Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[iamfritz]

It's the charlie foxtrot issue when multiple units reach a bridge simultaneously. Someone always goes in the drink if there's more than 3 platoons- be they track platoons, infantry platoons, or a mix.

I just break out my best George C. Scott/General Patton and get in there and direct the traffic myself.

[Gibsonm]

On 12/9/2023 at 8:14 PM, iamfritz said:

It's the charlie foxtrot issue when multiple units reach a bridge simultaneously. Someone always goes in the drink if there's more than 3 platoons- be they track platoons, infantry platoons, or a mix.

I just break out my best George C. Scott/General Patton and get in there and direct the traffic myself.

 

Well that is just bad traffic management, be it human players not realising that they all can't cross at once, or poor scripting / testing by the scenario designer.

 

I wrote a tutorial on how to script bridge crossing, but I guess some don't read it.

 

 

Things like approaching the bridge at top speed in wedge and then complaining that the AI needs room to slow down and go into column is just poor design humans IRL need space and time to sort out formations, so why expect the AI to work it out instantly?

 

Instead of setting a route speed to "fast" which will very with unit (i.e. a Marder going "fast" is slower than a Leo 2 going "fast"), use absolute speeds like 40 kph, then the Marders and Leos will adopt a speed of 40 kph.

 

If you have three platoons then work out who crosses first and use "embark if ..." and regions to ensure the 2nd Pl doesn't try and cross before the 1st PL is clear, etc.

Edited December 10, 2023 by Gibsonm

[Ssnake]

Ultimately this boils down to what the expectation of the AI is - that it should cover for planning error on the human side, or if SB Pro is a tool for simulation-assisted training that creates traffic jams just like they would occur if not much thought was put into traffic management when planning for a river crossing.

As a game, I will readily admit that this would be poor design. SB Pro is, however, not designed to be a game, as I've been pointing out since 2005. It's still possible to have fun with it, and that certainly is part of the design specs, but at the end of the day it's designed to create events as talking points for the AAR so that people hopefully learn that traffic doesn't manage itself magically. You can sort things out manually like Patton once did, but Patton did this once, and I bet there was a bit of a staff discussion after that incident how traffic jams could be avoided in future operations. Chiefly, because Patton is remembered for his role as an armor general, not as a traffic cop.

[Major duck]

45 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Ultimately this boils down to what the expectation of the AI is - that it should cover for planning error on the human side, or if SB Pro is a tool for simulation-assisted training that creates traffic jams just like they would occur if not much thought was put into traffic management when planning for a river crossing.

As a game, I will readily admit that this would be poor design. SB Pro is, however, not designed to be a game, as I've been pointing out since 2005. It's still possible to have fun with it, and that certainly is part of the design specs, but at the end of the day it's designed to create events as talking points for the AAR so that people hopefully learn that traffic doesn't manage itself magically. You can sort things out manually like Patton once did, but Patton did this once, and I bet there was a bit of a staff discussion after that incident how traffic jams could be avoided in future operations. Chiefly, because Patton is remembered for his role as an armor general, not as a traffic cop.

And you all missed the point entirely when i am talking about this its in the context of providing opfor the ability to move a very big force without the hassle single handedly as 1-3 guys doing human opfor not for making discussions about a traffic jam in a staff AAR.
I dare any of you guys to predict which bridge to cross in a 3-6 hour game/Sim with which forces as you as a opfor react to how blue defense/attack react.
So Mark it might be that you can do so but then its not flexible anymore and you approce this as if its scripted it wouldn't be. The main problem is that SBs performance when AI driven units gets in close proximity is just bad because they have that bubble where it slows down and tries to drive around etc... and since its a bridge crossing there is usually not much space which makes all of them try to go across each other, we even experience  it on Sundays when we start with a road march where the platoons are not completely manned or people are just lazy so they stay in platoon formation and the platoons are placed to close to each other traffic jam or very slow march speed.
"it's designed to create events as talking points for the AAR so that people hopefully learn that traffic doesn't manage itself magically." year that would be fine if Opfor had a staff and MPs and manned vehicles what i am talking about is some help making it easier to manage for the 1-3 guys that are there to make intelligent decisions that you as Mark suggest can script which is precisely the point of having Human opfor for those events that you can't predict or fore see as a scen designer after a certain amount of time, and its not so surprising as i know you can move stuff around on the map with the pro version exactly for that reason or at least 1 of them and this is just something that would mitigate at least a little bit of this problem another way would be to give the server license the hand of god or assign 1 player the role of DM (Dungeon Master) but only on the server license version that way you can only do it if you have that which is not everybody that can acquire that.

