Jump to content
Azure Lion

Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, ChrisWerb said:

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.

 

Really?

 

As someone with over 30 years service including:

 

- In my earlier days qualifying on the weapon (Carl Gustav), fired lots on nice black HEAT rounds, HE and Illum as well as buckets of Prac

- More recently deploying and having people under my command use it

 

I'd never have known.

 

However those asymmetric threat environments tend not to have a lot of AFVs running around. Your average Steel Beasts scenario does.

 

If I face an armoured threat and if my guys only have 4 - 6 rounds (not the re-mount / refresh experience of SB) then I'll direct them to use them to fire at primarily AFVs (i.e. maybe use 1 of the 6 rounds on a bunker).

 

I see no point using them on buildings and other things when Murphy's Law says that as soon as you fire the 6th round an AFV will drive around the corner.

 

Apart from that the 84's signature will attract a lot of interest when fired so you need to ensure you pick your targets.

 

So by all means waste the ammunition (IMHO) on lower priority targets in SB, but please don't tell me how to employ the weapon system in real life until you know a bit more than just copy and paste out of Wikipedia or whatever.

 

 

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Really?

 

As someone with over 30 years service including:

 

- In my earlier days qualifying on the weapon (Carl Gustav), fired lots on nice black HEAT rounds, HE and Illum as well as buckets of Prac

- More recently deploying and having people under my command use it

 

I'd never have known.

 

However those asymmetric threat environments tend not to have a lot of AFVs running around. Your average Steel Beasts scenario does.

 

If I face an armoured threat and if my guys only have 4 - 6 rounds (not the re-mount / refresh experience of SB) then I'll direct them to use them to fire at primarily AFVs (i.e. maybe use 1 of the 6 rounds on a bunker).

 

I see no point using them on buildings and other things when Murphy's Law says that as soon as you fire the 6th round an AFV will drive around the corner.

 

Apart from that the 84's signature will attract a lot of interest when fired so you need to ensure you pick your targets.

 

So by all means waste the ammunition (IMHO) on lower priority targets in SB, but please don't tell me how to employ the weapon system in real life until you know a bit more than just copy and paste out of Wikipedia or whatever.

 

 

I too was scratching my head over that comment. Never told my troops to fire a anti armour weapons  not used for that purpose in training, or my deployments either, just wondering where that came from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now we have vids of troops firing AT wpns at non AFV's.. Not trying to cause shit here, how ever,

Is this the best tactical use of said wpn system?, or I got his wpn and I can fire it, so I will?

 Like I stated I don't see any purpose in doing so. Can anyone explain why one would use a limited wpn system, on a non armoured trg when a AFV threat, could appear at any moment and leave the unit without that capability?

Just how would the on the ground leader justify the it's use if it was needed,but unavailable when needed and lives were lost.

 

 

Not pointing fingers here (just my personal education), just trying to understand the thought process, as one who has been in situations where this behavior was not tolerated/encouraged working with other nations other than my own, and I've worked/deployed with a few.

 

Plz don't let this go pear shape.

Edited by 12Alfa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's not totally insane. In the Swedish army (the longest user of the Carl G?) We basicly have 4 rounds for it, HE, HEAT, SMK and ILLUMINATION and what we load up is mostly mission specific, or more precisly threat specific (Even if we have a default loadout as well that I dont remember in my head).

 

And we are quite happy to fire HE on infantry, trucks and buildings with infantry in it,(with airburst function on the HE as well) use SMOKE to screen of enemies or our self and ILLUMINATION to... well illuminate (guess this round is getting more and more obsolete with NVGs...) 

So I am one of those who want to specify in SB what the Carl G are carrying and also be able to force the AI what round to use against what (for example a building with troops in it).

 

I guess different countries have different SOP's but to Swedish army the carl G ist not only a AT-weapon but a multi-purpouse weapon.

 

/KT

Edited by Kingtiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree, we do the same with the Carl G, and use the rounds aligned with the target, although we don't fire a A/T round when we have Heat for that use, I suppose if all you had was AT left, and had to fire to save lives, but this would be in extreme cases. Personalty. I never seen this in trg, or deployments, But it could have happened. :) Do you you use the TP RAP FFV 552 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing some of the recent uses of what are meant as anti-tank weapons against non-tank targets has simply been the lack of tanks to shoot.  If you're fighting against an insurgent force that simply does not have armored vehicles, I imagine it could be tempting to fire an AT weapon at them for various reasons.  Be it the morale effect of doing so, the physical effect of doing so, or simply having an excuse to get rid of it so you don't have to carry it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2017 at 5:47 PM, Gibsonm said:
On 10/24/2017 at 0:49 PM, 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?

