can moving forward.)

[Gibsonm]

On 9/17/2024 at 8:02 AM, Higgs said:

The ability to set a speed for a route but in reverse.
We did a convoy scenario today and all the vehicles were going about 25km/h. It would have been nice if I could have set my tank to follow a route in reverse at 25mk/h but if I tell my vehicle to move backwards it goes full speed.

With the Heckabweiser of the Leopard 2 it would be neat to be able to have the hull point backwards and still follow a set speed.

(Obviously limited to the max reverse speed. But at around 30km/h of that on some vehicles you could choose betwenn 10, 20, 25 and 30km/h as you can moving forward.)

 

Just FYI, I think they are working on the working on the turret being over the back deck when given a "retreat" route.

 

i.e. first XX metres the tank just moves backwards (gun and hull front toward the enemy), then for longer routes the hull turns so the front of the hull faces the direction of travel, while the gun is at 6 O'clock.

I didn't ask about setting the speed though.

 

Edited September 18 by Gibsonm

[Parachuteprone]

I wonder if it would be helpful to start a new "Wish List" after every major patch ?

This one has been running since 2011 and I suspect many of the original requests have been done or forgotten.

If it's intended as a general guide for the devs as to what the community would like to see, I suspect it's difficult for them to use it.

I don't even remember what I've wished for since  13 years ago

I know it would result in repeated/ renewed requests but it may be more functional.

 

[Tankleader]

Quote

 

A keyboard document for each crewed vehicle.

 

Thanks

Tankleader...

[Ssnake]

1 hour ago, Tankleader said:

A keyboard document for each crewed vehicle.

We don't have the manpower to maintain the default key bindings for every single localization in a separate document, for every vehicle (29 vehicle/unit commands lists x 15 localizations = 435 documents to maintain).

As a native US English speaker you may not be aware of it - but there are different keyboard layouts for different countries (some countries even have more than one), and our key bindings try to maintain the grouping of hotkeys in functional clusters rather than scatter them around by simply forcing US habits on everybody. Even if we did this, as soon as the user changes hotkeys the document would become outdated.

 

So, you'll have to do it yourself, I'm afraid. In the Controls (Alt+C) dialog, click Save to HTML to export your key bindings to, well, an HTML table. You could use that as a basis for a custom table (or you could make a screenshot from the Controls dialog for every vehicle (Filter Commands drop-down box), and print those)

[Tankleader]

22 hours ago, Ssnake said:

We don't have the manpower to maintain the default key bindings for every single localization in a separate document, for every vehicle (29 vehicle/unit commands lists x 15 localizations = 435 documents to maintain).

As a native US English speaker you may not be aware of it - but there are different keyboard layouts for different countries (some countries even have more than one), and our key bindings try to maintain the grouping of hotkeys in functional clusters rather than scatter them around by simply forcing US habits on everybody. Even if we did this, as soon as the user changes hotkeys the document would become outdated.

 

So, you'll have to do it yourself, I'm afraid. In the Controls (Alt+C) dialog, click Save to HTML to export your key bindings to, well, an HTML table. You could use that as a basis for a custom table (or you could make a screenshot from the Controls dialog for every vehicle (Filter Commands drop-down box), and print those)

Thanks for responding, German is actually my native language.  It was just a passing thought.  I have been working on some documents on my own for specific vehicles I use more often.

 

Tankleader.

[mpow66m]

Just now, Tankleader said:

Thanks for responding, German is actually my native language.  It was just a passing thought.  I have been working on some documents on my own for specific vehicles I use more often.

 

Tankleader.

Hopefully youll post them in the DL section when completed

[Tankleader]

Just now, mpow66m said:

Hopefully youll post them in the DL section when completed

  I will if I get enough time to finish them.

[Major duck]

They should be included as part of the game in the documents with the appropriate thanks etc..... 

MD

[Gibsonm]

One for ver 5.x or even later.

 

Currently the weapons allocated to the passengers inside vehicles is defined by the Scenario Designer.

