Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[MAJ_Fubar]

1 hour ago, CalAB said:

Someday,

a while from now,

distant and in the future,

over the horizon,

down the road, maybe,

by a twist of fate,

after a massive influx of capitol from an mysterious billionaire,

Pro PE comes to Mac OS 

Or even, dare it be said...Linux?  I, for one, am sure tired of Microsquash...

[Chiquito]

I see we don’t have UR-77 mine clearing. It is an UR-77 in plan for future?

 

 

[Ssnake]

Maybe.

[Chiquito]

Thanks 

[db_zero]

My wish list:

 

1. M-48 both US and Israeli variants.

2. M-60 A1/A2 and Israeli variants

3. Strykers

4. Israeli M-3 Half Tracks

5. Israeli Shermans

6. Amtracs

7. Korean, Japanese and Chinese AFVs.

 

Its a lot of work to make vehicles playable, so I would be content to just be able to control the above.

 

More work on infantry and urban terrain. It would be nice to have multi level buildings and the ability for the infantry to occupy upper levels.

[thewood]

9 minutes ago, db_zero said:

multi level buildings and the ability for the infantry to occupy upper levels

Can't they do that today and for a while?

[Gibsonm]

1 minute ago, thewood said:

Can't they do that today and for a while?

Yes.

 

Applying different tactics will determine which floors they occupy first.

 

All in the Wiki.

[Vikingo]

Keyboard shortcut to activate the "detail camera" (great feature) without going to the menu , thanks! 

[Japo32]

Would it be possible to save the group selections in the saved tactic? It is a little tired to make all groups again everytime we want to try again. 

 

And also, When I make routes from control points in the previous map (or real time) and I make a route, I would like to connect the group to that routes, so all the group follows that route. Now is imposible as only the first vehicle selected is the one that follows even I put to all the group the group route to that initial point.

 

It would be very interesting also that we could manage easily group formations and speeds. right now appears lots of routes that has to be managed manually, and I suppose when we are in multiplayer, several players can do it, but in single is a nightmare.

 

Thanks!

 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Japo32

[Bond_Villian]

58 minutes ago, Japo32 said:

It would be very interesting also that we could manage easily group formations and speeds. right now appears lots of routes that has to be managed manually, and I suppose when we are in multiplayer, several players can do it, but in single is a nightmare.

This has been discussed on the previous 2 pages of this thread. 'Preset groups' and 'copy and paste' routes being the options at the moment.

[Bond_Villian]

1 hour ago, Japo32 said:

And also, When I make routes from control points in the previous map (or real time) and I make a route, I would like to connect the group to that routes, so all the group follows that route. Now is imposible as only the first vehicle selected is the one that follows even I put to all the group the group route to that initial point.

If i understand your question properly; i think you can get the desired result by creating a 'preset group' and connecting the group to a waypoint that has a route leading from it.

EDIT; I just tested it and this does not work- the group does not 'merge' to the route. I thought i read somewhere that it worked that way now, but it doesnt

Edited August 14, 2019 by Bond_Villian

[Scrapper_511]

20 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Maybe.

UR-77? Oh my.

[Bond_Villian]

On 7/4/2019 at 5:14 PM, Ssnake said:

 

With version 4.1, if you connect a preset group to a common waypoint from which a (road) March route starts, they will now start a more or less orderly convoy movement. Then, at the end of the March route (if no other route follows and no tactic has been set, the group will restore the formation (relative positioning to each other) that they had when they started the convoy movement.

@Japo32

Try this

Edited August 14, 2019 by Bond_Villian
emphasis added

[Japo32]

Thanks, so connection has to be made in a road, or a march route option only? Will try anyway...

 

I didn't know about the previous pages (I cannot read all of the wishing pages to see if was asked or not previously, but is good to know other people ask the same). 

I think there is a lot of improvement with preset groups. I think if the group could be graphically assigned as a box with all the content inside of it and you would open it with double mouse click and break it with shift+double click (or control+....); you could apply that that special unit, or box or whatever, same speed, formations, etc... 

I think this is important, to make single player manage possible in large scale battles (I know here are aliens that know how to manage all by themselves... but you know, we are rookies and we would like to spend more time in the 3D than in the map (which is the most important part of SB)

 

Also, please remember the option to save groups already set in the planification files (Pln). Thanks!

[Ssnake]

It'd described in the Release Notes, I even updated the section for the 4.159 version.

[Japo32]

I saw the movement of the group when you press the Control+ key before the click mouse button. And I tried but didn't work also. Mabye I have to click one point before the already created single route to make coincidence of all routes to that point. Didn't try that. But still I would need to change in group the speeds and formation because all the lines are in the same position. Are not a single line, but all of all the units that form the group in the same exact position, and each one has to be modified independently. Something not easy to do.

[Japo32]

Ok, I tried the march route, not in a road, and they didn't follow. The group is disperse when I connect to the single route. It would be nice to improve all the groups thing. It would give us the option to manage great number of units very easily.

I know this example is a game, so please don't tell me again that. But some good things can be imitated from Total War:

 

 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Japo32

[Grenny]

3 minutes ago, Japo32 said:

Ok, I tried the march route, not in a road, and they didn't follow. The group is disperse when I connect to the single route. It would be nice to improve all the groups thing. It would give us the option to manage great number of units very easily.

