Jump to content
Azure Lion

Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, ChrisWerb said:

Alternatively, could AT weapons please be given a "shoot here" capability like the rifle grenade. This would also be useful in a lot of other circumstances (and yes, it's been discussed here before a few times now).

 

This is already possible - Controlled in the 3D view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps as he may have seen it once or twice before. ;)

 

However, in my experience he also often asks for things that are already there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I meant like that :)

 

Mark/Gibson, I did take your earlier comment to onboard about wanting specific outcomes. What happens is I try to make something happen with the capabilities I see are there (and that works probably nine times out of ten), then search on the BBS - your tutorials have often proven invaluable and are greatly appreciated. If neither approach works (as in this case), I ask. :)

 

As to specific bits of kit etc. I try to ask for things that will provide the most play/training value. Mostly that's just adding a redundant +1 to someone else's request because a. It's almost all been asked for before, usually multiple times and b. I know Nils and the team will make sensible decisions about what to include for the maximum financial return and play/training value based on their infinitely greater understanding of their business model than mine. I never question the business model or whine about how long hinted at changes are taking to roll out.

 

 

 

Edited by ChrisWerb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all fairness, not everything is as well documented as one would wish it to be.

Steel Beasts is pretty feature rich; I suppose a sufficiently malicious character could call it a sprawling mess.

 

(At least, when trying to catch up with the user manual, it feels like it at times.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

In all fairness, not everything is as well documented as one would wish it to be.

Steel Beasts is pretty feature rich; I suppose a sufficiently malicious character could call it a sprawling mess.

 

(At least, when trying to catch up with the user manual, it feels like it at times.)

Yeah, but a "shoot rocket here" is still missing.

(one that works like with the HE grenades...not the current: AT-gunner pops-ups, deliberates, but does not fire)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't understand why you just don't let the AI handle it - you see a AFV, you select "Engage here" , mark the target, and move on.

 

The AI then works out to use the "rocket".

 

I agree that sometimes the rocket operator takes a while, but then again so does yelling to the guy 20m way in RL who is carrying the AT system and giving them a fire order.

 

What next, an option for every weapon system? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gibsonm said:

I still don't understand why you just don't let the AI handle it

At this point, I'm not sure if you'll ever understand it. The best way I can articulate this to you is that the AI isn't effective and players want to fire the wonderful weapons of SB. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Gibsonm said:

What next, an option for every weapon system?

I know, right? What an INSANE concept; players who want a playable combined arms battlefield instead of a turret simulator. :-)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right so:

 

Fire pistol

Throw grenade

Fix Bayonet

Unfix Bayonet

Change magazine

...

 

The basic "wish" being to merge SB Pro PE and VBS/ARMA. :)

 

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gibsonm said:

Fire pistol

Throw grenade

Fix Bayonet

Unfix Bayonet

Change magazine

 

None of those are in the game, and nobody is asking for them.

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I would just like to see the same capability for all small arms that we currently have for ATGM, LMG, HMG, AGL. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

 

None of those are in the game, and nobody is asking for them.

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I would just like to see the same capability for all small arms that we currently have for ATGM, LMG, HMG, AGL. 

Sorry could not resist. LoL

fix Bayonet and charge command.

 

wO2cLvC.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

I know, right? What an INSANE concept; players who want a playable combined arms battlefield instead of a turret simulator. :-)

 

 

Agreed, the inability to rely on the inf to do anything really hampers mission design as well. I can't trust the inf to fight effectively enough to be reliable. I'll never build a mission involving urban areas because I've seen time and time again entire squads wiped out by a two riflemen in a building, or sending inf to clear a wood line and watch an entire platoon struggle to clear one section sized position.

Edited by Gunslinger668
Misplacement in quote section

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe some of our Inf issues is due to not playing them enough. If we played them as we do AFV's with manning each then I think our results could/would be different. The fact is we don't. There are few missions that are based around Inf operations that we play them as individual players. I think we need to play them, as we play the AFV's to better understand their do's and can not do's.

Until then it's just speculation I think. Each Inf , with a real player in control will lay this to rest. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of the infantry issues are rooted in fundamental issues with pathfinding. We're going to address that first. Once that they can reliably negotiate the environment we'll make the behavior less erratic, which will increase the "playability". Along with that we may also address the firing of MGs and RPGs.

 

I would however like to point out the difference in development paths between SB Pro prior to version 3.0, and after. Up until 2.6 there were infantry sprites and not much of a user interface. Now we have infantry with a meaningful UI that is modeled in much more detail (training levels, stamina, "shoot here"/"suppress"/etc. commands, the overhead view). So, I think that friends of the infantry can see a somewhat encouraging deviation of course since I took over management. That not all change is coming as fast as you'd like it to see, check. There are limits to how fast a team can make non-destructive changes to a legacy code base. Given our means, I think the result is awesome. Of course, seeing this from a customer's point of view who doesn't care how the sausage is made, as long as it tastes good, it may still appear as a slow pace. Both perspectives are valid. Naturally I only have ma own perspective, but I try to see the situation from your end as well. All I'm asking for is that you try the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 12Alfa said:

I believe some of our Inf issues is due to not playing them enough.

I think you're speaking for yourself here. There are plenty of guys, including myself, who are comfortable using infantry and bang our heads against the wall on a regular basis. @Kingtiger@Wiglif 

 

2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

A lot of the infantry issues are rooted in fundamental issues with pathfinding.

