Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[DarkAngel]

DDR troops.

Hmmm and I wonder what nationality dd is in the list of uniforms!!.

[Tacbat]

Boom!

[Hedgehog]

Those Helmets.....So stylish.

[Gibsonm]

Those Helmets.....So stylish.

Not what I expected from Comrade Hedgehog!?

Perhaps some re-education is required?

Edited November 2, 2013 by Gibsonm

[Grenny]

Those Helmets.....So stylish.

They are in fact a Wehrmacht design. It was not produced/introduced for them as then allied forces where to quick in victory ;-)

But when the NVA was established they said: Hey, nice design, and very good for protection.

(Much better resistance to rounds and shrapnel 'cos of the shallow angle of the helmet). Lets use that to separate us form the "capitalist mercenaries"(=Bundeswehr) or the soviets.

So the helmets(and the rest of the uniforms too) of the NVA looked very "Wehrmacht-like".

Quiet ironic for the "anti-fascist-protection" force.

[Ssnake]

Well, someone complained to Walter Ulbricht about that, and his reply was "Well, we're Germans after all. Would you rather like our troops wera Russian uniforms?"

[Rotareneg]

I just checked the size of my AAR folder... :shocked: How about a little compression for the AAR files?

[rob17]

Have the map view be a toggle that brings up the map when pressed and takes you back to whatever station and view that you came from.

[Froggy]

Is it so difficult to move the cursor of the mouse on the "back" icon on the top left of the map screen?

[wolfstriked]

Is it so difficult to move the cursor of the mouse on the "back" icon on the top left of the map screen?

Froggy,its just to polish up the sim,which is good for SB if it wants to sell more to the normal lazy couch potato simmers......like me.Nothing wrong with polishing it up IMO.

[mythmaker]

Well, the really lazy simmer ( me) buys a cheap voice activated command program which can take alot of the keyboard and mouse use out of the picture. Best used in single tank or platoon size scenes. In alot of ways seeems more realistic to me. As for my wish... the ability to plot a course in one direction but keep the AI battle orientation in another direction. Maybe this is possible but i have not figured it out if it is....also as has been wished by many others many times before...a playable M60A3

Edited November 3, 2013 by mythmaker
i forgot my alltime most wanted wish

[Parachuteprone]

Well, the Ultimate lazy simmer (Me) wishes for a random mission generator so he only had to design scenarios when he is in the mood for it.

Sadly since a generator would have to be so complex, we are not likely to ever see even a simple one I suspect.

[wolfstriked]

:drink: hard to beat me as the chosen one lazy simmer.I got rid of my trackIR because it required me to move my head.I also have all buttons mapped around the WASD keys as I hated having to lift my hand up to the Fkeys.:cool3:

[Ssnake]

Nothing wrong with polishing it up IMO.

Yes, and no. Work on the user interface is practically never paid for by an army customer. Therefore we have to to it between customization contracts on our own. Up until recently we simply didn't have the necessary manpower in the team to afford such luxury. Every hour spent on the user interface is an hour lost for adding a new combat vehicle, or a shader effect to make the scene rendering prettier.

Arguably both of the latter activities generate unique selling points to improve the simulation's marketability. Love it or hate it, I doubt that a statement like "has now a more streamlined user interface" will motivate a single user to buy Steel Beasts who would otherwise not have done so. Only if the user interface becomes so horrible, convoluted, inconsistent, or contradictory that it confuses users massively will a "bad UI" have a negative sales impact.

Personally, I find this manifest behavior of both consumers and armies quite regrettable and remarkably short-sighted (just so that you know that I am actually on your side, here). But it might explain why we haven't done as much about it as you probably wish we would have done. I also do not mean to indicate that we won't touch the issue. In fact, I've already set aside more than four months of one programmer's work time next year to renovate the "plumbing" of the user interface code which will later make it much easier to improve certain things. That alone is a substantial investment.

[wolfstriked]

Yes, and no. Work on the user interface is practically never paid for by an army customer. Therefore we have to to it between customization contracts on our own. Up until recently we simply didn't have the necessary manpower in the team to afford such luxury. Every hour spent on the user interface is an hour lost for adding a new combat vehicle, or a shader effect to make the scene rendering prettier.

Arguably both of the latter activities generate unique selling points to improve the simulation's marketability. Love it or hate it, I doubt that a statement like "has now a more streamlined user interface" will motivate a single user to buy Steel Beasts who would otherwise not have done so. Only if the user interface becomes so horrible, convoluted, inconsistent, or contradictory that it confuses users massively will a "bad UI" have a negative sales impact.

Personally, I find this manifest behavior of both consumers and armies quite regrettable and remarkably short-sighted (just so that you know that I am actually on your side, here). But it might explain why we haven't done as much about it as you probably wish we would have done. I also do not mean to indicate that we won't touch the issue. In fact, I've already set aside more than four months of one programmer's work time next year to renovate the "plumbing" of the user interface code which will later make it much easier to improve certain things. That alone is a substantial investment.

