Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[Ssnake]

Trust me, though, the looks are highly deceptive.

[TSe419E]

I do.

[Hedgehog]

@mpow66m

 

The Grepo (Grenz Polizei - East German Border Troops) had stripped down ones with no door and a canvas roof (so even lighter)

 

If a full car (4 guys) came across a hill on their patrols, all 3 passengers had to get out and walk behind it it was so under powered.

 

15 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Trabant - East German "volkswagen" - as in people's car, but crap.

 

Emphasis on "Crap"

 

You could however change the engine with 4 bolts and a bit of Oomph

 

 

@Ssnake

If it does make into SB, it should be listed under "Buildings" and "Roadside"

Edited September 30 by Hedgehog

[SwissAdmiral]

I'm fairly sure this has probably been written somewhere but I figure why not. 

I really, really wish we had a way to fire MPAT like RPGs and AT4s and the like manually instead of relying on the AI's questionable ability to aim and apprehension to fire. Even just a placeholder sight for all of the MPAT would be good enough. It would immediately boost the Mechanized experience, and I've heard the same sentiment from many of the other guys I play with.

[Ssnake]

Not entirely sure if I understand what you're after. Can you rephrase it?

[TSe419E]

He wants to fire RPGs like we fire LMGs.

[mpow66m]

Isnt MPAT a MBT round?

[Gibsonm]

19 minutes ago, mpow66m said:

Isnt MPAT a MBT round?

 

I think he has adapted the same logic as MANPAD to "Man Portable AT".

 

But yes not an official abbreviation.

[Apocalypse 31]

1. Saving and placing templates for Objects in the Map Editor. The addition of the line object tool was great, very helpful. It would be awesome if we had a way of saving a group of buildings as a template so we can easily place them in the future. 

 

2. A way of placing objects in the mission editor. Sometimes it would be nice to place a tent down or some sort of "flavor" object that would enhance the scenario.

[RedFox]

Could we get the Challenger 2s exhaust smoke added back into the sim? It was removed on the last update due to some misinformation. Probably just something that was misinterpreted or an error somewhere but I'd love to see my challenger with her exhaust smoke back.
 

Open source example of Challenger 2's exhaust smoke: 

 

Edited October 6 by RedFox

[Maj.Hans]

1. Earlier M60(s).  Specifically I will name the M60A3 Passive because it's the least work required to get a pre-TTS M60 in game and it's basically just an M60A3 TTS with passive IR instead of thermals.

 

Like the Leopard 1A5 GE, could be implemented using existing models.  I will squint hard!

 

2. Marder 1A3 + Milan.  Even if it has to be AI only.  Would rather have the launcher mounted especially when using them as AI platoons.

 

3. A Leo1 with IR night sights.  Make it an optional component for the AS1 and I will keep squinting really hard when I pretend it's an A4 with a PZB-200.

 

4. If the game engine can handle it, an M113 with M132 Dragon mount.  Otherwise disregard.

 

5. Leopard 2 early variant with the PZB-200.

 

6. The ability to order infantry mortar platoons to engage in "direct fire" with the mortar.  Meaning I want to be able to tell a mortar platoon to go ahead and shoot on its own if it sees a good target.

[TSe419E]

They already have #1.

[Gibsonm]

17 minutes ago, Maj.Hans said:

3. A Leo1 with IR night sights.  Make it an optional component for the AS1 and I will keep squinting really hard when I pretend it's an A4 with a PZB-200.

 

Why?

 

Given the AS1 had no IR sighting capability.

[TSe419E]

4 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

Given the AS1 had no IR sighting capability.

 

Did it have a white light search light at least?

[Maj.Hans]

9 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Why?

 

Given the AS1 had no IR sighting capability.

 

That's correct, however, the AS1 is the closest thing we have currently to a playable Leopard 1A3 or Leopard 1A4.

 

The AS1 with a PZB-200 added for the gunner and a 2nd gen image intensifier for the TCs periscops would get us a close rendition of a Leopard 1A4.

 

I'd like to see this as either a "Leopard 1A4" in the tank selection menu or "Optional Weapon > Night Sights" so that it's available but not a default selection for the AS1.

 

I'd love to have an ACTUAL Leopard 1A3A1, 1A3A3, or 1A4.  That's lots of work from scratch and requires the dev team to get a working sterioscopic rangefinder system in Pro PE.  There's already West German skins for the AS1 and scenarios using it as a W.German 1A4.  So let's roll with it.

 

I'm hoping for more late 70s to 1990 stuff.

Edited October 7 by Maj.Hans

[Stuart666]

20 hours ago, RedFox said:

Could we get the Challenger 2s exhaust smoke added back into the sim? It was removed on the last update due to some misinformation. Probably just something that was misinterpreted or an error somewhere but I'd love to see my challenger with her exhaust smoke back.
 

Open source example of Challenger 2's exhaust smoke: 

 

 

Yes, but that is a challenger without the vehicle exhaust shrouds fitted. Its my understanding that Challenger 2 with vehicle exhaust shroud cannot use smokelaying, either because of the danger of a fire, or the system  just filters it out, im not clear which.

 

 

 

 

[Maj.Hans]

I want empty .wav files programmed in so that when ammo slot 3 or 4 are used with a tank, the player will hear "Gunner, (silence), PC!" Or "Gunner, Sabot, PC!  Fire, Fire (silence)!"