[Gibsonm]

25 minutes ago, Major duck said:

So Mark it might be that you can do so but then its not flexible anymore and you approce this as if its scripted it wouldn't be. The main problem is that SBs performance when AI driven units gets in close proximity is just bad because they have that bubble where it slows down and tries to drive around etc...

 

When I've done it, you retain flexibility through "embark if ..." statements at Decision Points.

 

The OPFOR follows doctrine.

 

That means they tend to follow routes / Avenues of Approach suitable for the force. You can of course script that.

 

If something changes markedly - i.e. the OPFOR recon detects that Bridge A (lets assume that's the preferred high speed route) is blown you can have a decision point somewhere prior (likely a road junction) where the scripted OPFOR reacts and heads for Bridge B instead, or bring up engineering assets and conduct a wet gap crossing, etc.

 

This is an example (albeit not bridging) where an OPFOR advance is scripted to potentially launch either a Encounter Battle, Quick Attack or Deliberate Attack at up to four likely locations depending on what BLUFOR is encountered. It also has differences to reflect the Most Likely and Most Dangerous Courses of Action.

 

 

It takes work, yes, but it is possible.

 

25 minutes ago, Major duck said:

we even experience  it on Sundays when we start with a road march where the platoons are not completely manned or people are just lazy so they stay in platoon formation and the platoons are placed to close to each other traffic jam or very slow march speed.

 

I don't think you can blame the sim if human beings are "just lazy" / not paying attention or something else and end up with Platoons intermingled or whatever.

 

Edited December 10, 2023 by Gibsonm

[Ssnake]

In any case, I hope that we'll be able to make certain parts of the AI better that will help reducing the severity of traffic jams ... in version five.

[iamfritz]

Also in V. 5 include a little Patton dude in his lambskin lined General jacket directing traffic when it does happen.

[iamfritz]

MRA: To accentuate the vulnerability of HEMTT crews when reloading tracks, have soldiers running back and forth between truck and tank as they reload units. Have it take actual real time. Player can speed up the sim if they want.

I'm not saying , show them troops hauling the correct tank rounds modeled in precision, just show them going back and forth. This way if enemy artillery or a Hind (or Cobra, Apache, etc.) shows up it teaches invaluable logistics lessons. Every soldier crawls on his belly, and logistics wins wars. So said the desk Sgt at the Army ROTC of my Alma Mater.

[Gibsonm]

4 hours ago, iamfritz said:

MRA: To accentuate the vulnerability of HEMTT crews when reloading tracks, have soldiers running back and forth between truck and tank as they reload units. Have it take actual real time. Player can speed up the sim if they want.

I'm not saying , show them troops hauling the correct tank rounds modeled in precision, just show them going back and forth. This way if enemy artillery or a Hind (or Cobra, Apache, etc.) shows up it teaches invaluable logistics lessons. Every soldier crawls on his belly, and logistics wins wars. So said the desk Sgt at the Army ROTC of my Alma Mater.

 

Well I can't speak for others, but with us the tank pulls up right beside the refueling, stores or ammunition trucks (to the point where the truck drivers need to fold their mirrors in).

 

Reasons:

 

1. You are only carrying the rounds across and maintaining the same height, rather than lowering, carrying across and then lifting.

 

2. No one wants people running around on the ground in the middle of the night with tanks etc. driving around with no lights on.

 

Edited December 11, 2023 by Gibsonm

[iamfritz]

4 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Well I can't speak for others, but with us the tank pulls up right beside the refueling, stores or ammunition trucks (to the point where the truck drivers need to fold their windows in).

 

Reasons:

 

1. You are only carrying the rounds across and maintaining the same height, rather than lowering, carrying across and then lifting.

 

2. No one wants people running around on the ground in the middle of the night with tanks etc. driving around with no lights on.

 

That makes so much sense. I searched footage for tanks restocking from HEMTTs and found them like 10-15 feet apart, and that danger and the waste of time did occur to me but "it's on the internet..."

Then  have that happen. Soldiers on the engine deck and turret top just.... dabbing or tea bagging so it looks like they're loading the tracks back up.

[Gibsonm]

This isn't a perfect example, but:

 

 

1. Vehicles close to the truck.

 

2. AFVs facing the enemy. CSS elms facing away - in case of contact the CSS just drives forward out of contact while the AFVs engage.

 

3. No one on the ground.

 

6x6 Pinzgauer belonged to an attached NZ FO party.

 

[Lumituisku]

On 12/10/2023 at 12:43 PM, Ssnake said:

Ultimately this boils down to what the expectation of the AI is - that it should cover for planning error on the human side, or if SB Pro is a tool for simulation-assisted training that creates traffic jams just like they would occur if not much thought was put into traffic management when planning for a river crossing.

