Welcome to Steelbeasts.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Hedgehog

Ideas list

277 posts in this topic
Either it would take too much memory for the computer, or it will allow for cheating (for to reduce memory usage, you need to allow the tracks to disappear after some time). As a result, no such luck.

Why would it be cheat sensative? Dont real tanks leave tracks that dont disappear ?

Offcourse it would be nessecairy to let the tracks the tracks dissapear for memory reasons but i dont understand how i can be so hard to do? I remember that even an old tank sim called spearhead even had tracks and that is one old tank sim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would it be cheat sensative? Dont real tanks leave tracks that dont disappear ?

Offcourse it would be nessecairy to let the tracks the tracks dissapear for memory reasons but i dont understand how i can be so hard to do? I remember that even an old tank sim called spearhead even had tracks and that is one old tank sim.

For the tracks would have to disappear after a set period of time. As a result the tracks also would be an indicator of the target's speed, direction and an approximation as to how far away it is. Just as long as the player waits for the tracks to start to disappear.

Whereas in the real world the tracks would only indicate one of two possible directions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

It's not too hard to figure out which of the two directions the tank was going. Looks for 'thrown' debris and the holes they came from.

NTM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i guess you could see it in grassland on the direction the grass has been flattened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

i find it a bit hard to believe that the tracks would be visable for so long that the player could actually " find " dissapearing tracks without actually getting a visual on the target first. so i find it a bit far fetched to dissaprove of the tracks idea just because someone says

its cheat sensative what it isent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This could be addressed to some degree by randomization, it's just that we don't have the time for pure eye candy and we didn't prioritize it high enough to do it in a way that would not give away more information than you would have in reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'm unconvinced either way that the treadmarks idea is open to cheating (I suspect cheating wouldn't be an issue; if the trackmarks had a short life, they'd disappear close to the AFV leaving them, and you'd see the tank before the marks. If they had a long life, the tank leaving them would be long gone before the marks disappeared, and you'd probably never catch it), still I have to ask: why? What do treadmarks really give the player or student? Is there any functionality beyond looking cool? Keep in mind the primary function of the software is training. What training value does a military student get out of it?

The same goes to extra stowage on tanks, or moving suspension components. Would it look cool? Sure. But does it DO anything? Now, some eye candy ideas make good sense to me. Most notably, visible commanders/loaders when hatches are open. By making them a physical entity in the game, they become valid targets to plink with your coax or commander's MG (or kill with HE artillery, and if there is ever a rudimentary playable infantry, with small arms- or any other hits that might not kill the AFV they're riding on).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, a possible justification is

a) intelligence (if you're scrouting an area and you find fresh marks of a T-72 track, well, that's some kind of a giveaway).

b) tactical relevance in the vicinity of mine fields. On the assumption that a screening force will pull back once that the enemy shows up in force, and that they would know the location of mine fields, it's a smart idea to follow the fresh track marks in order to bypass suspected or known mine obstacles.

But you're right - because the case for this as well as other stuff is weak (=eye candy department), it didn't receive a high priority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well regarding suspension (dont want to stir things up again) we had a thread regarding suspension and for a part yes it is eye candy but for a part it is in fact not please see the suspension thread for more info. As for the threads yes they are offcourse pure eyecandy but hell i still would love to see it somewhere along the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like the optrion on th M3a2 Bradley to have no dismounts and also select 6 vehicle size of platoon since the scenerios i am going to be making again will be modeled after an armored cavalry squadron.

Eh?

I'm in an ARS, we have two trunk monkeys per Bradley. Platoons are three Hummers, three Bradleys. Are you looking at an older TOE?

NTM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True... though I've never seen any scenarios in SB that were real scouting scenarios, I suppose the potential is there. Problem is, to make it really work, you have to throw in all KINDS of subtle stuff. Abandoned supplies, discarded trash/ rations, expended cartridge casings and fragments from artillery/ mortar shells (to identify the firing weapons), proper artillery and mortar craters (for counterbattery intel), all manner of things that would be of great intel value, but are levels WAY beyond what makes sense to implement anytime soon.

I like the minefield idea, though. Can't believe I didn't think of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Different vehicles / weapons should use different sounds - I'm tired of constantly have to switch main gun & coax sounds for the Leo and the M1...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has probably been mentioned in a previous thread; I couldn't find it but I would like to see the ability to save a plan put back in in the next update.

Also some of these scenarios are quite long and it would be nice to save a scenario that one does not have time to complete and be able to finish it at a latter day or week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Linked - scenarios - where the result of the previous scenario would determine the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

I would like to see the T-55 (not fully playable), because many Armies are still using it as their backbone of their tankforces.

Also nice to see, but not as important, were tanks like the T-62 and the T64(T-64 for Scenarios with Russia involved only). (also not fully playable)

I would like to see more units to make more different Scenarios. The T-55 for example has been involved in so many wars and it still can be a threat to modern tanks in some circumstances.

There are so many Scenarios that are full of T-72 (for example playing in Gulfwar) as most tanks in real weren't T-72. And the T-72 already is a very strong tank. Especially the Leo1 seems not to be the tank it still is, when the weakest opponent has to be another Leo1 or a T-72.

There are many vehicles that could be made into the game. Every new one could be a great extension to the game. I know it means hard work. I just wanted to bring in my ideas.:)

Some other none playable units I wish to have (but less important for me as the T-55, T62 and the T-64):

M-60

Pt-76

Kürassier

S tank

T-90

M-48, M-47

Gepard, Shilka and other AAs, because of the new helicopters

more different versions of the tanks

and so on

This was just an impression. Hopefully some of the wishes will come true one time.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah i must agree a miss seeing the t-55 esspecially in gulf war scenerios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree The T-55 would make a very interesting addition.

I have often wondered how the T-55 would have performed if crewed by a well trained crew In Both gulf wars and especially the former Yugoslavia as the combatants Would of had a Terrain Advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible to install some type of library for all the units involved? Open up the page, highlight a unit and it's brought up in modeled detail along with relative info. If it's easy enough could the community have it included into the next update? For newbs like myself it would be a cool scenario designing aid. Maybe you could even change the skins with it and see the effect instantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hedgerows, ditches and the like, maybe traffic lights and abandoned cars?

Civilians

Scroll wheel zoom and pan for the planning phase/map view, kinda like Autocad, Pro E etc (It would Make SUCH a difference)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heya.

Here's some ideas that I have-

More playable units:

-Leo2a6/M1A2

this-

800px-Japanese_Type_90_Tank_-_2.jpg

JGSDF type 90 MBT(JGSDF=Japan Ground Self-Defense Force)

and the the type 89 IFV as shown here-

type-89_89fv-01m.jpg

....With that being said,some scenarios involving the JSDF would have to be implemented(and would be nice)

Also,some more fulda gap scenarios,

and inclusion of WMDs(Tac nukes)

Oh, how about using bigger units like say,companies/divisions?

-Sound good to you guys?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Japanese Tanks, ya that would be cool. They must be real small though what with all that Miniaturization and stuff. Probably fit like three of em' in the back of a brad heheheheh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could approximate those with a Leo 2a4 and a Brad for the time being.

The Type 90 is pretty much a Leo2A4 with an auto loader.

And the Type 89 looks like its armed with a 25mm, and tow like missiles.

You can have divisions and companies just not much of their support assets.

Actually JGSDF, probably isn't the best force to implement given that they are SDF, i.e. very rarely is their heavy armour deployed overseas, if at all.

tac nukes would make the battle rather one sided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SVD and CalAB, please edit your posts to remove the oversized images from your quote or to replace them by scaled down images no larger than 800x600 respectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now