Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[Grenny]

1 minute ago, 12Alfa said:

The TUA turret could be added, as a option to sooooo many AFV;s in the sim as the RWS has...just saying.:)

 

 

As could the MILAN or Dragon launcher (Marder, FUCHS, M113 etc etc)

🙂

[Parachuteprone]

Guess the Devs have their work cut out for them

[ChrisWerb]

On 8/16/2019 at 5:34 PM, Bond_Villian said:

The ability to set 'surrender if' and 'continue fighting if' conditions globally would be handy too

This x10

[12Alfa]

1 hour ago, Grenny said:

As could the MILAN or Dragon launcher (Marder, FUCHS, M113 etc etc)

🙂

 

[Eicio]

Hello there !

 

Maybe this has been suggested/wished before but late russian tanks (T-80 and T-90) would be nice to resist against modern NATO tanks like M1A1, Leo 2 and Challenger. I'd also really like to be able to drive the Leclerc (and the Merkava) even in a simplified way like the Shot Kal.

[Gibsonm]

1 hour ago, Eicio said:

Hello there !

 

Maybe this has been suggested/wished before but late russian tanks (T-80 and T-90) would be nice to resist against modern NATO tanks like M1A1, Leo 2 and Challenger.

 

Welcome to the forum!

 

They can, if you set them up appropriately.

 

A T-80 with the worst ammunition and the ATGMs removed isn't going to perform well against say a M1A2 SEP with the best of everything.

 

Whereas put the ATGMs back, give it period appropriate ammunition, and employing it the relevant numbers against say M1A1 (or Chieftain) as the opposition and you'll find it gives a good account of itself.

 

Edited August 18, 2019 by Gibsonm

[Ssnake]

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of the proper choice of ammunition.

 

The T-80 is a mid 1970s tank, the M1A1 (with the 120mm smoothbore gun) a model from the late 1980s, the M1A2 SEP from the mid to late 1990s. Nominally the T-90 is also from the mid 1990s but effectively it's a T-72 with moderately improved armor protection and, especially, a modernized fire control system. From an armor protection point of view there's simply no way how they can overmatch the latest munitions. But then again, they were designed against munitions from the late 1970s (T-80) or the mid 1980s (T-90), and against those they will perform adequately.

Give them BM-32 APFSDS, and they (and all T-72s) will be potent threats against M1A1s and Leopard 2A4s.

 

If you want a potent threat against Leopard 2A5+ and M1A2 SEP you'll need to pick the T-14 Armata and similar latest generation vehicles where the new autoloader and gun designs allow for more modern munitions such as BM-59.

 

 

By design Steel Beasts does not care about "fair balance". That's a game concept. Steel Beasts is a simulation. But you can reach near-parity by picking rounds that are time-period adequate, possibly erring on the optimistic side for Russian/Soviet vehicles if you want to simulate a direct conflict. If you want to simulate Desert Storm, it's going to be a one-sided show, not the least because even the Republican Guards were rarely equipped with better rounds than BM-15, and often much worse; some units were even sent into battle with training practice rounds. They had no potent long-range ATGMs. This denotes the spectrum between first line Soviet Shock Troops and Arab client states. Whatever is supposed to be "realistic" would fall somewhere between these extremes.

 

The user's manual has a chapter "Choosing Ammunition". We had an expert write it for us for a reason. If you want to design your own scenarios, you should memorize Chapter 8 first, then use the "Choosing Ammunition" annex for reference.

[Eicio]

18 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Welcome to the forum!

 

They can, if you set them up appropriately.

 

A T-80 with the worst ammunition and the ATGMs removed isn't going to perform well against say a M1A2 SEP with the best of everything.

 

Whereas put the ATGMS back, give it period appropriate ammunition, and employing it the relevant numbers against say M1A1 (or Chieftain) as the opposition and you'll find it gives a good account of itself.

 

Thank you !

 

However my english wasn't quite accurate, I was talking about being able to drive those tanks and assume gunner and commander positions since, if I remember correctly, the crewable russian tanks are t-55, t-62 and T-72s. 

