Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[Gibsonm]

1 hour ago, iamfritz said:

Let me make some calls lol

 

AFAIK, the US Army (or USMC) don't have an enterprise license.

 

There maybe some "test beds" here and there but I'm pretty sure neither organisation has purchased it for use across the entire service (happy to be wrong though).

 

Edited December 11, 2022 by Gibsonm

[iamfritz]

1 hour ago, Gibsonm said:

 

AFAIK, the US Army (or USMC) don't have an enterprise license.

 

There maybe some "test beds" here and there but I'm pretty sure neither organisation has purchased it for use across the entire service (happy to be wrong though).

 

Oof. I'm confused. Test beds for what? the Bradley -A3? 

It's in full production. Lots of units are now completely equipped with it.

Edited December 11, 2022 by iamfritz

[Mirzayev]

11 hours ago, iamfritz said:

Don't know if I've asked about this before, others probably have:

When will M-2/M-3A3 be included?

It feels weird marching a Cavalry Troop out with M-1A2s and M-3A2s in formation...

 

Fun fact:

Cavalry Troops now use M2A3s since the M3 is no longer in service.

 

The more you know. 

[Gibsonm]

1 hour ago, iamfritz said:

Oof. I'm confused. Test beds for what? the Bradley -A3? 

It's in full production. Lots of units are now completely equipped with it.

 

No, not for the vehicle.

 

Ssnake spoke about it might make Ver 5 as a labour of love (low priority but might make it).

 

You said you might make some calls.

 

I said that apart from some small trails (test beds), that I didn't think anyone in the US Army or USMC had a corporate license for SB (i.e. the people you would call to get it moved up the priority list / pay for it).

 

Edited December 11, 2022 by Gibsonm

[Ssnake]

Correct.

What you get in SB Pro PE is largely (but not exclusively) dictated by the training requirements of our customers. We add certain vehicles on our own initiative if

- we have access/sufficient documentation

- there is a downtime in contracted development work

 

That's how you got the T-72M, T-72B3, T-55, T-62, Challenger 2, Warrior, Scimitar, BTR, BRDM, BMP-2, Marder, Luchs, Fuchs, M1, M1IP, M1A1, M1A2 SEP, all the recent drones and loitering munitions, the guided missile launchers, and probably a bit more that doesn't readily spring to my mind right now. So, nothing to sneeze at, but it's got to fit into our schedule somehow. As long as there is no major US customer we may still add a US vehicle now and then if the opportunity arises, but at the end of the day the majority of additions will represent other countries.

[mpow66m]

The US doesnt use SB?

Looking onto your crystal ball how long do you see SB going on for?.Is V5 the grand finale?

[iamfritz]

9 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

 

No, not for the vehicle.

 

Ssnake spoke about it might make Ver 5 as a labour of love (low priority but might make it).

 

You said you might make some calls.

 

I said that apart from some small trails (test beds), that I didn't think anyone in the US Army or USMC had a corporate license for SB (i.e. the people you would call to get it moved up the priority list / pay for it).

 

Ya. I was 100% kidding.

I'm awesome but not THAT awesome.

[iamfritz]

5 hours ago, mpow66m said:

The US doesnt use SB?

Looking onto your crystal ball how long do you see SB going on for?.Is V5 the grand finale?

He doesn't get a crystal ball until v4.

[Ssnake]

12 hours ago, mpow66m said:

The US doesnt use SB?

The US Army as a whole? No.

Some units? Yes, or at least "maybe" (they're not telling me everything).

Quote

Looking onto your crystal ball how long do you see SB going on for?.Is V5 the grand finale?

V5 is supposed to be a software architecture that should make code maintenance and component replacements easier for us, so that we can react faster to shifting market trends. We're not going to end all development there. Quite the opposite, once that we have technology barriers out of the way, hopefully we can speed up innovations that are more relevant for your Steel Beasts experience.

 

[companyteam]

As someone who finds himself making big (BG+) scenarios, most recently with multiple sides/entities, and mostly (apart from Blue) being run by AI, there are a couple of things that I'd love to see:

#1.  A change to the control logic choices when picking units.  Choice now is "Unit [this]", or alternately to cycle through all of the units to find the one I want.  This sometime means cycling through over a hundred, particularly if there are Infantry dismount options.  This process is exacerbated if I'm trying to select a Company to travel a route (for example).  In that case, I have to separately cycle to select Company HQ and each of the platoons.  

Suggestion:  Can the unit [this] be broken down to a series of drop downs to select a choice of company or platoon or even section?  Ideally, and as an example, by selecting "A Company", all company units would be selected by default.  By selecting "A Company" and "1st Platoon", only that platoon would be selected.  Conversely, leaving "Company" blank, and selecting "1st Platoon" would result in the 1st Platoon of every company being selected.  

