Marko Posted December 24, 2016 Share Posted December 24, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, Koen said: Grozny ? 5 hours ago, Koen said: Grozny ? From what i have read many of the ERA panels did not have the explosive charge in them. They take the charge out for safety reasons in peace time i believe. But did not bother to make the tanks combat ready before the assault on Grozny. Edited December 24, 2016 by Marko 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rad Posted December 26, 2016 Share Posted December 26, 2016 (edited) Winter camouflage for troops and machines in standart options of redactor. The crew run out the vehicle, with its wounds and command of gamer. Edited December 26, 2016 by Rad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Colossus Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 Here is praise for a nice new touch I recently noticed: the leaves and branches and things breaking off from trees when you shoot into them. It feels different now because of polish like this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aurens Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 UI Improvements - The SB UI works but the menus could use some upgrading Available on Steam - Would bring in a lot of noobs but would probably help eSim reach a wider market Constant Servers - Servers that are up 24/7 so anyone can join in and blast virtual armor together 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Nate Lawrence said: UI Improvements - The SB UI works but the menus could use some upgrading Available on Steam - Would bring in a lot of noobs but would probably help eSim reach a wider market Constant Servers - Servers that are up 24/7 so anyone can join in and blast virtual armor together Pretty certain Ssnake said the second one "wasn't happening" quite a while ago. The 3rd one is unlikely as that isn't how it works now and "Random Battles" would be unlikely in the future. Edited January 3, 2017 by Gibsonm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japo32 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Hear my crew different than other tanks communications. Right now when I hear a "tank" or "objetive" or whatever from my crew or other vehicles the sound is the same. A radio audio same guy, same way of saying it. So I don't know if it is saying my crew or other vehicle unless I see the text were it says at the beginning of the msg the vehicle is comming from. Would be nice to add audio msgs without radioFX or other kind to hear clearly if the crew is talking to me or not. Also introduce other voices to separate different platoons voices to identify quickly not having to read the msg. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted January 12, 2017 Members Share Posted January 12, 2017 We have different voice actors for driver, commander, loader, gunner, squad leader, and "radio voice". Going significantly beyond that will cost more effort than it appears worth it, at least to me. If this was a AAA game title and we had a team of 250+ people working on it, sure. But our team is just 10...15 people strong, so there's a limit to what can be done, which means that we need to be rather selective in our choice of which work will the fastest yield the biggest benefit for the mostest users. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 I can think of a few additional voice commands i would like to see added To be taken with a grain of salt. LoL Lets get the fxxk out of here. /all crew. who's turn is it to make the tea/ coffee for the europeans and yanks /commander. shot that fuxxker/commander I want a transfer/Loader/gunner/driver. You drop one in the tank i am going to kick your ass /all crew Tanks Tanks direct front/ All crew reverse reverse. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted January 12, 2017 Members Share Posted January 12, 2017 We considered profanity but ultimately decided against it because it would become very tiresome after a very short time even if we fully tapped our very deep reservoir of expletives. Besides, SB Pro. Training use. And convincing military customers that they are not buying a game from eSim Games - which already requires a fair bit of applied hypnosis in sales pitch meetings. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 12 hours ago, Ssnake said: We considered profanity but ultimately decided against it because it would become very tiresome after a very short time even if we fully tapped our very deep reservoir of expletives. Besides, SB Pro. Training use. And convincing military customers that they are not buying a game from eSim Games - which already requires a fair bit of applied hypnosis in sales pitch meetings. But it would add to the realism. LoL 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted January 13, 2017 Members Share Posted January 13, 2017 You may use as many swearwords, and as often as you like, when playing Steel Beasts. This is the part where the "interactivity" comes into play. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpow66m Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 I still curse it out constantly! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLEXCopMNPD Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 Would love to see some sort of radio system that ties into TS like ACRE in the Arma series that allows the use of radio channels. Last nights TGIF was kinda hectic with everyone on the same TS channel and trying to hear messages meant for you. Simulating the radio net would be a cool feature/training aid. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirzayev Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 2 minutes ago, FLEXCopMNPD said: Would love to see some sort of radio system that ties into TS like ACRE in the Arma series that allows the use of radio channels. Last nights TGIF was kinda hectic with everyone on the same TS channel and trying to hear messages meant for you. Simulating the radio net would be a cool feature/training aid. This was brought up earlier in this thread. There are options, but they cost a pretty penny. There are things you can do on Teamspeak: 1. Set up 3D sound, and pan each user differently. This makes it much easier to distinguish messages. 2. Use a Whisper List. In other games I have been in, we will generally create a channel for each Platoon. Your normal push-to-talk speaks to the Platoon. The Whisper List is for the Company Net. It makes communication easier for sure! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 (edited) 36 minutes ago, FLEXCopMNPD said: Would love to see some sort of radio system that ties into TS like ACRE in the Arma series that allows the use of radio channels. Last nights TGIF was kinda hectic with everyone on the same TS channel and trying to hear messages meant for you. Simulating the radio net would be a cool feature/training aid. I think we covered this recently in another post (or maybe earlier in this one). Certainly many of the users of "professional" don't need it as they use products like "CNR-Sim" (or similar) or real radios to achieve comms. Teamspeak is fine with perhaps the only improvement being the ability to create sub channels on the fly but they used to have that (each VU had their own area) and had to remove it, I think due to abuse of the feature by some. All it really needs (IMHO) is: 1. People not to waffle (take 5 mins to say something that only needs 30 sec) or bang on about AI issues as opposed to the war at hand. 2. People to use their call signs and address comments to the relevant callsign. 