 

So I'm sure that T-80 and T-90 can fight back and that's why I'd like to crew them for 90s missions on the pact side 

[Eicio]

Thanks for the answer Ssnake, I did not know that the T-90 was that close to the T-72, I did know that it's an upgrade but I tought it was improved enough to be a good match for the west forces.

 

Personally I do not seek fair balance and, to be honnest, I enjoy playing the underdog. Like I said in my previous post I made a mistake since I'm not really used to write (or speak) in english, I was wondering if it will be possible to crew them in some future.

 

 

[Ssnake]

For that I have a standard answer: "Maybe"

[TSe419E]

I wish for the driver's interior to be less bright so it is easier to see through the vision blocks, especially at dusk and night.

[delta6]

I wish the units crossing bridges would not cut it this close..

[Lt DeFault]

2 hours ago, TSe419E said:

I wish for the driver's interior to be less bright so it is easier to see through the vision blocks, especially at dusk and night.

 

I might be able to help with this.

[Eicio]

6 hours ago, Ssnake said:

For that I have a standard answer: "Maybe"

Ok thanks let's keep our fingers crossed

[Maj.Hans]

19 hours ago, Grenny said:

As could the MILAN or Dragon launcher (Marder, FUCHS, M113 etc etc)

🙂

Yhea, I've asked for the MILAN on the Marder before, as well as MILAN and Dragon on the M113.  Would be nice stuff to have.

 

20 hours ago, Parachuteprone said:

So now I have three new wish list additions.

LAV 6, TUA and TAPV.

Well, the TUA would be nice.  It would make a good stand-in for the the LAV-AT as well as the M1134 aka "Expensive LAV-AT".

 

14 hours ago, Eicio said:

Hello there !

 

Maybe this has been suggested/wished before but late russian tanks (T-80 and T-90) would be nice to resist against modern NATO tanks like M1A1, Leo 2 and Challenger. I'd also really like to be able to drive the Leclerc (and the Merkava) even in a simplified way like the Shot Kal.

Also would be nice, but I wonder if it's time for a community poll...Should we be asking for the T-64/T-80/T-90, or would we be perhaps better off asking for something like a T-72BA?  I understand the T-72BA is, essentially, a refurbished T-72, but that there is WIIIIDE variation between them.  Might it be possible to leverage off of the existing playable T-72 models to get a Kontakt-5 equipped playable "Red" tank?  It might even be available in a surprise version where, *GASP!* oh my god, horror of horrors, the IR night sight accidentally has a TIS effect and can see through smoke!?

 

I understand that "civilian" purchases of ProPE are apparently just a tiny drop in the bucket and therefore we don't mean much, except as a giant bug reporting and beta testing system, so at this point I would be happy with to get a "Generic Modern OPFOR T-Tank" model in game.

[Eicio]

38 minutes ago, Maj.Hans said:

I understand that "civilian" purchases of ProPE are apparently just a tiny drop in the bucket and therefore we don't mean much, except as a giant bug reporting and beta testing system, so at this point I would be happy with to get a "Generic Modern OPFOR T-Tank" model in game.

Indeed If we can drive the M1 or leopard, if I understand correctly, it's due to the fact that the army and the bundeswehr ordered a simulation of their machines to train their crew.

 

So it's very nice for us to be able to access it as well (at least mostly).

 

But the downside is that we can't use some machines because they were not subject of those contracts and nations like russia and france do not like to share data of their equippement anyway, even for the old models. Which means the odds of them becoming available to use are not good.

 

However I wouldn't say "no" to some simplified models like we had with the shot kal, it may be a good way to fill the gap.

Edited August 19, 2019 by Eicio

[Ssnake]

You can make the same argument about half the vehicles in Steel Beasts, or none of them, depending on the point of view. We implemented the fire control systems of the M1 and the Leo 2 without any army's help. We created multiple variants, later, because various armies were interested. Having them already was, in fact, the prerequisite to win development contracts in the first place. It was a necessary demonstration of our expertise and capability.