[companyteam]

#2.  Added options to the "Under Direct Fire" logic choice.  At the moment there does not appear to be anyway of differentiating between small arms (<12.7), medium calibre/autocannon (to approx 30mm) or Tank/ATGM fire.  

Suggestion:  Add additional criteria.  "Direct Fire" would encompass all.  "Direct Fire - Small arms" would encompass all fire to approx 12.7mm. "Direct Fire - <30mm" (?) would encompass all direct fire less Tank and ATGM.  "Direct Fire - AArmd" would be limited to Tank, RCL and ATGM fire.

[Gibsonm]

Unsure if you know that if your mouse has a scroll wheel you and use that to roll through units (up or down).

 

Not as straight forward as your request, but better than clicking to progress one at a time.

 

 

[companyteam]

#3.  Ability to set default route tactics.  Current menus provide ability to set default actions at waypoints, and for Infantry in buildings.  Route tactics (speed, formation, spacing, mounting/dismounting, retreat back) must be set individually.  This is completely workable for the individual player who can tweak/amend on the go. To provide a "realistic" AI response, individually setting these parameters for each leg of each route is a time-consuming task.

Suggestion:  Provide option for default route tactics to provide for the "normal" parameters such as speed, formation and spacing, but also including options such as:

- Dismount (under direct fire?)

- Remount (when not under fire?  After a delay?)

- Retreat back (if under direct fire?  If can see A Veh? If strength below "X"?)

[companyteam]

Ack the scrolling, but it's still an extraordinarily painful process!

[Gibsonm]

12 minutes ago, companyteam said:

Ack the scrolling, but it's still an extraordinarily painful process!

 

Drop me a line at work and I'll see if we can formalise this (I'll grab these requests from here).

 

Also re #3, again perhaps already known, but you can Shift+Click on a bunch of routes and give them all the same tactics and modifiers (e.g. I just changed a BG attack from "Engage" to "Assault" this way.

 

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by Gibsonm

[Ssnake]

With version 4, as far as the GUI is concerned we can offer only "painkillers" (like scrolling, shift+clicks (note that right-clicks cycle in the opposite direction)). That's why we want to spend more time working on V5, if only the customers would let us.  

[Hedgehog]

On 12/13/2022 at 11:10 AM, Ssnake said:

 if only the customers would let us.  

It is so annoying when they want you to do stuff in return for money. 🙄

 

Maybe you could try that "Year Out" thing you did a decade or so back?

(Or maybe 3 months is more realistic?)

 

It is up to you.

You are the GeschaftsFuhrer after all.

[Grenny]

Some update to sights and functions for the RBS 70

 

 

[Parachuteprone]

Is V5 when you're hoping to release more detailed & destructible terrain ?

I forget.

 

 

[mpow66m]

On 12/13/2022 at 6:10 AM, Ssnake said:

With version 4, as far as the GUI is concerned we can offer only "painkillers" (like scrolling, shift+clicks (note that right-clicks cycle in the opposite direction)). That's why we want to spend more time working on V5, if only the customers would let us.  

In todays market,pesky is a good thing,lol

[Apocalypse 31]

Wish: In-game VOIP that can be switched by echelon, down to Crew (much like Arma)

 

Previously I was against this idea but I play so many games that have VOIP and I find that it is generally a great feature.

[Gibsonm]

51 minutes ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

Wish: In-game VOIP that can be switched by echelon, down to Crew (much like Arma)

 

Previously I was against this idea but I play so many games that have VOIP and I find that it is generally a great feature.

 

Perhaps embedding "CNR-Sim" or similar product under license?

 

Edited December 17, 2022 by Gibsonm

[Falcon]

Would it be possible to have a "laser pointer" in a map during an online preparation/planning phase? If so, please also add the user's name next to it so it is easily visible in a multiplayer environment.

Maybe I'm a bit pampered, but nothing is better than just sticking one's "finger" on other's map to show him the location which is currently discussed 
One could explain complex plans to others quicker.

Thank you for consideration

[mpow66m]

Awesome idea!

[Gibsonm]

While we are talking about the route / waypoint interface:

 

The ability to integrate which unit is using which route (say click on a route and the units using are part of the information - similar to the current formations and different coloured arrows).

 

I currently do this:

 

 

These are transparent labels so I know that "XO B" uses waypoint 509, rather than tracing the route back several kms to see which unit it is tethered to.

 

Also something similar for the formations at waypoints.

 

Currently checking which formation a unit is using requires clicking on not just the route segments but the waypoints that join them, in order to avoid:

 

Column on initial route segment.

Line momentarily at the waypoint (which an opportunity to go off the road, bog, etc).

Column on the next route segment.

 

Edited December 21, 2022 by Gibsonm