 

 

 

Allow me to clarify;  Some kind of UI function that would list all units that any given player has under their command/ownership. (No more; "Who has 1/A"...."Who has 1/A?"...."EVERYBODY CHECK YOUR MAP AND SEE IF YOU HAVE 1/A!" )

Share this post


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

Do you you use the TP RAP FFV 552 ?

 

When I google this comes up as a training round? to be honest  I don't know, we have our swedish names for the rounds and I have no clue what the are called by SAAB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's ammo, and the designation starts with TP, it's usually not rolls of soft tissue paper (but yes, it indicates "target practice" = training ammo).

Share this post


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

 

Being able to place small military structures and force protection in the mission editor.

 

Tents, Guard towers, HESCO barriers, etc.

Yeah this would be handy. (Although having the Map editor open in another instance of SB and alt-tabbing to make map changes, then refreshing map in the mission editor works fairly well/quickly too).

Having these things as deployable objects in the planning phase would create some possibilities too.

Share this post


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

Although having the Map editor open in another instance of SB and alt-tabbing to make map changes, then refreshing map in the mission editor works fairly well/quickly too)

 

We will not have that luxury in the next patch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bond_Villian said:

I wasnt aware of that...bummer

 

From what @Ssnake has said, the map system will be much different and not as flexible as we have it now. Custom maps will not be included with .sce files.

 

I may be wrong, but that is how i interpreted it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that’s the case with maps regarding the terrain upgrade then it will be a pool of sorts. We get to choose a region of a specific map but we can’t alter it. A random battle generator may actually be possible now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, CalAB said:

If that’s the case with maps regarding the terrain upgrade then it will be a pool of sorts. We get to choose a region of a specific map but we can’t alter it. A random battle generator may actually be possible now. 

 

Wouldn't I love to see that :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, CalAB said:

If that’s the case with maps regarding the terrain upgrade then it will be a pool of sorts. We get to choose a region of a specific map but we can’t alter it. A random battle generator may actually be possible now. 

We'll still be able to modify maps. But attaching the map to a scenario file, so that everyone loading the scenario in the assembly hall will have the map at the same time...might not be possible anymore.

As map can grow bigger with higher terrain resolution.

Share this post


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

We'll still be able to modify maps. But attaching the map to a scenario file, so that everyone loading the scenario in the assembly hall will have the map at the same time...might not be possible anymore.

As map can grow bigger with higher terrain resolution.

 

Yes things like 20+ people at TGIF downloading the scenario + map 2 mins before mission start will be unlikely unless everyone of those people is on fibre, due to the file's size / download speeds required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can still be possible if the base map has been distributed previously, and the embedded map is a "delta map" with sufficiently few differences to the base map. In that case the map size remains small to keep it practical to distribute it with the scenario file.

 

And while you are just TESTING a scenario, it will remain possible to edit a map while you are playing a scenario based on said map in its unpublished state. Only when you publish the map (=close it for further editing under the same file name) a scenario based on that map can be played in single player, or in multiplayer mode.

 

All in all the loss of flexibility is minimal, but we need to get accustomed to topics like "publication state" of a map, that maps MUST be fully georeferenced, and that map "packages" are now organized in folder structures rather than a handful of files strewn across different directories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Ssnake said:

It can still be possible if the base map has been distributed previously, and the embedded map is a "delta map" with sufficiently few differences to the base map. In that case the map size remains small to keep it practical to distribute it with the scenario file.

 

So if I read this correctly the delta map is going to be new. Something that we can use to make small changes, like altering a road or tree line. A map feature accessed through the scenario editor?

Edited by CalAB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No - delta maps are still to be created in the map editor - but yes, intended for minor variations and "hasty edits" to retain flexibility in use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I, for one, am hoping for a Christmas release of the upgrade. At least it’s on my wish list, and yes Santa, I’m looking at you ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2017 at 3:30 AM, Ssnake said:

with sufficiently few differences to the base map

What does this mean?

 

What is the threshold for 'few differences' ?

 

As long as we dont mess with the terrain?

Adding/moving tree's, buildings, roads?

Share this post


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

What does this mean?

 

What is the threshold for 'few differences' ?

 

As long as we dont mess with the terrain?

Adding/moving tree's, buildings, roads?

It's more about things which would change the underlying height data.

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

×