Jump to content

"Most" desired feature for a next paid upgrade?


Would you prefer new tanks or the option to fire personal weapons(esp AT weapons) with the next upgarde  

54 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you prefer new tanks or the option to fire personal weapons(esp AT weapons) with the next upgarde

    • I rather have a few more new tanks/IFV then more infantry options
      33
    • Yes, I'd skip on tank/IFv models in favour of having useable AT weapons ...and maybe rifles
      21


Recommended Posts

Greetings, the Poll simply out of personal interesst. I'm I the only one bitching about the issue...or are more yaerning to get better infantry control.

It does not in any way reflect any plans or even considerations by the developers...

 

So the questions is rather digital: would you forego some new cool tanks...in order to be able to fire personal AT-weapons(RPGs) and rifles?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

While infantry is dangerous in Steelbeast, too much is still left to be desired.  And I speack in point of view of person who likes to command tanks in Steelbeast.  Too often infantry is just... sitting ducks.  Also... too often, especially in areas with woods or bushes where infantry would be most dangerous to be faced...  it has felt most useless (not sure if there are recent changes in that).   As troops just refuse to fire / use their weapons.  And other times... they fire their weapons without consideration at all from point blank killing themselfs.

 

I am starting to think that it would actually be better to get infantry to be more...  dynamic, to move and to react to waypoints, tactics as tanks do rather than to sit like ducks. 

 

I don't want SB to become something where infantry can be used to suicide missions of vengeance either, but it would be cool to sometimes use AT weapons yourself.  

 

Also... I don't like how Blind and Deaft  infantry sometimes is.  There can be AFV or troops next to them.. and they just don't spot it or if they do... they just..  don't fire 😧   

 

And I don't feel like jumping to RPG view to hit fire button would change that enough.  I suppose it would be one way to solve something to get things working a bit...  but I think true problems are elsewhere.

 

Ill hold my vote for now...   until I decide which one id prefer if either.  But I will ask others of my friends to vote as I feel this is important to community.

 

 

 

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

I'm I the only one bitching about the issue

WTF? Hello. Hi.

 

40 minutes ago, Lumituisku said:

I don't want SB to become something where infantry can be used to suicide missions of vengeance either

Tanks can be, and are used in that same vein - and much more dangerously. So why is everyone scared of a little guy with an light AT weapon?

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

WTF? Hello. Hi.

 

Tanks can be, and are used in that same vein - and much more dangerously. So why is everyone scared of a little guy with an light AT weapon?

Because those little guys in right hands can appear from almost anywhere, cannot be detected by sound, can be extremely stealthy... And most often are numerous as ants. 

 

It would be dramatic game changer. Making those who know how to use them extremely dangerous opponents. Increasing cap between good and bad players. And  by that way... very likely taking focus away from tanks to little green men. Changing how games go. 

And very likely traumatizing some new players who are noobs and unaware of dangers of infantry.

 

i love infantry on Steelbeast and i am already deadly opponent with it. Give me access to sighs and ability to shoot myself without having need to rely on AI... And I know that it would be game changer. 

 

such change is not to be taken lightly. 

 

 

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

Because those little guys in right hands can appear from almost anywhere, cannot be detected by sound, can be extremely stealthy... And most often are numerous as ants. 

Just like real life. 😀

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

Just like real life. 😀

 

This.

 

2 hours ago, Lumituisku said:

Because those little guys in right hands can appear from almost anywhere, cannot be detected by sound, can be extremely stealthy... And most often are numerous as ants. 

 

It would be dramatic game changer. Making those who know how to use them extremely dangerous opponents. Increasing cap between good and bad players. And  by that way... very likely taking focus away from tanks to little green men. Changing how games go. 

And very likely traumatizing some new players who are noobs and unaware of dangers of infantry.

 

i love infantry on Steelbeast and i am already deadly opponent with it. Give me access to sighs and ability to shoot myself without having need to rely on AI... And I know that it would be game changer. 

 

such change is not to be taken lightly. 

 

So you are saying that a player in the role of the Company or Battalion Commander would now have to think about how to employ infantry as part of their maneuver plan to actually win a battle? Just like in real life? What a concept! 

 

I would argue that those who know how to employ infantry already ARE dangerous opponents even without having an "AT shoot here" option (just like there is already with the HE and Smoke grenades). No one thinks it is game breaking that you can manually fire from one of the many Tanks and AFVs already in game, or manually fire from LMG/HMGs or ATGM systems already in game. Why would it suddenly destroy the entire experience of simulating a modern decisive action conflict if you can tell one of your riflemen to manually shoot his RPG-7 at a target at 300 meters? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted, but it's really a tossup for me, and there wasn't a "meh" choice.