 

As a Designer, using the template as a baseline, you can use the “Attach” and “Detach” to move teams from one APC/IFV to another, although they retain the old call signs.

 

As a player though, while the templates provide a basis for structures, you are unable to easily task organise a group.

 

E.g. An AT team is always an AT team. You can’t leave the AT weapon in the vehicle and dismount as say a rifle team.

 

Perhaps we could have an option where the Designer allocates the weapon types (e.g. specifies that the AT team option is say MILAN and the relevant ammunition type)

 

The Designer could allocated weapon and ammunition natures for:

 

Rifle,

Scout / ISR

AT

Support (MG, AGL, 84, Mortar, …) 

 

Then the player during the planning / deployment phase could allocate the weapon systems (or perhaps just prior to dismounting - “Leave the CLU, grab the JIM-LR”) using a "weapon locker" type approach.

 

Ideally you could right click on a team and choose from a list of types. The list would adjust to reflect the Scenario Designer’s parameters.

 

It could be:

• Rifle
• Scout/ISR
• AT
• Support

 

Or if say the Designer didn’t include any AT weapons, the pull down / right click list would only be:

• Rifle
• Scout/ISR
• AT
• Support

 

You would need to cap weapon types (using say the AT weapons from the templates - to avoid a single Platoon having perhaps 12 Javelins).

 

This would let Players clear say buildings with 2 rifle teams (from a vehicle) instead of one rifle team and a group of spectators.

 

Edited September 28 by Gibsonm

[Ssnake]

Nothing beats a TOW missile for room clearance.

[Gibsonm]

21 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Nothing beats a TOW missile for room clearance.

 

Well yes, but there are times when it might be good if they left the ATGM firing post in the vehicle and were equipped to do other jobs as required.

 

[Ssnake]

😜 

[Grenny]

4 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

One for ver 5.x or even later.

 

Currently the weapons allocated to the passengers inside vehicles is defined by the Scenario Designer.

 

As a Designer, using the template as a baseline, you can use the “Attach” and “Detach” to move teams from one APC/IFV to another, although they retain the old call signs.

 

As a player though, while the templates provide a basis for structures, you are unable to easily task organise a group.

 

E.g. An AT team is always an AT team. You can’t leave the AT weapon in the vehicle and dismount as say a rifle team.

 

Perhaps we could have an option where the Designer allocates the weapon types (e.g. specifies that the AT team option is say MILAN and the relevant ammunition type)

 

The Designer could allocated weapon and ammunition natures for:

 

Rifle,

Scout / ISR

AT

Support (MG, AGL, 84, Mortar, …) 

 

Then the player during the planning / deployment phase could allocate the weapon systems (or perhaps just prior to dismounting - “Leave the CLU, grab the JIM-LR”) using a "weapon locker" type approach.

 

Ideally you could right click on a team and choose from a list of types. The list would adjust to reflect the Scenario Designer’s parameters.

 

It could be:

• Rifle
• Scout/ISR
• AT
• Support

 

Or if say the Designer didn’t include any AT weapons, the pull down / right click list would only be:

• Rifle
• Scout/ISR
• AT
• Support

 

You would need to cap weapon types (using say the AT weapons from the templates - to avoid a single Platoon having perhaps 12 Javelins).

 

This would let Players clear say buildings with 2 rifle teams (from a vehicle) instead of one rifle team and a group of spectators.

 

Jepp, thats why IRL the warning-order for the dismount, also tells the team what equipment to take with them.... would love to somehow model that in SB.

 

"Fertig machen zum absitzen,"

"-es sitzen ab Schütze 2, Schütze 3, TrpFhr.

  - MItnehmen: zwo Panzerfaust, Nebel
...melden wenn fertig"

 

[Ssnake]

As soon as I have a good idea how to turn that into a lean user interface. I respect why you want all these details. But I loathe what it did to the Steel Beasts user interface over the last two decades. More details either make multiplayer mandatory where each player focuses on his own mini game inside the big simulation, and/or forces the mission designer to pick smaller and smaller scale for the singleplayer experience.

