Jump to content
Azure Lion

Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Chiquito said:

 

Not sure what is the “real” policy of the developer in this matter. 

 

Every time I read in the forum some request like this the answer is they have not tech info about... I guess they have not neither accuracy info for AT-4s and AT-5s because I found them useless but IRL they seem useful to badly damage a tank

 

Well, problem is not with missile specs, I`d say. Its more  about  damage modelling and  can not be resolved easy because of diverse selection of  munitions represented in SB and the lack of certain  information, not available in public domain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what I know, the Kornet is the AT-14 (not AT-4C), much more powerful, but requires an ATGM infantry team to be fired. Try those against Leopard 2s and compare the results with your videos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A gentle reminder Ssnake: although mentioned in the release notes as having new models, the rejuvenated AT-7, AT-13, and AT-14 have yet to make it into the Personal Edition.;)

Edited by MAJ_Fubar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Chiquito said:

 

Not sure what is the “real” policy of the developer in this matter. 

 

Every time I read in the forum some request like this the answer is they have not tech info about... I guess they have not neither accuracy info for AT-4s and AT-5s because I found them useless but IRL they seem useful to badly damage a tank

 

Personaly, I don't see what the problem is. The newer russian ATGM in steelbeasts have no problems offing Leopard 2A4 from the front. What exactly are you complaining about?

 

SS_12_43_34.png

Share this post


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

Personaly, I don't see what the problem is. The newer russian ATGM in steelbeasts have no problems offing Leopard 2A4 from the front. What exactly are you complaining about?

 

SS_12_43_34.png

 

Can you please send me the record file. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MAJ_Fubar said:

A gentle reminder Ssnake: although mentioned in the release notes as having new models, the rejuvenated AT-7, AT-13, and AT-14 have yet to make it into the Personal Edition.;)

 

Well, sure, we have multiple construction sites open, this being one of them. I just wanted to point out that we may not be seeing AT-4 and AT-5 missiles in those videos, but the by far more potent AT-14 (Kornet). To that extent it may be, well, not exatly an apples and oranges comparison - but, say, lemons and oranges. Yes, they are all Russian ATGMs but it shouldn't be much of a surprise if a 152mm HEAT warhead from the mid 1990s will outperform a 120mm HEAT warhead from the early 1970s (even if the later variants, as demonstrated by Grenny, are potent enough to kill a Leo 2 frontally).

 

I want to take all critique seriously, but I would appreciate if you would present your cases with the basic homework being done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 'Quality' option for vehicle crews, ideally with lower values having higher chances of crew 'bailing out' or 'breaking' when hit or damaged, with the option to 'bail' crews voluntarily ( for example when a vehicle is severely damaged/ non combat effective and immobile, the crew can bail and retreat/hide ). Score value of crews and vehicles could be counted separately, so the loss of a vehicle is not as bad as the loss of vehicle and crew.

 I know that this is unlikely to ever be added due to various reasons, but i can imagine ways of it being implemented in SB. Its something you see in many board games (and some video games) and i think it adds a 'human' element.

 

127c.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree on bailing crews.

 

Even if all they do is jump out, scatter, go prone, and disappear, I think it would add immersion.  Plus I agree with the option to tell a crew to just forget it and bail out.  If only to help clean up a scenario by making sure that realistically knocked-out vehicles won't be left hidden in a clump of trees screwing up a trigger/objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well sure, bailing crew would also add a visual cue to a tank being dead, similar to smoke and fire, at least on AFVs without a belly escape hatch.

there would be quite some work involved though. first and foremost for the most barebones bailing crew, we'd need special blank frames added to each vehicle. 

these would be the exit frames where the crew are spawned when they "bail". given there is 200+ vehicles in SB, that'd be quite a gargantuan job in itself. 

then we'd need to add a damage condition when crew would bail. 

this would have to be tied to our existing "mesh" damage, since we have maxed out our number of damages, and changing the number of damages is a nightmare. (redoing damage model for 200+ vehicles, and cracking open 10 year old code)

then there's the case of animation if we chose to do that. 

for vehicles with accessible belly escape hatches, IFVs and APCs, not that much of an issue, crew escapes with troops through troop hatches. usually. 

but for the remaining tanks like M1 series, T-72, T-80 etc. individual escape animations for each crewmember would have to be made, which is quite time consuming. 

and then again this would have to be individually linked in code. and the timing tweaked so the crew doesn't spawn before the exit animation is done. 

things get even more complex if you don't want to simply have the crew climb out of the hatch, down the side of the turret wall, and then magically spawn on the ground. 

then you have to take into consideration the rotation of the turret, and create separate exit animations for the turret being 12 o clock, 3 o clock, 6 o clock and 9 o clock, 

with extra added blankframes on hull rear and hull front, with extra exit animation. 

if you want to further complicate things, you could add a tweened animation from the crew jumping down on hull to crew jumping down from hull, 

with separate exit locations depending on turret rotation. but realistically, this would never ever be done in SB, and even a bailing animation from the turret would be quite a stretch. 