No army paid for the Challenger, the T-72, T-62, T-55, BTR, BRDM, BMP-2, M-60, the Marder, Luchs, and a heap of others I'm too lazy to look up right now. We got token sums for a number of others where, technically, miliatry customers paid for them, but effectively only for a part of the development effort that we poured into maintaining the vehicle fleet over the decades. Like most of the M113s, which I'd call an artwork maintenance hog simply because there are so many of them and every vehicle looks dated after a few years, so we had one artist work full time for nearly a year to give them a serious facelift for version 4.0. Not updating them would result in absolute eye sores over time as the implicit bar for what's "acceptable looking" in a simulation is not a fixed standard, but a moving target.

 

At the same time you would never get something like the DF30 or the Pandur, vehicle "fleets" built in double-digit numbers and proliferated often to but a single country with a "global military attention footprint" close to zero. The question is of course, not counting the handful of Steel Beasts fans from Belgium or Austria, who's seriously interested in something like that. We are well aware that the majority of Steel Beasts players are interested in the "big irons" whereas our military customers are primarily interested in what's helping them with their training. And that will always take priority, for as long as eSim Games is a training company. But whenever the opportunity arises to train a new artist, a new programmer in developing a tank model, we'll use whatever non-contract item we have documented well enough to build a playable model.

[Eicio]

Thanks for the informations !

 

I was sure that you built the vehicles with the help of their owners to get access to some data or at least "advices".

Well I can't imagine the gathering of informations process, it must have been complex to say the least.

54 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

We are well aware that the majority of Steel Beasts players are interested in the "big irons" 

I feel I have been unmasked here !

[Splash]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

... for as long as eSim Games is a training company

 

This has to be the elephant in the room, but I've wondered this for years, so I'm going to go ahead and ask it: Why haven't you dropped the "Games" from the company name and logo?

 

Lots of companies rebrand over time, for various reasons. No one mistakes 3M for just a mining company these days. It seems to me that as long as you identify yourself as a Games company, people will, at least initially, see your product as such.

[Grenny]

53 minutes ago, Splash said:

 

This has to be the elephant in the room, but I've wondered this for years, so I'm going to go ahead and ask it: Why haven't you dropped the "Games" from the company name and logo?

 

Lots of companies rebrand over time, for various reasons. No one mistakes 3M for just a mining company these days. It seems to me that as long as you identify yourself as a Games company, people will, at least initially, see your product as such.

esimtrains ...somehow does not have the same ring to it...

[CalAB]

1 hour ago, Grenny said:

esimtrains ...somehow does not have the same ring to it...

CATT

Combined Arms Tactical Trainer.  eSim CATT

                                                   

Edited August 19, 2019 by CalAB

[Splash]

☺️

Well, jokes and other helpful advice aside ...
My point was: eSim.  Just eSim. The name is certainly appropriate for a company making computer simulation software. The "Games" part of the name and logo just seems to be a hurdle, given the occasional need to explain the focus of the product to those who think it's a game. 
Like I said. It's something I've wondered for years. Maybe it's been asked and answered before, I don't recall.

[Ssnake]

We're still leveraging games technology and gaming techniques to deliver better training, at the lowest prices possible. So it's not entirely nostalgic to keep the "Game" in the name. Plus, being a Games company gives us license to be eccentric, especially with job titles and email addresses, to break out of the boredom of "respectable conduct" in the corporate world. 

[Gibsonm]

Also "serious gaming" is a concept within the military simulation sphere.

 

It probably helps eSim distribute the risk by having a footprint in both sectors, also if you are going to spend XXXX hours developing a product, it probably makes sense to spend just a little bit more time and have two products / income streams.

 

Along the lines of Bohemia with ARMA / VBS.

[Kev2go]

6 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

Also "serious gaming" is a concept within the military simulation sphere.

 

It probably helps eSim distribute the risk by having a footprint in both sectors, also if you are going to spend XXXX hours developing a product, it probably makes sense to spend just a little bit more time and have two products / income streams.

 

Along the lines of Bohemia with ARMA / VBS.

 

or like DCS/TBS