 

It's always nice to see new platforms added to the sim, so I voted for that one ... although there are so many now that there are dozens I've never used beyond loading them up on an empty map for a look.

 

While I think more infantry AT weapon playability would absolutely be useful, I have zero interest in seeing rifle sights included, so I couldn't vote for that as presented. 

 

I don't mean to discount those who do; everyone's entitled to their preferences. The recurring calls for rifle sights remind me, though, of one player's constant harping on cast-turret Leos. The frequent requests became a source of jokes, and although the model was eventually added, it remained a cause for complaints and hard feelings, as I recall. I hope that doesn't happen here. 

 

2 hours ago, Lumituisku said:

Give me access to sighs and ability to shoot myself without having need to rely on AI

 

You sound depressed. Let's get you some help.  😉

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Lumituisku said:

Because those little guys in right hands can appear from almost anywhere, cannot be detected by sound, can be extremely stealthy... And most often are numerous as ants. 

 

It would be dramatic game changer. Making those who know how to use them extremely dangerous opponents. Increasing cap between good and bad players. And  by that way... very likely taking focus away from tanks to little green men. Changing how games go. 

And very likely traumatizing some new players who are noobs and unaware of dangers of infantry.

 

i love infantry on Steelbeast and i am already deadly opponent with it. Give me access to sighs and ability to shoot myself without having need to rely on AI... And I know that it would be game changer. 

 

such change is not to be taken lightly. 

 

 

completely disagree.

 

For a game that markets itself a realistci combined arms game AND a training tool...this reasoning makes no sense.

Might as well argue for AI controlled tanks,so that ALL tanks in SB are on T-90 level of simulation. As beeing able to engage AFV at close range is a CORE ability of infantry, not having any control over it is beyonf frustrating.

 

It would not separate good and bad players...it would seperate between those who play SB like WoT style tanky shooter and those who play tanks closer to real life.

Right now you can basicly simply drive through a forest with ease, while the AI controlled AT tema go through comical  kneel><prone cycles.

 

So IMO anyone interessted in SB as a realistic tank game, should vote for the second option

Edited by Grenny
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Splash said:

 

 

While I think more infantry AT weapon playability would absolutely be useful, I have zero interest in seeing rifle sights included, so I couldn't vote for that as presented. 

 

 

 

 

You sound depressed. Let's get you some help.  😉

Thats why I added rifles as a  remote ...maybe only.

While rifle team staring at each other from 50 yards on not hitting each other is painful, but not gamebreaking.

tanks simply driving by infantry in wooded terrain is...

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

While rifle team staring at each other from 50 yards on not hitting each other is painful, but not gamebreaking

Not game breaking, sure.

 

It is a massive break in immersion though and makes me not want to play.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what this is about, TBH. The smallest coin of this game is the weapons team/half squad, and the training audience as far as SB Pro as a training tool is concerned are junior leaders of any army branch as well as AFV crews. From that follows that if we can't get the infantry AI good enough to handle itself reasonably well all by its own, we have to provide the means to a player in the infantry squad leader position to resolve possible deficits in  areas such as target prioritization personally where needed.

 

Since I took control of development we added a ton of infantry related improvements, starting with the F1 view unified command interface for mech platoons. Please compare infantry AI between version 3.0 and 4.2 and tell me with a straight face that there are no improvements. Some here make it seem as if we're neglecting infantry when in fact since 2015 I've invested about 20% of our development effort to pathfinding alone.

 

Given that the lowest command level of Steel Beasts Pro is the squad/team leader level I have always maintained that, eventually, I'd like to see all squad heavy weapons available for direct human access. ATGMs first, then MGs and 40mm AGL; what's now left to do are RPGs (working on it, as a prominent poster in this thread bloody well knows).

It's not quite so easy to implement because of limitations in the legacy code, like, RPGs not actually having any ballistic behavior at all for starters. So we need to address that first, and that's rocket science, literally.

 

What Steel Beasts Pro not is, is being a first person shooter, and I'm against turning into one because of the highly unfavorable effort-to-reward ratio. Also, we're having a bit more on our hands than to focus the team's attention exclusively on a single issue. You know that I hate discussing our development plans because they are subject to change, but I can't say that I'm particularly motivated by the bad vibes that some here seem to like to project. If you want to focus on the negative, I can't stop you. But at the least I'd like to see some recognition that infantry has received a vastly disproportionate amount of attention compared to what our army customers use SB Pro for. Maybe we're not making progress fast enough for your tastes, but at least there's a clearly recognizable direction of our development and it'd be nice if that was recognized, at least on occasion.

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

What Steel Beasts Pro not is, is being a first person shooter, and I'm against turning into one because of the highly unfavorable effort-to-reward ratio

Nobody has ever asked for this.

