Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[Parachuteprone]

4 hours ago, Ssnake said:

I should perhaps only say only one thing, that we do not want the map view to become too powerful. It could easily be made into a real-time tool to view the battle with every detail exposed. But you don't have that in real life, therefore there will always be "comfort features" that are easily imaginable, but run against the design principle that to understand the full detail of the situation, the 3D scenery must be observed too.

 

That more variety in the terrain is desirable is undisputed.

 

Note that with medium realism set, it is possible to mark a point in the terrain (hold Shift, press Lase, guide the pointer to the desired spot, release the Lase button). Then, in the map view, there'll be a small red star denoting the marked spot.

It's your decision if you want to use this helper function if you find the terrain insufficiently detailed for proper range estimation.

Great ! Thanks !

[Ssnake]

8 hours ago, iamfritz said:

And for targets out beyond 500 or 1000 yards , that the spotting/reporting unit provide a 6 digit grid coordinate.

Do you have personal experience that this is actually done in practice?

[iamfritz]

#questionsIobviouslycannotanswerinthepositive

 

I have historical written by Army vets where they do this. John Antal's Infantry Attack and Armor Attack, for example.

[MTLB-CMDR_Finn]

I would love to have possibility to simulate NBC-warfare, meaning that hatches must stay closed at all times or crew would need to wear MOPP-suits or something similar. Same for infrantry. Certain areas would be contaminated or whole map. This could happen also during mission, forcing crews to button up, put their equipment in use and start NBC- filtration systems. 

 

Possibility for the crew to abandon tank. Would be good visual que to see enemy crew open hatches and run. This gives also more variety on tactical level (rescue that crew under fire etc). I consider this quite important feature, knowing when situation is hopeless and abandoning tank is only change to save crew or when not to do that. 

 

Possibility to use famous soviet log to unditch the tank if stuck. Also towing cables would be nice if they could be seen.

 

Possibility for infrantry and tank crews to use flares. This is propably hard to code due the lighting, but it would be nice addition. 

[Lumituisku]

Yush! 

[delta6]

We need a muzzle flash for the coax on the M1 tanks..

[dwight]

I'd like all mannable vehicles in my tank range, pretty please

 

I understand that this had been requested before a couple of times and that there's a problem with crew AI getting boosted by the results in the tank range, so how about we get crew AI score for each vehicle separately? I think that'd make the most sense overall and allow for all vehicles to be available in the tank range. 

[Ssnake]

We considered that option, but felt that it might be too much of a deterrence to, effectively, force the user to become competent with every single vehicle, or face the consequences.

I'm fully with you on this - from a the point of logic/internal consistency this would be the way to go. But, well, not everybody is a full-on tank nerd. Some may want to use Steel Beasts as some sort of a real-time war/strategy game. We don't want to penalize people if they have only limited interests in fire control system intricacies, so that's why we simplified it.

[dwight]

@Ssnake is this something you'd consider for SB5? I understand my request is a bit sprawling, but I think a solution to that would be more stringent proficiency setting in the mission editor, and to stay consistent with SB4 it could default to the gun range setting. That way folks interested in realtime war gaming would get more as well - I could now create scenarios where some of the companies are more veteran than others and see how the mission plays out. 

[Gibsonm]

32 minutes ago, dwight said:

I could now create scenarios where some of the companies are more veteran than others and see how the mission plays out. 

 

Well you can set training levels for dismounts already, perhaps extending that to vehicles too would achieve what you are after?

 

 

 

[TSe419E]

Wish we could do something like this in SB:

 

 

[iamfritz]

Id like the Bradley TC have a command to lower or raise the TOW launcher. AFAIK only the gunner currently does this.

 

Why have it up if I'm only facing infantry?

[Gibsonm]

26 minutes ago, iamfritz said:

Id like the Bradley TC have a command to lower or raise the TOW launcher. AFAIK only the gunner currently does this.

 

Why have it up if I'm only facing infantry?

 

I thought you could use Shift + Q in either seat?