 

We currently, as far as I know, do not have speech files for PELE, MPAT, HE-OR-T, 120mm HE, or Cannister.

 

I understand that making these correctly would be difficult and require a complete revoice for several languages.

 

Instead I ask for empty silent files so that I can use Microsoft SAM, or an AI, or whatever I see fit, to customize those files to make me aware of exactly what I should be indexing.

 

Also, a small change to logic for the tanks that can unload the main gun when the unit is under full AI control:

 

If no contacts are in sight, and approaching a dense forested area, if loaded with a round other than sabot/KE, switch to sabot/KE after a random delay.

 

If loaded with a special round with low penetration (MPAT, HE, HESH, Cannister, WP, HEP, PELE, etc) that would have no effect on an MBT, and no contact is in sight, switch to Sabot/KE after a random delay.

[Gibsonm]

13 hours ago, TSe419E said:

 

Did it have a white light search light at least?

 

Well yes but that's not a sighting system.

 

That's tank 1 illuminating the target for tank 2 to engage with its day sight.

 

[RedFox]

9 hours ago, Stuart666 said:

Yes, but that is a challenger without the vehicle exhaust shrouds fitted. Its my understanding that Challenger 2 with vehicle exhaust shroud cannot use smokelaying, either because of the danger of a fire, or the system  just filters it out, im not clear which.

This is incorrect but I can understand the logic behind it.

Observe below, (this was hard to find open source) challenger 2 with exhaust shroud fitted and deploying exhaust smoke. I've included the Youtube title so you can also find it if needed.

[Gibsonm]

2 hours ago, RedFox said:

This is incorrect but I can understand the logic behind it.

Observe below, (this was hard to find open source) challenger 2 with exhaust shroud fitted and deploying exhaust smoke. I've included the Youtube title so you can also find it if needed.

 

Is that still a production vehicle or is it "special" as the TES demonstrator?

[Maj.Hans]

15 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Is that still a production vehicle or is it "special" as the TES demonstrator?

I wonder if, in cases like this, the system could become optional equipment at the mission editor level?

 

Thay way if a mission builder wishes to simulate a Challenger 2 or M1A2 SEP, for example, with the exhaust system enabled, it's simulated.

[RedFox]

16 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Is that still a production vehicle or is it "special" as the TES demonstrator?

It is indeed the TES fit with what appears to be the barracuda camouflage system applied, likely why they’ve attached the exhaust ‘shrouds’ on this wagon to additionally reduce its thermal signature.

 

this image below should show the thermal exhaust cowl a bit more clearly, also with some smoke on show.

 

 

don’t get this confused with a dodgy turbo though, that’s a bit more dramatic… also with the above image being produced by the MOD I doubt they’d be too keen to release imagery of the wagon broken down in the field when they could just grab a working one.

 

Edited October 8 by RedFox

[Stuart666]

18 hours ago, RedFox said:

This is incorrect but I can understand the logic behind it.

Observe below, (this was hard to find open source) challenger 2 with exhaust shroud fitted and deploying exhaust smoke. I've included the Youtube title so you can also find it if needed.

 

 Ok, so that is literally the ONLY time ive ever seen footage that demonstrates this capability. So thank you very much, im delighted to be proven completely and totally wrong.

 

It certainly wasnt working in 2003. I think it was an article from Tracklink  I think some 20 years ago (that I no longer have) that said that when thermal exhaust cowl was fitted,  the fuel injection to the smoke generator was disconnected. I  had assumed that this was because the TEC would be in danger of catching fire or some such reason. Clearly that isnt the case. What probably is the explanation is that 7th Armoured Brigade was running off fuel out of a USMC pipeline which was JP7. That resulted in lower power output from the tanks, and presumably is the reason why they couldnt use the smoke injection system.

 

Thanks very much for finding the video on that. Its not my vote about what happens next, but im satisfied you are completely right, it should be able to do it still.

 

37 minutes ago, Maj.Hans said:

I wonder if, in cases like this, the system could become optional equipment at the mission editor level?Thay way if a mission builder wishes to simulate a Challenger 2 or M1A2 SEP, for example, with the exhaust system enabled, it's simulated.

That would be my prefered solution too. After all, if you did a scenario set in 2003 in iraq, the vehicle would now have a capability that it didnt have in reality, which seems a little unfair.

 

 

 

[Stuart666]

15 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Is that still a production vehicle or is it "special" as the TES demonstrator?

 

Its the standard Bovington demonstrator called 'Mighty Megatron' which in the past has demonstrated the turret uparmour kit, as well as the Dorchester level 2F set, with the anti RPG screens. Its certainly possible they modified a exhaust cowl to be able to use smoke, but I dont see any reason why they would. Far easier for a Bovington show just to take the damn things off.

 

Basically I was wrong, which is irritating, but I learned something new, which is always to be welcomed.

[Gibsonm]

4 hours ago, Stuart666 said:

 

Its the standard Bovington demonstrator called 'Mighty Megatron' which in the past has demonstrated the turret uparmour kit, as well as the Dorchester level 2F set, with the anti RPG screens. Its certainly possible they modified a exhaust cowl to be able to use smoke, but I dont see any reason why they would. Far easier for a Bovington show just to take the damn things off.

 

Basically I was wrong, which is irritating, but I learned something new, which is always to be welcomed.

 

Oh yes I know the marketing name for it.

 

I was trying to remain professional.