Edited by dejawolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26.11.2017 at 3:34 PM, Chiquito said:

 

Can you please send me the record file. 

 

from what i know, kornet was available to ISIS, and it specifically has penetration in the 1000mm-1300mm range. which can at specific angles penetrate a leopard 2A4 turret frontally, and even earlier M1A1. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, dejawolf said:

well sure, bailing crew would also add a visual cue to a tank being dead, similar to smoke and fire, at least on AFVs without a belly escape hatch.

there would be quite some work involved though. first and foremost for the most barebones bailing crew, we'd need special blank frames added to each vehicle. 

these would be the exit frames where the crew are spawned when they "bail". given there is 200+ vehicles in SB, that'd be quite a gargantuan job in itself. 

then we'd need to add a damage condition when crew would bail. 

this would have to be tied to our existing "mesh" damage, since we have maxed out our number of damages, and changing the number of damages is a nightmare. (redoing damage model for 200+ vehicles, and cracking open 10 year old code)

then there's the case of animation if we chose to do that. 

for vehicles with accessible belly escape hatches, IFVs and APCs, not that much of an issue, crew escapes with troops through troop hatches. usually. 

but for the remaining tanks like M1 series, T-72, T-80 etc. individual escape animations for each crewmember would have to be made, which is quite time consuming. 

and then again this would have to be individually linked in code. and the timing tweaked so the crew doesn't spawn before the exit animation is done. 

things get even more complex if you don't want to simply have the crew climb out of the hatch, down the side of the turret wall, and then magically spawn on the ground. 

then you have to take into consideration the rotation of the turret, and create separate exit animations for the turret being 12 o clock, 3 o clock, 6 o clock and 9 o clock, 

with extra added blankframes on hull rear and hull front, with extra exit animation. 

if you want to further complicate things, you could add a tweened animation from the crew jumping down on hull to crew jumping down from hull, 

with separate exit locations depending on turret rotation. but realistically, this would never ever be done in SB, and even a bailing animation from the turret would be quite a stretch. 

 

That does sound like a huge pain in the balls. I dare say though, that as with other things in SB there could be some 'abstraction' applied that wouldnt require that amount of animating and damage model tweaking etc.  Ie; in the case of voluntarily bailing crew ; spawn an inf section (crew) behind the vehicle as you would with dismounts and destroy the vehicle. Or in the case of crew bailing due to 'breaking' ;  failing a 'die roll' morale/quality check when hit or severely damaged that causes them to bail, spawn troops and destroy vehicle.

 As i said though, i do not suppose that something like this is at all important to esim in the scheme of things, and i know nothing about making games, but i imagine it could be done with less pain on the balls and with sufficient squinting :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But then you may well end up with a compromise that no one wants.

 

22 minutes ago, Bond_Villian said:

Ie; in the case of voluntarily bailing crew ; spawn an inf section (crew) behind the vehicle as you would with dismounts and destroy the vehicle. Or in the case of crew bailing due to 'breaking' ;  failing a 'die roll' morale/quality check when hit or severely damaged that causes them to bail, spawn troops and destroy vehicle.

 

If you just spawn a clone of an exisiting infantry squad then you'll have people complaining that:

 

1. They have the wrong weapons, too much ammunition, and other things that are fine for an Infantry section but not a group of guys scambling to get out under fire. Conversely if they deliberately abandon the vehicle not under fire (e.g. to conduct a foot recon) then maybe they do so with more ammunition, but they are never going to have a MG or maybe RPGs, etc.

 

2. They look "wrong".

 

etc.

 

I get that its a wish list, but some are harder to achieve than others. :)

Share this post


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

 

That does sound like a huge pain in the balls. I dare say though, that as with other things in SB there could be some 'abstraction' applied that wouldnt require that amount of animating and damage model tweaking etc.  Ie; in the case of voluntarily bailing crew ; spawn an inf section (crew) behind the vehicle as you would with dismounts and destroy the vehicle. Or in the case of crew bailing due to 'breaking' ;  failing a 'die roll' morale/quality check when hit or severely damaged that causes them to bail, spawn troops and destroy vehicle.

 As i said though, i do not suppose that something like this is at all important to esim in the scheme of things, and i know nothing about making games, but i imagine it could be done with less pain on the balls and with sufficient squinting :)

 

no, that wouldn't work.  for the tanks you would HAVE to add blankframes since they are not present on those models, otherwise the crew would spawn at the center of the vehicle and likely get stuck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I remind those working for eSim that technical details like these are not to be discussed publicly. There's that NDA clause in your contract that you may want to read again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting mechanic would be if you as Platoon commander had your tank disabled or destroyed, to be placed on the map (as part of the bailed out crew) and be required to make your way to another vehicle in your platoon to regain control of that vehicle and thus the platoon.

Clicking "next vehicle" seems a bit too easy although I realise it may not be easy to program.

 

As a follow up the next question would be "what if the player is then hit by enemy fire while bailed ?". Perhaps the first time make him go to crouch stance a second time go (And stay) prone thus delaying his ability to regain control.