[Gibsonm]

37 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

As soon as I have a good idea how to turn that into a lean user interface. I respect why you want all these details. But I loathe what it did to the Steel Beasts user interface over the last two decades. More details either make multiplayer mandatory where each player focuses on his own mini game inside the big simulation, and/or forces the mission designer to pick smaller and smaller scale for the singleplayer experience.

 

Perhaps a “pool” of weapons based on the Platoon template.

 

If the Player chooses say 2 ATGM posts from a given vehicle this would exhaust the number available (if 2 is the correct number).

 

This would abstract the process of during Orders both (again assuming 2 is the correct number) ATGM teams mounting up into vehicle X?

 

Like I say though a “wish” for ver 5.x

 

 

[companyteam]

While I get what Gibsonm is asking, I don't really agree with TOTAL flexibility  during scenarion play, especially in the case of heavy weapon teams. 

1.  These are often Bn assets, allocated for a specific purpose.... and they're important to the Bn commander.  If I found that a subordinate was planning on using a heavy weapons team as a line Inf section, I'd be inclined to take the team away and use them elsewhere.

2.  It COULD be useful to give some teams options to account for the teams that DO have weapon options.  Australian heavy weapon sections (for example) CAN be equipped with Javelin, AGL, HMG or extended range MMG - but typically only deploy with one type, based on the projected task.  If they DO take a second weapon type, it's at the expense of ammunition load out as there's only so much that you can fit into a vehicle (or carry).  Snipers are similar with weapon types, but obviously have less restrictions regarding the ammunition.....

 

What COULD be handy is for the scenario designer to program in the options, including the default - but have some form of trigger able to be used in the planning/deployment phase to "spawn"the alternative configurations instead of the default in this planning phase.

[Gibsonm]

1 hour ago, companyteam said:

While I get what Gibsonm is asking, I don't really agree with TOTAL flexibility  during scenarion play, especially in the case of heavy weapon teams. 

1.  These are often Bn assets, allocated for a specific purpose.... and they're important to the Bn commander.  If I found that a subordinate was planning on using a heavy weapons team as a line Inf section, I'd be inclined to take the team away and use them elsewhere.

2.  It COULD be useful to give some teams options to account for the teams that DO have weapon options.  Australian heavy weapon sections (for example) CAN be equipped with Javelin, AGL, HMG or extended range MMG - but typically only deploy with one type, based on the projected task.  If they DO take a second weapon type, it's at the expense of ammunition load out as there's only so much that you can fit into a vehicle (or carry).  Snipers are similar with weapon types, but obviously have less restrictions regarding the ammunition.....

 

What COULD be handy is for the scenario designer to program in the options, including the default - but have some form of trigger able to be used in the planning/deployment phase to "spawn"the alternative configurations instead of the default in this planning phase.

 

Well I wasn't arguing for total flexibility but it can be frustrating, esp. with other nations, when it seems almost half the manning of a Mech Inf Platoon is permanently (as far as the player is concerned armed with say Javelin).

 

Close quarter combat while lugging a CLU around is less than ideal.

 

There would also need to be a control issue when vehicles were destroyed.

 

A sole survivor vehicle shouldn't retain the same options as a full Platoon as many of those weapons are inside the now destroyed vehicles of the Platoon.

 

[Hedgehog]

Trabbies

Ladas

Rover 2000 & 3500

Jaguar Mk2

 

etc

[mpow66m]

What is a trabbie?

[Gibsonm]

6 minutes ago, mpow66m said:

What is a trabbie?

 

Trabant - East German "volkswagen" - as in people's car, but crap.

 

Edited September 29 by Gibsonm

[Ssnake]

2 hours ago, mpow66m said:

What is a trabbie?

Mostly made of plastic, anaemic and stinky two-stroke engine, and you had to wait 20 years to get one. This one with ironic Go Faster stripes:

[TSe419E]

I rather like the look of them.

[Ssnake]

How about this one?