Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[iamfritz]

I've lost tanks to driver sniped/killed. Everything else was functioning great, just no driver.

[Gibsonm]

21 minutes ago, iamfritz said:

I've lost tanks to driver sniped/killed. Everything else was functioning great, just no driver.

 

I guess if its an urban environment, you might be better using Infantry (Combined Arms) to clear the buildings before the supporting vehicles advance?

 

"Sniped" implies not the hitting a tree issue, but you can use "repair if ..." and add a time say 5mins, if you don't want to bring the ambulance up. 

[iamfritz]

6 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

 

I guess if its an urban environment, you might be better using Infantry (Combined Arms) to clear the buildings before the supporting vehicles advance?

 

"Sniped" implies not the hitting a tree issue, but you can use "repair if ..." and add a time say 5mins, if you don't want to bring the ambulance up. 

Well, "sniped" as in "sniped by 125mm SABOT" sniped.
Be cool if I could just get the gunner or loader to take over.

[iamfritz]

Here's an idea I've wished for a few times: the option as TC to order the loader to man his M240 and engage troops.

[Ssnake]

You're not alone, but in the V4 engine we can have but one gunner per vehicle. Loader on MG = 2nd gunner, so ... one more reason for V5 development.

[SwissAdmiral]

I have 2 of my own wishes to add. I really wish we had a Leo 1A3 or some other variant with a functioning coincidence rangefinder. While disabling the LRF on the AS worked as an analogue for an older leopard 1A4, it left us without a rangefinder at all and made things difficult.

 

I also wish we could get the T80B as a playable. Would give redfor something else to play with other than T72s.

[iamfritz]

On 4/14/2024 at 1:28 PM, Ssnake said:

Yeah... no maintenance, no gun cleaning, ... "just the fun parts".

When something is damaged in battle, like a track gets shot, radio antenna hit, or something just breaks after a long road march: Make repair go faster if you get involved yourself in the repair. Short track the shot thread, attach the radio antenna, etc. No idea how to practically show this (maybe like in COD -which my kids play not me) when you bandage yourself- some generic or close character animation doing it with the item showing stages of completion.
Or have to make decision to keep the damaged road wheel or short track that track. And then when you F8 that tank it shows a couple characters in tankers gear working on it.
I would welcome this. It's part of the tanker life, so it should be part of the tanker simulation.

Edited May 16 by iamfritz

[Gibsonm]

2 hours ago, iamfritz said:

When something is damaged in battle, like a track gets shot, radio antenna hit, or something just breaks after a long road march: Make repair go faster if you get involved yourself in the repair. Short track the shot thread, attach the radio antenna, etc. No idea how to practically show this (maybe like in COD -which my kids play not me) when you bandage yourself- some generic or close character animation doing it with the item showing stages of completion.
Or have to make decision to keep the damaged road wheel or short track that track. And then when you F8 that tank it shows a couple characters in tankers gear working on it.
I would welcome this. It's part of the tanker life, so it should be part of the tanker simulation.

 

Why make it faster?

 

They are already a bit faster than real life.

 

You want 30mins to change track maybe?

 

[iamfritz]

3 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Why make it faster?

 

They are already a bit faster than real life.

 

You want 30mins to change track maybe?

 

I was just thinking... reward simmer for getting his hands dirty. Just a rough idea. Lotsa kinks.

Edited May 16 by iamfritz

[Gibsonm]

For the Ver 5.x rework ....

 

Currently UAS only really provide information if you have a human controlling it.

 

Is it possible to apply a gradual setting along similar lines to artillery impact areas?

 

At lower difficulty settings, artillery impact areas are denoted with red rectangles (either solid, flashing or dashed) depending on if its planned, firing or a previous mission.

 

Can we do the same with UAS?

 

That is, at lower difficulty settings a UAS on a route (without a human) displays map contacts?

 

[TankHunter]

On 5/12/2024 at 1:26 PM, Apocalypse 31 said:

Wish: Bail Out / Abandon Tank feature. 

 

No, this is not a request to fight on foot or generate a dismounted tank crew. But rather a way to abandon or 'soft kill' a vehicle that is beyond repair. 

 

Backstory.

In today's session we had a Leopard 2 that was heavily damaged - almost entirely every system was damaged or destroyed, but it sucked down a platoons worth of BM-60 ammunition from a T-72 platoon. Instead of moving on, the T-72 platoon became entirely fixed on the immobile vehicle - despite the owner's attempt to keep the platoon moving forward, they remained fixed on the vehicle - even turning their turrets backwards to continue to fire. There was nothing that anyone (myself, the owner) could do.

I've been wanting vehicle abandonment in SB for a while now if only because it could produce some interesting scenarios or situations.

[Lumituisku]

9 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

For the Ver 5.x rework ....

 

Currently UAS only really provide information if you have a human controlling it.

 

Is it possible to apply a gradual setting along similar lines to artillery impact areas?

 

At lower difficulty settings, artillery impact areas are denoted with red rectangles (either solid, flashing or dashed) depending on if its planned, firing or a previous mission.