[TSe419E]

I just tried it and the TC couldn't raise/lower the TOW.

[Ssnake]

14 hours ago, iamfritz said:

Why have it up if I'm only facing infantry?

How do you know that you're only facing infantry?

[iamfritz]

22 hours ago, Ssnake said:

How do you know that you're only facing infantry?

'Cuz I made the mission. Lmao

 

Cuz I like to engage in a  variety of missions vs tanks, infantry, IFVs, and mixing it up. In reality yes it's possible infantry could have acquired armor on the sly.

 

I guess I just hate how the TOW launcher automatically goes up and down whenever I stop, even if it's to check my map or issue new orders. The TC should have orders like "Leave TOW launcher stowed" or "have a default TOW down", and an order "Raise TOW Launcher" when it's needed.

[Ssnake]

We're designing the crew AI on the assumption that there could be armor threat anywhere, anytime, so they will make the launcher ready. Also, we want to keep the number of hotkeys and GUI complexity at a manageable level, so I'm inclined to say that we're not going to do it. The benefit of your ease of mind does not outweigh the disadvantage for thousands of other users.

[iamfritz]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

We're designing the crew AI on the assumption that there could be armor threat anywhere, anytime, so they will make the launcher ready. Also, we want to keep the number of hotkeys and GUI complexity at a manageable level, so I'm inclined to say that we're not going to do it. The benefit of your ease of mind does not outweigh the disadvantage for thousands of other users.

Like a SABOT to the heart, Ssnake. A SABOT through my heart and squirting my engine out the back like a 1991 Iraqi Republican Guard Hammurabi Division T-72 Lion of Babylon tank.

 

[iamfritz]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

We're designing the crew AI on the assumption that there could be armor threat anywhere, anytime, so they will make the launcher ready. Also, we want to keep the number of hotkeys and GUI complexity at a manageable level, so I'm inclined to say that we're not going to do it. The benefit of your ease of mind does not outweigh the disadvantage for thousands of other users.

I think the true outweighing factor would be.... what's in the Bradley manual? The sim is a training tool for Bradley operators first, right?

[Ssnake]

It was designed to be one, but the customer never really followed up on it after delivery. Other than your emotional discomfort (and I'm not mocking you), I really see no disadvantage in the AI always having the launcher ready. It's no impediment when vacating a position, and it's better to have it ready "just in case" than being surprised by needing it, and then having to wait until it's in position. 10 more seconds of exposure, plus missile flight time.

[iamfritz]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

It was designed to be one, but the customer never really followed up on it after delivery. Other than your emotional discomfort (and I'm not mocking you), I really see no disadvantage in the AI always having the launcher ready. It's no impediment when vacating a position, and it's better to have it ready "just in case" than being surprised by needing it, and then having to wait until it's in position. 10 more seconds of exposure, plus missile flight time.

I sincerely hope you're kidding about my emotional discomfort.

 

In urban fighting, and pop-up threats on the left it blocks the TC's view. and the gunner's vision block to the left is just short of useless (who uses it anyway?). 

 

I'm making this argument because I've been killed several times by threats on the left I couldn't see because the launcher was in the elevated/block TC's view position. Plus, extensive review of Bradley combat footage also indicates it is usually stowed until needed.

[Ssnake]

Okay... it's a point.

[iamfritz]

LMAO. I posed this question in a Facebook Group of veteran and current Bradley operators and they talking about everything EXCEPT answering the question.... posting pic of the TOW launcher- "This is the TOW launcher elevated". Saying it's heavy they don't drive with it up. Arguing about different versions. Everything but answering the question.

Well ONE person answered saying it's under the BC's control not the gunner's. But only 1 guy out of 8 actually answered the question.

[Ssnake]

FWIW, I've filed a Bugzilla entry (#11621) to allow the human Bradley commander to override the AI Gunner with launcher control.

[Parachuteprone]

Now if we had a "disregard target"  option so the commander could over ride the gunner when he is pumping the entire ammo load at a target he can't hit. That would be great.