The guess list.

[Apocalypse 31]

4 hours ago, Ssnake said:

I can answer that now:

 

 

Disclaimer: These four km² full of new vehicles are partially based on a single vehicle with several equipment options, or a vehicle family with its variants. And there are a handful of vehicles that you already have in 4.0, but with significant changes that deserve some explanation. Also, at least two vehicles have the wrong tactical icon. And I made one mistake, confusing an MBT with an IFV in the picture above.

How many of these are crewable?

[Ssnake]

About 14 vehicles and vehicle families, but that sounds more spectacular than it actually is. As you can see from the image above, there's a fair number of trucks incolved, even if many of them fall into the (light) reconnaissance category. We usually associate more or less complex fire control systems and clickable interiors and whatnot - well, there's the DF30 and the DF90 that fully fall into that category, and then one new remote weapon station. I must confess, I'm beginnning to lose overview, so there may be one or two more that I'd consider "true" crewable vehicles, but at the same time I think it's only fair to point out that additional vehicles with detailed crew positions were not the focus of this development step.

 

The meat is in a completely revamped lighting/render engine, better looking particle effects, the new HE/fragmentation model, and, of course, the new terrain engine.

Also, "better AI" - but it's largely unspectacular if certain things simply work, so it's more of an absence of frustration that you may notice later on.

[Apocalypse 31]

46 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

About 14 vehicles and vehicle families, but that sounds more spectacular than it actually is.

Those that are crewable?

 

46 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

DF30 and the DF90 that fully fall into that category, and then one new remote weapon station. I must confess, I'm beginnning to lose overview, so there may be one or two more that I'd consider "true" crewable vehicles

or? That was really confusing...

 

 

Maybe my question wasn't clear?

 

How many of the vehicles in the picture that you posted will allow me to jump into the gunner seat (doesn't matter how complete the interior or FCS is) and pull a trigger? 

Edited May 24, 2019 by Apocalypse 31

[Ssnake]

14 vehicles, and vehicle families.

 

There's about 79 individual units on the picture above. 22 of them are one vehicle in different configurations, or maybe you'd call it a vehicle family. Whatever, I count it as "one" when my answer is "14". There's another one that's "seven vehicles in one" if you will, so I count it as "one" as well. It's not easy to answer your question with clarity without spilling all the beans right away. But what's more, it's also a question how you count. I could of course literally count every single vehicle obove there that has a dedicaterd commander's and gunner's position, and then I'd arrive at a number in the high thirties or so. And you'd all go "Kpchhhh... minds blown!" ... and then you'd all crucify me when it turns out that 29 of those would actually be just two vehicles, in variable configuration. So I'm deliberately lowballing here. But I don't have the time to go through all 79 vehicles again to checkmark which of them exactly meets your definition of "crewable" (since you indicated that it must have a commander's and a gunner's position, minimum, and that you could do shooty stuff with it).

 

So, sorry. I'm not intentionally obtuse, but the confusion is somewhat deliberate because I don't know how to better put it, OK?

[Gibsonm]

I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.

[hoggydog]

can we just use the technical term " quite a few"?

[Volcano]

11 hours ago, Marko said:

Not really the idea is to Guess what new AFVs will actually be in the update.

We were just poking for a bit of fun, is all. 😀

[Marko]

1 hour ago, Volcano said:

We were just poking for a bit of fun, is all. 😀

All good.

I really do enjoy the build up to a new update release.

 

[71st_AH_Rob]

Hmm, towed artillery..M777?

[Breakthrough7]

My guesses;

[Panzer_Leader]

On 5/25/2019 at 4:07 AM, Ssnake said:

14 vehicles, and vehicle families.

Technical term: a shedload.

 

I’m looking forward to the gradual reveal.

[Gibsonm]

11 minutes ago, Panzer_Leader said:

Technical term: a shedload.

 

I’m looking forward to the gradual reveal.

 

Well a passing knowledge of mil sybmology indicates few new MBTs (even accounting for Ssnake's mislabelling).

[Hedgehog]

On 5/25/2019 at 8:35 PM, Breakthrough7 said:

My guesses;

There is a TOS-1 in the update (according to Grenny's video)

 

The M270 has been in SB Pro since ver 3, I think, it's just never worked properly.

 

These are new units

You're in the right area with the MT-LB.

(If the MT-LB FO was crewable it would be an Existing unit)

[Breakthrough7]

5 hours ago, Hedgehog said:

There is a TOS-1 in the update (according to Grenny's video)

 

The M270 has been in SB Pro since ver 3, I think, it's just never worked properly.

 

These are new units

You're in the right area with the MT-LB.

(If the MT-LB FO was crewable it would be an Existing unit)

Not sure I'm tracking your critique.  This statement beneath the vehicle park picture by SSnake--

"Disclaimer: These four km² full of new vehicles are partially based on a single vehicle with several equipment options, or a vehicle family with its variants. And there are a handful of vehicles that you already have in 4.0, but with significant changes that deserve some explanation."