That's interesting to hear. Have not had any issues with pathfinding, only engaging. 

 

2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Along with that we may also address the firing of MGs and RPGs

We already have the ability to fire MG's in game, but thats great news about RPGs. 

 

2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

development paths between SB Pro prior to version 3.0, and after

1. It is greatly appreciated.

2. It is kind of hard to ignore the presence of dismounted combat on the modern battlefield. You have to adapt your product to stay relevant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

Have not had any issues with pathfinding, only engaging.

 

One may be a symptom of the other, occasionally. When you have to tame a code monster of 700,000 lines, there aren't always cases of linear cause and effect. The decision to "move" from an observation activity to a firing pose may not be "pathfinding" in the close sense of it, but it definitely deals with behavioral algorithms for the infantry, the "A.I.", which includeas multiple factors - battle position tactics, target priorities, user input, a general suppression factor, the perceived vulnerability of a target, the range of own weapons.

 

Let's assume for a moment that both you and me have only an incomplete understanding of the Steel Beasts code base, that our programmers know what they are doing, and that they are trying not to break stuff that works while working on stuff that needs improvement. Due to our limited understanding of the situation our discussion can by necessity only approximate certain aspects. Not everything that I write may always make sense in every aspect, this may be due to my limited understanding, my limited ability to express my thoughts, or the desire to be brief in my responses.

I often get accused of writing walls of text, and I guess I'm guilty of that, but not because I love expressing in 500 words what can be said in five, but because I believe that context is important, and especially in software development and engineering in general, details matter a lot. I cannot lay out all the details in a public forum. So you'll have to live with some of my statements not making sense immediately. They are, however, always as truthful as I can be in public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

The decision to "move" from an observation activity to a firing pose may not be "pathfinding" in the close sense of it, but it definitely deals with behavioral algorithms for the infantry,

Thanks for the context. That makes sense.

 

32 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

I often get accused of writing walls of text,

Some things cannot be explained so easily, and I appreciate when you take the time to provide us with the details and the "why".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

I think you're speaking for yourself here. There are plenty of guys, including myself, who are comfortable using infantry and bang our heads against the wall on a regular basis. @Kingtiger@Wiglif 

 

That's interesting to hear. Have not had any issues with pathfinding, only engaging. 

 

We already have the ability to fire MG's in game, but thats great news about RPGs. 

 

1. It is greatly appreciated.

2. It is kind of hard to ignore the presence of dismounted combat on the modern battlefield. You have to adapt your product to stay relevant. 

 I'm comfortable with them, just pointing to the fact they are not manned as AFV's are. I have used them from sprite till now and enjoy there coming of age. ")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see some more prototype AFV,s 

Some types i would like to see.

The Challenger 1 Falcon.

T-80 black eagle.

MBT 70.

I will add more later

 

 

 

 

Edited by Marko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some kind of UI function that would list all units that a player has under their command/ownership. (For Multiplayer).

 Also, a text and/or radio filter for contact reports, so that players arent constantly overwhelmed by irrelevent/less relevant information (again this is with Multiplayer in mind)

 

 

 

...and a crewable AMX13, PT76 & Scorpion light tank? ;)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bond_Villian said:

Some kind of UI function that would list all units that a player has under their command/ownership. (For Multiplayer).

 

Doesn't the current colour coding / shading achieve that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having the option to manually fire RPGs  would be very fun to play, but i think is a bad idea. AI infantry and human controlled should have similar abilities, if not you are going to break and unbalance all made scenarios.

Current infantry, with the manual grenade launcher is tremendously effective at killing enemy infantry if micromanaged,if you add a manual option to fire RPGs that would leave AI infantry without utility.

Giving infantry the ability to fire RPGs while lying down will solve most of the problems and is something that AI inf can also use, so you keep the balance.

Edited by Colebrook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/10/2017 at 10:28 PM, Gibsonm said:

I still don't understand why you just don't let the AI handle it - you see a AFV, you select "Engage here" , mark the target, and move on.

 

The AI then works out to use the "rocket".

 

I agree that sometimes the rocket operator takes a while, but then again so does yelling to the guy 20m way in RL who is carrying the AT system and giving them a fire order.

 

What next, an option for every weapon system? :)

 

Often the rocket operator doesn't shoot at all - the example I gave of part of an enemy vehicle poking out from behind a wall being a recurring example. It would also be really nice if when they did shoot, they could shoot from prone.

 

Weapons that were designed as anti armour weapons most often are not used for that purpose in combat. They're just way too useful for a myriad of other purposes. Special versions and ammunition natures for non anti-armour purposes have proliferated. There are shoulder launchers in use that are either dual purpose or not primarily anti-armour - even the US Army, having passed up on the SMAW, is now going to general issue with the Carl Gustav M4 (as the M3E1).

 

Sometimes you really want to put the rocket/projectile where you want it to go. It could be that you want to place it optimally to cover an area target, to hit a weak point on a structure, go through a window or even hit where no enemy actually are - just beyond the corner of a wall to take out enemies behind it. Through a wall. Into a building you suspect might contain enemies etc. At the moment you can do that manually with an HE rifle grenade, but can't do it with a more powerful and versatile Carl Gustaf, Pzf-3, RPG-7 etc. Yes it's micromanagement, but that micromanagement could be pivotal to the success of an engagement. If it is allowed for everything from tanks to MG-3s and rifle grenades, why not allow it for hand-held AT weapons?

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

×