3. People to listen out for their call sign and answer it. Edited January 15, 2017 by Gibsonm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaphod Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 9 hours ago, FLEXCopMNPD said: Would love to see some sort of radio system that ties into TS like ACRE in the Arma series that allows the use of radio channels. Last nights TGIF was kinda hectic with everyone on the same TS channel and trying to hear messages meant for you. Simulating the radio net would be a cool feature/training aid. That is the style for TGIF Kanium likes to use different channel set up, that is their style 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeFr3ak Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 Here's my revamped wishlist! For me, I'd like to see these:Fully-crewable: MBT: T-72B3MT-80UM T-90ALeclercMerkava M-48 PattonIFV/APC:Stryker (ICV, MGS, ATGM, Mortar, etc)LAV-25AAV-P7/A1 (LVTP-7)Partially-crewable:Arty:2S19 Msta-SBM-30 SmerchAS-90PzH-2000M270A1 MLRSHIMARS MBT: T-14 Armata IFV/APC: BMD-4 T-15 Armata Kurganets-25 Bumerang BTR-82A It'll be nice to have actual Stryker BCTs and USMC amphibious assault groups with AAVs and/or LAVs in the future! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Colossus Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 (edited) Conditioned routes like waypoints are conditioned- the same kind of 'fire if' 'retreat back if', 'surrender if,' etc. context sensitive menu can be opened up and predicated to routes as they are to waypoints. In most cases, units don't change plans while embarked- exceptions would be the 'Scout' route where units will automatically retreat if under fire, units stopping to avoid artillery, or stopping to fire when en route when given the Engage command (as opposed to Assault command). Example: let's say I want to simulate an attacking unit to surrender or retreat back if taking too many casualties- in practice, it must endure and survive, perhaps attack through mounting casualties to reach a checkpoint before it can do that. While human players can always react and intervene when a unit is already embarked, the computer in most cases doesn't, it follows the last orders given until the next checkpoint is reached, even if it is suicidal. Rationale: Eliminate some inertia in computer behavior: especially when advancing or attacking, promote more flexibility or more complex behavior so that they don't have to necessarily reach this or that or such and such checkpoint first before changing behavior. The checkpoint system as the foundation to assign behavior favors complex defensive scripting, that is, set pieces in place defending or waiting at checkpoints, but when on the attack, the scripts tend to look more blind and plodding as units generally can only follow a route through all kinds of variables that might happen on the way before reacting to them. Therefore, a conditioned checkpoint-route system permits the computer more complex behavior on the attack or on the march about as much as it can be scripted on the defense. I do see however at least one difficulty in attaching an 'embark if' command to a pre-existing route like they are to checkpoints (in other words attaching a route to a route), so maybe that wouldn't be replicated the same way or at all. Edited January 17, 2017 by Captain_Colossus 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavictoireestlavie Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 11 hours ago, OrangeFr3ak said: Here's my revamped wishlist! For me, I'd like to see these:Fully-crewable: MBT: T-72B3MT-80UM T-90ALeclercMerkava M-48 PattonIFV/APC:Stryker (ICV, MGS, ATGM, Mortar, etc)LAV-25AAV-P7/A1 (LVTP-7)Partially-crewable:Arty:2S19 Msta-SBM-30 SmerchAS-90PzH-2000M270A1 MLRSHIMARS MBT: T-14 Armata IFV/APC: BMD-4 T-15 Armata Kurganets-25 Bumerang BTR-82A It'll be nice to have actual Stryker BCTs and USMC amphibious assault groups with AAVs and/or LAVs in the future! Yes, this ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rad Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 Tents for troops and machines against UAV. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpow66m Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 there are tents 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Rad said: Tents for troops and machines against UAV. I think this could be included in the time a unit spends at a given location and for infantry be linked to the level of defensive positions. So if they are there for say over an hour (or as a start state for a unit) they could be under a shelter, then after maybe another hour be in some diggings, 12 hours more advanced diggings, 24 hours well developed postions. Its unlikely that a given scenario would run for that entire 24hour period with a unit static throughout but I guess it may have some application. You could do something similar with vehicle cam nets but then as well as allocating time to put the net up you need to allocate time (say 30mins) to pull it down and stow it. That is you might give a unit a route at say game time 2min, but it wouldn't actually move until game time 32min. I guess you could get it to go straight away (some dire situation) but then you couldn't put the net up in the new location as you had left it behind at the old one. Edited January 18, 2017 by Gibsonm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splash Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 On 1/16/2017 at 9:07 PM, Captain_Colossus said: Conditioned routes like waypoints are conditioned- the same kind of 'fire if' 'retreat back if', 'surrender if,' etc. context sensitive menu can be opened up and predicated to routes as they are to waypoints. In most cases, units don't change plans while embarked- exceptions would be the 'Scout' route where units will automatically retreat if under fire, units stopping to avoid artillery, or stopping to fire when en route when given the Engage command (as opposed to Assault command). Example: let's say I want to simulate an attacking unit to surrender or retreat back if taking too many casualties- in practice, it must endure and survive, perhaps attack through mounting casualties to reach a checkpoint before it can do that. While human players can always react and intervene when a unit is already embarked, the computer in most cases doesn't, it follows the last orders given until the next checkpoint is reached, even if it is suicidal. This already works in the sim. When I set up the situation depicted below (make the route 'retreat back if' and set it to 'under direct fire' and 'less than 5 members' the six-man squad pops smoke and (tactically) retreats back to WP1 10 seconds after it takes two casualties. They do not press on to WP2. What am I missing? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Colossus Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) Nice. I'm starting to worry about my memory or something here aren't I. sure. When i get home and have a look I'll probably have a wargasm and this sort of thing. Edited January 18, 2017 by Captain_Colossus 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koen Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) Edited January 19, 2017 by Koen 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.