Jump to content

Steel Beasts: Content Wish List


Azure Lion

Recommended Posts

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 by Marko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Gibsonm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Gibsonm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my revamped wishlist!

 

For me, I'd like to see these:

Fully-crewable: 
MBT:

T-72B3M
T-80UM

T-90A
Leclerc
Merkava 
M-48 Patton

IFV/APC:
Stryker (ICV, MGS, ATGM, Mortar, etc)
LAV-25
AAV-P7/A1 (LVTP-7)

Partially-crewable:
Arty:
2S19 Msta-S
BM-30 Smerch
AS-90
PzH-2000
M270A1 MLRS
HIMARS

 

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Captain_Colossus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, OrangeFr3ak said:

Here's my revamped wishlist!

 

For me, I'd like to see these:

Fully-crewable: 
MBT:

T-72B3M
T-80UM

T-90A
Leclerc
Merkava 
M-48 Patton

IFV/APC:
Stryker (ICV, MGS, ATGM, Mortar, etc)
LAV-25
AAV-P7/A1 (LVTP-7)

Partially-crewable:
Arty:
2S19 Msta-S
BM-30 Smerch
AS-90
PzH-2000
M270A1 MLRS
HIMARS

 

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 !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Gibsonm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

SS_21_53_37.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...