A third time - well it would need to have no effect as the player is invulnerable (As he is now).

This would add another tactical decision as a player. Try to make your way to the MBT 600 yards away and greater protection ? or the easier safer/quicker trek to an APC that may be only 50 yards away.

Players that don't want to go through all that could still click "Next Vehicle"

Again - might not be worth all the programming work but I think it would be more immersive.

 

 

 

Edited by Parachuteprone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Parachuteprone said:

An interesting mechanic would be if you as Platoon commander had your tank disabled or destroyed, to be placed on the map (as part of the bailed out crew) and be required to make your way to another vehicle in your platoon to regain control of that vehicle and thus the platoon.

Clicking "next vehicle" seems a bit too easy although I realise it may not be easy to program.

 

But then what about the crew of that tank... they'd have to get out. 

 

Does tank crews have handheld radios? (we had them) 

that way they still can"control" the platoon... so clicking to next vehicle may count a valid abstraction. 

 

Besides., steelbeasts is meant as tactical trainer, not a "the life of a crew" simulator... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Grenny said:

But then what about the crew of that tank... they'd have to get out. 

 

Does tank crews have handheld radios? (we had them) 

that way they still can"control" the platoon... so clicking to next vehicle may count a valid abstraction. 

 

Besides., steelbeasts is meant as tactical trainer, not a "the life of a crew" simulator... 

 

To be honest I'm not sure. Not military myself so do not know if a commander wears a radio that he could still use to control his platoon if he had to bail.

If its something he has to reach for my guess would be it would depend on how quickly he had to get out and if he was in the state of mind to reach for it.

As for whether it's a worthy mechanic I don't know that either :)

I think it would be interesting - if valid.

 

As for the crew I suppose they would just act as an independent squad after the player transferred out to another vehicle.

 

 

Edited by Parachuteprone

Share this post


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

 

To be honest I'm not sure. Not military myself so do not know if a commander wears a radio that he could still use to control his platoon if he had to bail.

If its something he has to reach for my guess would be it would depend on how quickly he had to get out and if he was in the state of mind to reach for it.

As for whether it's a worthy mechanic I don't know that either :)

I think it would be interesting - if valid.

 

As for the crew I suppose they would just act as an independent squad after the player transferred out to another vehicle.

 

 

.

For an ongoing operation, you'll not wait for a leader to get somewhere on foot and climb onto a new vehicle.

They'll be picked up by following forces.

If the plt--ldr looses his ride, the 2IC will simply take over command and carry on with the mission. If he can see him, he 'll report the position to higher ups, so they can be assisted/picked up.

 

To lead a plt via handheld, I think its not suitable for tankies. Its more for MechInf, that have a slower pace of operation once dismounted...when still fighting mounted, same drill as with tanks

 

Still, having crew bail out would add to the immersion as a GAME , a training value is limited to non existant.

Edited by Grenny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Grenny said:

.

For an ongoing operation, you'll not wait for a leader to get somewhere on foot and climb onto a new vehicle.

They'll be picked up by following forces.

If the plt--ldr looses his ride, the 2IC will simply take over command and carry on with the mission. If he can see him, he 'll report the position to higher ups, so they can be assisted/picked up.

 

To lead a plt via handheld, I think its not suitable for tankies. Its more for MechInf, that have a slower pace of operation once dismounted...when still fighting mounted, same drill as with tanks

 

Still, having crew bail out would add to the immersion as a GAME , a training value is limited to non existant.

Gotcha :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

may have been mentioned, but in the fire control options when you selecting range, would be nice to also have type of target you want that vehicle to fire at.   IE, I don't want ITV's firing at PC's when I have PC's that can take them out, but do want them firing at tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree

 

crew bailing i also something id like to see. Even if its not as simple as it sounds.

 

Steel Armor Blaze of had that feature and it was very immersive to see troops bail out when the tank was disabled, run, then  go prone with thier Carbines ( or in the latter case, well.....)

 

land_163a_003.jpg

 

 

 

fPFzWd9.jpg

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apart from more realism, IMO bailing crews will also have training value. A trainee would make an effort to end the mission with all his men accounted for.

 

Officers jumping from tank to tank would also add to realism. Even though no one is waiting for him, an officer whose tank broke is ordered to get back leading his formation ASAP.

However, implementing this may not add much training value. One can just wait a bit before he clicks "Next Vehicle". 

Edited by Iarmor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wish:

 

The ability to place military structures and objects (hesco walls, towers, tents, etc) in the mission editor rather than having to edit the map.

 

This will be a much bigger deal if the new terrain engine is implemented. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily, as you always have the option to create a "delta map" that will be (very) small in size if the barriers are all that you add compared to a base map, and they can still be embedded in the scenario file. I concede that it would be more convenient and in would make more sense from the tactical/user interface perspective, but as long as we're under serious time pressure in our development we have to settle for "minimally invasive" changes to the code base.

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

×