How to determine formation, tactic ect. How to adapt large unit formations to the terrain?

 

This is no small feat you ask for...

Edited August 14, 2019 by Grenny

[Japo32]

I suppose it is not easy, but they really do with the platoon formations when they move through woods. I know the AI won't never do it perfectly but at least they will save us from lot of micromanagement, and orders would be more similar as real life where a commander would say little orders to manage lots of units. Each right-mouse menu selection is like a phrase-order in real world... so communications would be endless.

[Grenny]

21 hours ago, Japo32 said:

I suppose it is not easy, but they really do with the platoon formations when they move through woods. I know the AI won't never do it perfectly but at least they will save us from lot of micromanagement, and orders would be more similar as real life where a commander would say little orders to manage lots of units. Each right-mouse menu selection is like a phrase-order in real world... so communications would be endless.

Then this would be quiete gamey.

If you want to have steelbeasts as "real" time "strategy", you need delay between order and effect in the world...simply clicking a company and have it move would be totaly wrong.

In that sense having to chose and order every single platoon is more "realistic".

 

What SB does with platoon formations is ok(ish) for 60% of the cases, and off 40% the time....don't use it a reference

For a company size unit it get even more complicated. Different terrains and different situations warrant different manouvres and movementpattern...to get this done you'd need "real" AI, not just a computer game control software.

[Japo32]

Then, the people that don't like that don't use it. When I have a flight simulator I can fly outside the plane or inside in the cockpit. I choose to fly inside always. 

If esimgames makes those tools, and there are people that don't like it, then don't use it to train as real life. I don't see problem with groups and orders simplified with real life. I am faster saying what I want than clicking over the units and choosing the orders from those menus. Even in real life I doubd that the new units are not connected via link as planes are, so you can give the units real time postions on a map. If it is not now, it will be soon.

But anyway. Everytime I propose something to be improved, there are always complains from old users about, those changes are more arcade for them. DCS has the option to choose simplistic flight dynamics and easy game method... We don't argue with the users that want to use those arcade modes. We just use the most simulation ones. No problem the coexistence of both systems. 

 

Here not. Here there is a fear of movements that may seem to be as arcade ones. This is a wishlist. If there are people that don't like those wishes ok, but I want to ask for them. Maybe the 90% of the people here wouldn't like them, but then I realize why when I look for new videos in youtube about steelbeasts, I don't find almost none, even with this new updated. Not so many users use it. All are happy about that here? Ok, no problem, but prepare to die in future if new players don't come to SB (maybe).

 

The strange thing is that I love hardcore sims, and never think that I asked something to make them more arcade. We then should remove the external view of tanks in the 3D, to make SB more realistic (I know there are matches that block that. Then, what is the problem if they block also those new tools I ask if they consider they are arcade, in their online matches? I don't see the conflict in the coexistence, and what I am asking is just the option to manage hundreds of units easier. If people don't need it, then great for you. Don't use them, but don't "fire" against them. eSimGames should be the only to decide what include or not, and live with their decitions.

 

(this is not an answer to you Grenny. This is a sensation that I have when I ask things here).

 

Thanks.

Edited August 15, 2019 by Japo32

[Gibsonm]

I think the key issue is once again the people who provide most of the funding do not want what you are after and would not be too keen to fund it.

 

Other things in the Wish List may well be wanted by the military customers (Steel Beasts' core audience) and they may well be funded.

 

eSim has to walk a fine line between trying to do "pet projects" based on their funding and fraud (not suggesting this is the case, BTW) by diverting money from military contracts to do things that only some in the "consumer" sector want and that the military never asked for.

 

By all means wish for it, but you need to temper your expectations.

 

Edited August 15, 2019 by Gibsonm

[thewood]

I love people who claim to love a game and expend all their energy in turning it into something else.

 

And why is this discussion happening in this thread again?  Din't the same guy go through this exact same discussion a month ago?

[Gibsonm]

The ability to globally set Training Levels.

 

I understand that you can save groupings as templates (which I must admit I've only had limited success with) but clicking on individual units to set the training level at "X" is a bit of a time soak.

 

Perhaps something along the lines of the ammunition box where you can select something and then "apply all" to that unit type.

 

I think being able to do that globally and then going back to say "Y" platoon and setting their training to something else is a quicker option than going through and selecting every dismount in the unit.

 

Or even perhaps being able to select the Training Level for a given PL while the dismounts are mounted, would at least save having to dismount them, select them all, set the training level, mount them and then move on to the next PL.

 

Edited August 15, 2019 by Gibsonm

[12Alfa]

2 hours ago, Breakthrough7 said:

People should have the freedom to post their personal wishes, on the wishlist thread, without being discouraged or harassed by people that don't speak for esim.

You are correct, how ever, posting a reply (in this case) as why they don't agree, should carry the same "freedom" .Just because a opposing view is given doesn't make it a argument, or "fire" does it?

 

Respect each view as posted, let go of the ego, post and enjoy each different view, you may learn a thing or two

 

PS :  And no, units are not always linked via comms to each other, this is a cruel myth by comms people that we as the end users were sold.....heheheh