--seems to suggest that some of the vehicles in the picture are completely new and a handful are "already in 4.0 but with significant changes." [hence my distinction "crewable MT-LB FO"] 

Notably the IED ordnance list in the ITEC thread includes; a Dutch 155mm artillery shell, an M31 HE GMLRS rocket, and the 9M27F rocket fired from the BM-27, which could mean nothing, or could mean something.  

Edited May 28, 2019 by Breakthrough7
added 9M27F

[Gibsonm]

3 hours ago, Breakthrough7 said:

Notably the IED ordnance list in the ITEC thread includes; a Dutch 155mm artillery shell, an M31 HE GMLRS rocket, and the 9M27F rocket fired from the BM-27, which could mean nothing, or could mean something.  

 

It means they are the various IEDs you can now choose from, as opposed to one generic IED. Different sized IEDs have different cratering ability and blast effects.

 

Just because there is a MLRS rocket amongst the choices for an IED (e.g. stolen ordnance) does not mean there is a MLRS unit to fire it.

[Grenny]

 

[Gibsonm]

Ah great now we have to track the same information in multiple threads.

 

Could we not just put it all here:

 

Edited May 28, 2019 by Gibsonm

[Marko]

1 minute ago, Gibsonm said:

Ah great now we have to track the same information in multiple threads.

 

Could we not just put it all here:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Gibsonm said:

Ah great now we have to track the same information in multiple threads.

 

Could we not just put it all here:

 

+1

 

I posted all of Grennys videos in it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

=1

[Breakthrough7]

44 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

 

It means they are the various IEDs you can now choose from, as opposed to one generic IED. Different sized IEDs have different cratering ability and blast effects.

 

Just because there is a MLRS rocket amongst the choices for an IED (e.g. stolen ordnance) does not mean there is a MLRS unit to fire it.

Right in the most obvious sense that is exactly what it means-- but my comment was meant to be taken in the context of this thread and scraping clues for guesses.  If M270s firing M31s and PZH2000s firing Dutch M107C1s show up in-game I will feel very vindicated in drawing a correlation.

[Ssnake]

Yes, you connected the right dots.

[Hedgehog]

On 5/28/2019 at 4:19 PM, Breakthrough7 said:

Not sure I'm tracking your critique.  This statement beneath the vehicle park picture by SSnake--

"Disclaimer: These four km² full of new vehicles are partially based on a single vehicle with several equipment options, or a vehicle family with its variants. And there are a handful of vehicles that you already have in 4.0, but with significant changes that deserve some explanation."

--seems to suggest that some of the vehicles in the picture are completely new and a handful are "already in 4.0 but with significant changes." [hence my distinction "crewable MT-LB FO"] 

Notably the IED ordnance list in the ITEC thread includes; a Dutch 155mm artillery shell, an M31 HE GMLRS rocket, and the 9M27F rocket fired from the BM-27, which could mean nothing, or could mean something.  

Well as Grenny posted a snapshot of it.

MT-LBu <- new unit.

MTLB FO <- existing unit.

[Breakthrough7]

5 minutes ago, Hedgehog said:

Well as Grenny posted a snapshot of it.

MT-LBu <- new unit.

MTLB FO <- existing unit.

Hedgehog I have no idea what you're on about.  We don't have a crewable MT-LB FO right now.  

[Hedgehog]

40 minutes ago, Breakthrough7 said:

Hedgehog I have no idea what you're on about.  We don't have a crewable MT-LB FO right now.  

Sigh.

 

The picture you posted here:

 

You said Your guess for 1/C was "a BFIST / crewable MTLB FO"

 

I was / am telling you 1/C is most likely the uncrewable MTLBu

 

Is this Clear?

 

[Marko]

Congrats to the Esim counter intelligence team. LoL

Nobody who posted /speculated the the T14-16 or the DF-90 would be included.

 

 

[Ssnake]

The DFs may appear pretty much out in the left field unless you consider that armies under severe budget constraints are more likely to adopt Steel Beasts because

a., they haven't much to lose, and

b., in this specific case the volume of the contract barely raised interest from established defense contractors

 

The officer responsible for the training program had an unspecific offer that was about five times more expensive than ours; his general asked whether it would be five times as good, and he replied that he could only guarantee that it would cost five times as much.    ...so, in that light I think it explains to a degree why we're seeing so many remote weapon stations and IFV programs in Steel Beasts. (Also, because a lot of people were pushing us to do less about tanks and more about infantry despite the scientific fact that big tanks are so much cooler.)

 

The new Russian gear - well, I suppose it can be chalked up as some customers being interested in simulating situations where they might be confronted with equal or stronger opponents rather than spanking pixeltruppen equipped with 1960s technology. It was an opportunity that I very much welcomed even if the question is allowed whether these specific vehicles will ever be seen in more than very limited numbers.