 

Can we do the same with UAS?

 

That is, at lower difficulty settings a UAS on a route (without a human) displays map contacts?

 

 

Perhaps adjustable detection range from UAS could be one way to do it?

[Nike-Ajax]

So ... as one who has done OPFOR once or twice ... 

 

And having read this: 
 

 

Then it would be very nice if I had the option of surrendering units that was isolated, broken or realistically had been pounded to their breaking point. From a dropdown menu for instance.

I KNOW that I can script it when making a scenario. Thats not what I am asking for: 

I am asking for the option as OPFOR in the teacher/trainer/challenger role, being ingame and in the session, to choose When, Who and If they surrender.

I have several arguments for this which mostly boils down to giving the players a better experience and being more realistic. And doing it without allowing myself to lose control as I do when I script it. 

Given that it is already a feature, my näive thought was that it would not be too much of a programming challenge ... ?

[iamfritz]

New idea: When the TC is loading his M2, show his character outside leaning out the hatch, his arm moving maybe to show him/her setting it up. Kinda like when a Dragon/Javelin soldier is setting up/taking down his launcher.
Be great to impress the vulnerability while that process is going. Plus you can look at another tank and see what's going on.

[Parachuteprone]

It would be nice if an infantry squad would disperse for cover instead of just laying in the open while you pick them off 1 by one.

 

[Gibsonm]

Another ver 5.x request:

 

Can we please impose some sort of minimum distance between roads?

 

I have spent weeks trying to get a single vehicle to travel down this section of road:

 

 

 

Because the AI can't cope.

 

I've used "No autopathfinding" and created waypoints ever 50m or so and I've also tried "follow roads" - neither stopped it wandering off and in some cases doing loops.

 

I've tried March, Engage and Assault and nothing makes the vehicle stick to one of the two blessed roads.

 

I find it doubtful that in real life this would be more than just one track.

 

If the AI can't cope with roads <Xm apart can we please impose a limitation in the Map Editor that roads can be no less than <Xm apart (i.e. can't be drawn)?

 

 

Edited May 21 by Gibsonm

[companyteam]

Can't help with the AI, but it looks like the map maker was trying to put in a divided highway..... but can you change the map to make this an similar sections "highway"?

[Gibsonm]

1 hour ago, companyteam said:

Can't help with the AI, but it looks like the map maker was trying to put in a divided highway..... but can you change the map to make this an similar sections "highway"?

 

Its actually a forestry track.

 

I know I can change the map, but there are six scenarios based on this one and I don't want to:

 

a. Inflict another Delta map on people.

 

b. Have to go through and update all the others and then enure that a change here doesn't mess with the other 5 scenarios.

 

[Ssnake]

Can you please send me the coordinates of the road (assuming it is from Hannover-Weserbergland)?

Happy to put a programmer on it, even for v4.

[Gibsonm]

5 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Can you please send me the coordinates of the road (assuming it is from Hannover-Weserbergland)?

Happy to put a programmer on it, even for v4.

 

Yes it is.

 

Pretty much the stretch from 0454 8500 to 0514 8494.

 

The non-joined up road junction is especially fun

 

 

So far the best results are to stay on the Southern track until after the junction and then move to the Northern track before the Southern one veers away.

 

[Ssnake]

Registered as #12361.

[Abraxas]

Winter camouflage Leo2A4-6MA2

 

Hi Ssnake,

 It would be nice if eSim would update the winter textures for the Leo2A4/A5/A6/A6MA2 according to the field order of the Bundeswehr: white color overlay to the green fields.

[Hedgehog]

18 hours ago, Abraxas said:

Winter camouflage Leo2A4-6MA2

 

Hi Ssnake,

 It would be nice if eSim would update the winter textures for the Leo2A4/A5/A6/A6MA2 according to the field order of the Bundeswehr: white color overlay to the green fields.

This would be under "mods"

 

However when finished if you send an email to Nils I'm sure he could see it into the "default" folder.

[Ssnake]

On 5/21/2024 at 5:55 AM, Gibsonm said:

I have spent weeks trying to get a single vehicle to travel down this section of road:

Programmer is having trouble replicating this. Maybe it's vehicle-dependent, or other unmentioned variables are at play. If you could kindly provide more info; are you traveling west-to-east, or the other direction? What vehicle is it that gives you trouble? What's your framerate when you have these issues?

[Gibsonm]

4 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Programmer is having trouble replicating this. Maybe it's vehicle-dependent, or other unmentioned variables are at play. If you could kindly provide more info; are you traveling west-to-east, or the other direction? What vehicle is it that gives you trouble? What's your framerate when you have these issues?

 

Its West to East.

 

4WD - LMV

 

No idea re frame rate. Its visible when both testing (non accelerated) and watching in the AAR.

 

I am concerned that if you "fix" the current map now that a solution (trail 20 or so revealed that throwing tactics to the winds and using no pathfinding at all and just plotting a march route with close WPs works) seems to be working and I'd prefer the "fix" not break the scenario.

Hence a Ver 5.x request to impact "new" maps.