I completely understand and its not that big of a deal.I mean we lazy players can actually move the mouse up to the top right of screen and press the button.:c:LOL

[Rotareneg]

I presume it's probably on a list somewhere, but after that discussion about tanks and forests, and after had some tense forest combat during the last TGIF battle, I figured I'd bring it up again:

Gun barrel collisions.

The whole time we were in the forest, I felt a bit like I was cheating by continuing to scan when I'm certain we would have been having all sorts of exciting barrel/tree interactions. It'd certainly add another layer of incentive to avoid forests if barrel collisions were a possibility. I'd think the math/programming would be pretty simple (I know, easier said then done...) as it could be simplified to a line (the barrel) and cylinders (the trees) and still be better than the nothing that we have now.

Another thing I was thinking about was the observer mode. I've read that it can't be disabled during multiplayer because the player needs "somewhere to go" if the vehicle they are in is destroyed, but why not add a "map only observer" option, where they are attached to a vehicle as normal, but can only access the map view unless they're in a crew position?

[dejawolf]

I presume it's probably on a list somewhere, but after that discussion about tanks and forests, and after had some tense forest combat during the last TGIF battle, I figured I'd bring it up again:

Gun barrel collisions.

The whole time we were in the forest, I felt a bit like I was cheating by continuing to scan when I'm certain we would have been having all sorts of exciting barrel/tree interactions. It'd certainly add another layer of incentive to avoid forests if barrel collisions were a possibility. I'd think the math/programming would be pretty simple (I know, easier said then done...) as it could be simplified to a line (the barrel) and cylinders (the trees) and still be better than the nothing that we have now.

Another thing I was thinking about was the observer mode. I've read that it can't be disabled during multiplayer because the player needs "somewhere to go" if the vehicle they are in is destroyed, but why not add a "map only observer" option, where they are attached to a vehicle as normal, but can only access the map view unless they're in a crew position?

i asked for this a few times over the years,

the major argument against it is the AI not being able to cope with this.

things like AI spotting enemy to the side in a forest, trying to traverse the turret, only to have the barrel get stuck, and refusing to move the vehicle in such a way that it can actually get a bearing on the enemy, would be a major issue.

even worse if barrel damage is simulated.

[Froggy]

AI gunners turn the turret to 12H, and shut down the stab when entering into a forest.

[Lt DeFault]

AI gunners turn the turret to 12H, and shut down the stab when entering into a forest.

...unless there's a threat nearby.

[Ssnake]

I can but recommend sticking to the honor principle here. Turn the turret to the 12, disable stabilization, move on. If you spot a threat, turn the vehicle into the threat direction, THEN activate stabilization (if at all) and shoot.

There's only so much that we can simulate. It's the same with NBC conditions. You just have to roleplay certain things. Nobody is stopping you from wearing a gas mask while you play. Kinda odd and kinky, and I don't want to know about it (really! Don't tell me!), but ultimately it's much cheaper than to sink a few hundred engineers' work hours into a simulation of these hazards that add little to the experience but make the user interface unnecessarily complicated.

[Captain_Colossus]

I presume it's probably on a list somewhere, but after that discussion about tanks and forests, and after had some tense forest combat during the last TGIF battle, I figured I'd bring it up again:

Gun barrel collisions.

I think everyone in principle is unanimous about that, but it's probably nothing that can be solved without breaking something else.

The first example I can think of- you're in a forest, yet you aren't- for example, driving down a road or path through a forest would cause problems, even if your intention is not to leave the road, the road is still contained in a forest. About your only option is to give an assault order to continue down the road (or else the AI might attempt to turn and engage), or use the 'Stay' command, again, otherwise the auto-routines built in which make computer units behave in complicated ways may take over and the vehicles will start to turn into objects to engage or defend themselves.

Maybe one type of solution is to spend the time creating penalty zones around thick forests, a certain amount of time spent there increases the chance of component damage.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Captain_Colossus

[Rotareneg]

Nobody is stopping you from wearing a gas mask while you play.

WUhOnX8qt3I

[Invader ZIM]

Nobody is stopping you from wearing a gas mask while you play.

That was funny, then Rotareneg posted something even funnier. You guys really make my day lol.

[Scrapper_511]

My wish list in order (it's a wish list, not a feasibility list):

Playable M2A0/A1/A3

Playable M60A1/A3

Functioning white light/IR searchlights

Playable T-64 series

Playable Chieftain Mk 5/Mk 11

Playable Challenger 1

T-64BV

T-80/A/B/BV

AMX-30

AMX-56 LeClerc

AMX-10RC

ASU-85

T-12 AT gun

ZSU-57-2

I agree. This is a very nice wish list.

The last three items beg me to ask you: You play wargames too, don't you? :clin:

[Captain_Colossus]

Since the T-55 is present, a lot of the foundation is there for:

Type 69 or Type 79 tank; depending on the model, options include 100mm or 105mm gun, track skirts, laser range finder, no fording tube on the side.