As a game, I will readily admit that this would be poor design. SB Pro is, however, not designed to be a game, as I've been pointing out since 2005. It's still possible to have fun with it, and that certainly is part of the design specs, but at the end of the day it's designed to create events as talking points for the AAR so that people hopefully learn that traffic doesn't manage itself magically. You can sort things out manually like Patton once did, but Patton did this once, and I bet there was a bit of a staff discussion after that incident how traffic jams could be avoided in future operations. Chiefly, because Patton is remembered for his role as an armor general, not as a traffic cop.

 

I think to put it very simply. What MD and I are asking is ability to have less units in large Opfor game, to keep it smooth and running nicely for everyone even those with low end PCs.  

 

Ability to maintain certain number or opfor and destroyed units while being able to move or remove units that are not essential. 

 

We could script missions with lot of units and waypoints.  However... The more there is calculations for AI to follow routes takes away capacity that is already low. 

 

I have seen it many times on larger missions where at point when lots of AI moves at once. My PC just isn't able to handle it anymore, and I am not only one with that problem. 

 

So being able to move lot of units / remove / add units  would be handy to keep steelbeast working smoothly for all. 

 

The more there are units at close proximity of each other the more funny stuff happens and the more routes AI has to follow.. the less responsive steelbeast gets. 

[Lumituisku]

Oh and it probably works in open desert with no problem. But there units can move as platoons and terrain isn't as challenging and restricted as say for example in wooded areas .. or FINLAND.  Where ai needs to do lot more calculations. To avoid trees, rocks, huge number of small bodies of water, and swamps, And bridges. 

 

While Finland is extreme example. It quite effectively brings up limitations of how much calculations SB can handle at once. 

 

Even when I restricted my units mostly open areas when I reached roughly size of 4 active companies on move there started to be noticable amount of anomalies and network problems.

[Ssnake]

The way I see it, the easier we make it to move big formations, the bigger formations you will be tempted to put into your scenarios.

 

Seriously, up to this point all the things we did to improve performance basically resulted in customers making bigger maps (unless restricted, like the Personal Edition) with more units and more parties until performance dropped again to the point where they are dissatisfied again. Better AI as demanded will require more computational effort. Yes, we'll multithread a lot more in V5, and that alone will widen the neck of the CPU bottle considerably, but if we allow for four simultaneous threads to run everything instead of the current one thread, and the AI will then require twice as much CPU calculations as before, you'll get only twice as much perceived performance out of the new version. At which point you'll be tempted to add another party of combatants (plus layers of civilians) to your scenarios to make things more interesting.

Feels a bit like playing Diablo - you loot monsters for better weapons to help you kill more and better monsters that drop more and better weapons to loot, so you can kill even more and even better monsters that drop more and better weapons to loot. Progress!

[Major duck]

I have at no time asked for Better AI i know there is a bottle neck what i asked for was tools to mitigate the problems like a way to either avoid the problems on bridge crossings by having a better way then making kill zones and then spawn new stuff in on the other side or having to use all my time to fix a traffic jam by just having to move units from 1 zone to another you have all the components we just dossent have the ability to connect them as is.
The function of making a route and "moving to end of route if" but as far as i know it cant be connected to a zone.
The main reason for this is that all other sim/Games have some kind of DM/Hand of god mode which really is a shame to the otherwise in my oppion best war simulator out there.
 

[Apocalypse 31]

Those greedy SB players demand so much!!!!! RIGHT!?

[thewood]

25 minutes ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

Those greedy SB players demand so much!!!!! RIGHT!?

Is that really all you are reading out of this?

[Major duck]

Can we please keep a tone here that keep it civiliased please.
And i must admit that this kind of also what i get out of the answers from Snake.
But that is also because Snake has told us earlier that he uses that specific "Hand of God" or Dm functionality to differentiate between versions he wants to make sure that the countries that buys the Pro or military version don't just buy a lot of the cheaper Pro Pe version and use those as a much cheaper substitute if the PE version can do the same thing, so i am just trying to get a function that tries to negate the worst of that policy for us Pro Pe users.
So year i understand where Apoc is coming from, though to be fair its not the most elegant delivery 😉 
I could also come up with a lot of other arguments but i think we as usual can agree to disagree and at this point i don't see much hope of getting anywhere further its a shame because i really like your sim. 

