Give us perks!

[macieksoft]

What about extending capabilities of existing vehicles in SB PRO PE?

M1A2 IRL can be optionally equipped with ERA.

Also Abramses can be equipped with MCD (missile countermeasure device) that works similar way to one mounted on T-90. Its some kind of IR jammer that is making missile's sensor or even more likely missile tracking sensor blind.

Also i heard about possibility to mount laser warning system on Bradley (its not mounted during peacetime, just like MCD, but it can be mounted during wartime).

Another nice thing would be CSAMM on M1A1.

I think it would be nice to have such things in SB, what you think about it?

[Rotareneg]

While I wouldn't count on any such things being put into the sim for a while, I too think SB would be a great "what if" simulator.

[TankHunter]

Sacrifice enough rodents to the Tank Gods and your wishes will be done. :clin:

[macieksoft]

So my first wish is to give us rodents in SB :bigsmile:

[Tacbat]

There's an entire thread dedicated to this sort of thing:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=16028&page=76

[Ssnake]

What about extending capabilities of existing vehicles in SB PRO PE?

I'm always for more vehicles and vehicle variants in SB Pro, don't get me wrong. But NOT in the form of "perks", user-based "reward modifications". There's World of Tanks with all its absurdity for that.

Sometimes it may be dismissed as marketing speek when I write that "Steel Beasts is not a game". But there is an actual intent and message behind it that is intended to go far beyond making our users feel to be of an elite breed. It is about what feature developments are possible, and prioritized.

One effect is for example that we will allow for entertainment elements as long as they do not stand in the ways of training value. A game might tolerate educational elements as long as they would not stand in the way of entertainment. So, that's the dividing line, the different emphasis on two aspects that cannot always be met in good compromise.

If we were to add ERA to the Abrams, we would do it in the form of a new Abrams vehicle fleet member, not as an "upgrade option" that you could "buy" in your "garage" for your own tanks.

[macieksoft]

I used PERK word just because your approach to IA scenarios is so much arcade approach ;-) This was some kind of joke.

I do not really mean upgrades, but options, or reather optional features that could be set in mission editor.

Just like already existing optional RWS for some vehicles, or a microphone option for Lemur.

I think its could be done the same way. Just add option "explosive reactive armor" in mission editor for M1A2 just like it already is for "optional weapon" for some vehicles.

Same thing for MCD and LWS, those systems can be mounted on almost any variant of vehicle as they are some kind of independent systems, the only thing those systems need from a vehicle is compatible electric power. You do not need certain variant of radios, FCS or FBCB2 to mount MCD. You must only locate it in correct place.

Making 2 variants of Abramses with MCD and without would need more work than attaching those things to tanks.

What is easier, 2 variants of Abrams 3D models or single Abrams 3D model + separate 3D model of MCD and its control panel that could be attached to Abrams 3D model when "optional missile countermeasure device" in editor is checked.

And yes, SB PRO PE "players" are some kind of elite, preatty much the same as flightsim "players". At least as long as nobody cares about score ;-)

I remember situation when i told one men in BF2 that frag grenades IRL cannot blow up Abrams tank, he was really surprised, just like kid who is wondering why TNT is not exploding when put on fire. People with lack of physics and weapons knowledge in FPS games can be sometimes annoying, in SB PRO PE without such knowledge you are duck quack quack quack ;-)

But even when u have such knowledge sometimes you may get lost in some of things.

I remember situation when my buddy from Polish tank sim forum in MP broken a gun of CV90-30. After MG reloading (that was pain in the ass because for a long time we could not get the crew to reload it) something happened to the powered traverse mechanism (probably it was locked during reload and from some reason remained locked) and gun was unable to move. I think he did some kind of override and he started to elevate and rotate gun, then the gun colided with rear troop compartment and the result was broken gun.

[Tjay]

While I wouldn't count on any such things being put into the sim for a while, I too think SB would be a great "what if" simulator.

Nice link!

[Grenny]

The problem with such system as Countermeasures and hard kill systems is, how to model them correctly.

Do they work all the time?

only against certain type of missles or all?

under what circumstances do they work and when not?

Will they also work against tank rounds?

Not easy to get.

Unless you've got an SBpro customer with demand for such a system simulated, willing to share the needed data AND that has no objections in making them public ( :-D )

I doubt it will get into the PE version soon.

[GaryOwen]

Not easy to get.

Unless you've got an SBpro customer with demand for such a system simulated, willing to share the needed data AND that has no objections in making them public ( :-D )

Or somebody could just pick up a copy of Combat Mission Black Sea and reverse engineer their data.

[Ssnake]

No human player fires (and guides) a missile personally in Combat Mission. The entire system is highly deterministic, so you can calculate the combat results at the point when the trigger is pulled by the computer-controlled crew, then resolve it in the seconds before the impact.

Steel Beasts must do it in real-time, and these active defense systems usually have a reaction time at or under the frame rate (=time steps with which we resolve combat). That's not much if all you have to go with is the missile location and vector.

[macieksoft]

IIRC (but i am not 100% sure) MCD has no reaction time because its turned on all the time. Its not a system that kills missile in flight by blowing it up.

Its supposed to confuse the missile guidance.

It will be useless against older manually guided variants of AT-3.

Its all about guidance system and making those infrared spectrum sensors blind. Its just like a powerfull infrared flashlight that blinds the sensors.

I wonder if this can make LRF blind.

The disadvantage? It will make tank easier to find for enemy using thermals.

Fun fact: You can call it former farmer tech because its basically a chicken warming light.

[Grenny]

IIRC (but i am not 100% sure) MCD has no reaction time because its turned on all the time. Its not a system that kills missile in flight by blowing it up.

Its supposed to confuse the missile guidance.

It will be useless against older manually guided variants of AT-3.

Its all about guidance system and making those infrared spectrum sensors blind. Its just like a powerfull infrared flashlight that blinds the sensors.

I wonder if this can make LRF blind.

The disadvantage? It will make tank easier to find for enemy using thermals.

Fun fact: You can call it former farmer tech because its basically a chicken warming light.

There are countermeasures against that kind of mcd too. Both technical and tactical ones. Esim would have to reproduce those also. Not easily done

Edited February 16, 2015 by Grenny

[GaryOwen]

No human player fires (and guides) a missile personally in Combat Mission.

Well, darn. I was hoping that maybe you could do a trade with them. Their active defense system data for an algorithm to stow missile launchers when vehicles move.