[Gibsonm]

4 minutes ago, Major duck said:

Can we please keep a tone here that keep it civiliased please.
And i must admit that this kind of also what i get out of the answers from Snake.
But that is also because Snake has told us earlier that he uses that specific "Hand of God" or Dm functionality to differentiate between versions he wants to make sure that the countries that buys the Pro or military version don't just buy a lot of the cheaper Pro Pe version and use those as a much cheaper substitute if the PE version can do the same thing, so i am just trying to get a function that tries to negate the worst of that policy for us Pro Pe users.
So year i understand where Apoc is coming from, though to be fair its not the most elegant delivery 😉 
I could also come up with a lot of other arguments but i think we as usual can agree to disagree and at this point i don't see much hope of getting anywhere further its a shame because i really like your sim. 

 

I've tried to send you a PM and a DM via Tanksim but both appear to be disabled.

 

I've asked @Nike-Ajax to send you a possible solution (if I understand the issue correctly).

 

As for the "Hand of God" thing - again if I understand you correctly that is built into the "Instructor host" mode and it may well be a difficult thing to extract just that one functionality, out of several, even if eSim saw value in it.

 

[thewood]

So a civilized tone only if you agree.  I get it.

Edited December 12, 2023 by thewood

[Gibsonm]

3 minutes ago, thewood said:

So a civilized tone only if you agree.  I get it.

 

Please don't attribute someone else's comments to me, it just comes off as not paying attention to who is saying what.

 

I do not disagree with the sentiment, but I never said it.

[Major duck]

2 minutes ago, thewood said:

So a civilized tone only if you agree.  I get it.

No you come with accusations but no arguments and i also said that Apoc wassent "though to be fair its not the most elegant delivery".
I gave reasons for agreeing/disagreeing with some of the stuff and i also gave you what i think is the reasoning behind Snakes argument which i think is a civiliased way of communicating as i don't just fling accusations around i try to argue for what and why.
I think i will end here as this lead no further. 

Best Regards
MD

[thewood]

17 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Please don't attribute someone else's comments to me, it just comes off as not paying attention to who is saying what.

 

I do not disagree with the sentiment, but I never said it.

I didn't mean to attribute it to you...messed up the quote.

 

edit...pointing out that I'm not the only one without an arguement...

 

So here's the argument.  I have found esims pretty accommodating in adding things people request that don't contribute one dime to its government business.  How many vehicles get added that not a single pro user has used in the last 20-30 years?  That statement was uncalled for and almost the definition of a troll.

Edited December 12, 2023 by thewood

[TankHunter]

13 hours ago, Lumituisku said:

 

I think to put it very simply. What MD and I are asking is ability to have less units in large Opfor game, to keep it smooth and running nicely for everyone even those with low end PCs.  

 

Ability to maintain certain number or opfor and destroyed units while being able to move or remove units that are not essential. 

 

We could script missions with lot of units and waypoints.  However... The more there is calculations for AI to follow routes takes away capacity that is already low. 

 

I have seen it many times on larger missions where at point when lots of AI moves at once. My PC just isn't able to handle it anymore, and I am not only one with that problem. 

 

So being able to move lot of units / remove / add units  would be handy to keep steelbeast working smoothly for all. 

 

The more there are units at close proximity of each other the more funny stuff happens and the more routes AI has to follow.. the less responsive steelbeast gets. 

 

How big are we talking about anyway?

[Ssnake]

The Personal Edition is valuable for eSim Games, as are its players. It receives a disproportionate amount of attention in feature development compared to the turnover that it generates. Still, we cannot accommodate every wish there is, for a variety of reasons.

The Personal Edition shares the code base with the classroom version, for better or for worse. Certain things can't be changed between the two product lines, others must be kept separate - be it for legal reasons, or to protect our core business. Finally, there's the overall development plan which we want to adhere to because it makes overall software development more efficient. Efficiency is good for everybody because we then get to finish the big items faster.

 

Now, I could take the easy route and simply promise everything to everybody, for some version in an indeterminate future. Rather, I'm always honest with you. Honesty isn't always pleasant, but you can trust the info that you'll get from me. I can't always tell everything, but where I can share information, I will. Also, I try to put everything that I say in context. Sometimes that's misunderstood as a complicated way of me trying to disguise that I won't do certain feature requests. But the salient point here is that sometimes a feature that can't be addressed now may still get addressed later - or just because we might not implement things in exactly the way you suggest them being done, it doesn't mean that we don't do anything about it at all.

 

I can't share with the general public our overall development plan in full detail. Partly because competitors can (and probably do) read what I'm writing here, so complete disclosure would be a rather stupid move. Partly because a lot of our development is customer-driven, and I don't know exactly when which kind of development contract materializes.