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

I'm not sure what this is about, TBH. The smallest coin of this game is the weapons team/half squad, and the training audience as far as SB Pro as a training tool is concerned are junior leaders of any army branch as well as AFV crews. From that follows that if we can't get the infantry AI good enough to handle itself reasonably well all by its own, we have to provide the means to a player in the infantry squad leader position to resolve possible deficits in  areas such as target prioritization personally where needed.

This.  I sincerely wish that you will be succesful on that. As I find it perhaps the most important thing that needs to be adressed on this simulation.   

 

What I am saying, is that I think that fundamental problem behind this want for RPG sighs, is not lack of sights.  But that Infantry being too static.  vehicles on route or battlepostion, will aproach enemy for some distance until they can engage. And even avoid trees / buildings to do so.    Infantry even now as far as I am aware.. will sit tight on same spot, waiting for moment to pop up and fire. Or for conditions to be fulfilled for them to move to next route.

 

We have had lot's of wonderful infantry related improvements over the year.  Formations, different posture, lot's of different weapons, lot's of IFVs!  Improvements on the.... pathfinding, and platoon formations.  All these are wonderful and most welcome.  RPG sighs and ability to fire manually would be awesome but still I think what we really need is more dynamically active infantry. And mobile too (more stamina to jogging).  So that infantry would act like vehicles on battle positions.  (and that feature that they would sneak closer to source of sound would be awesome too)   Taking away much of micromanaging and hopping from unit to unit...    and that you could actually rely on your forces to do what you have wanted them to do, without needing to check on them every once a while by jumping from your tank commanders position to other units.   (Also... on this matter.  Better voice reports on radio would help on this too.)

 

I love IFVs a lot. It is infantry fighting vehicle.  But that I still feel that I cannot rely on my infantry, and feel of need to constantly micromanage those (manouver, seek, order to fire,)  put's a lot of strain for one person.  Especially so for those who are new to this simulation.   Ability to fire RPGs, would be helpful, but not solution to what I perceive a greater problem.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Lumituisku said:

Taking away much of micromanaging and hopping from unit to unit...    and that you could actually rely on your forces to do what you have wanted them to do, without needing to check on them every once a while by jumping from your tank commanders position to other units.

 

 

Just be aware that human beings in RL often get your orders / intent wrong too.

 

Be it unclear orders, confusion or whatever.

 

Whilst I agree the AI isn't perfect (either vehicles or pers) it does reflect some of the friction in real life and often our trainees need to prepare for that.

 

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

This.  I sincerely wish that you will be succesful on that. As I find it perhaps the most important thing that needs to be adressed on this simulation.   

 

What I am saying, is that I think that fundamental problem behind this want for RPG sighs, is not lack of sights.  But that Infantry being too static.  vehicles on route or battlepostion, will aproach enemy for some distance until they can engage. And even avoid trees / buildings to do so.    Infantry even now as far as I am aware.. will sit tight on same spot, waiting for moment to pop up and fire. Or for conditions to be fulfilled for them to move to next route.

 

We have had lot's of wonderful infantry related improvements over the year.  Formations, different posture, lot's of different weapons, lot's of IFVs!  Improvements on the.... pathfinding, and platoon formations.  All these are wonderful and most welcome.  RPG sighs and ability to fire manually would be awesome but still I think what we really need is more dynamically active infantry. And mobile too (more stamina to jogging).  So that infantry would act like vehicles on battle positions.  (and that feature that they would sneak closer to source of sound would be awesome too)   Taking away much of micromanaging and hopping from unit to unit...    and that you could actually rely on your forces to do what you have wanted them to do, without needing to check on them every once a while by jumping from your tank commanders position to other units.   (Also... on this matter.  Better voice reports on radio would help on this too.)

 

I love IFVs a lot. It is infantry fighting vehicle.  But that I still feel that I cannot rely on my infantry, and feel of need to constantly micromanage those (manouver, seek, order to fire,)  put's a lot of strain for one person.  Especially so for those who are new to this simulation.   Ability to fire RPGs, would be helpful, but not solution to what I perceive a greater problem.  

 

Thats in itself is much tied into terrain resolution. There have been many improvemts in that regard over the last years...line objects and the new abilitie to create ramps and banks in the mapeditor. 

Infantry need cover to be mobile esp. when facing mechanized enemy. If the terrain is to "flat", it does not matter if they are more dynamic or not.

So the higer the terrain resolution is, the higher the chance to allow infantry to manouver...and most of it is well useable for a human controlled squad

 

I do not see this working by AI against AFV tough. (least not as something easy to implement)

 They would need to:

- anticipate vehicle movement in relation to the terrain

- and use the terrain accordingly to move into an ambush position

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I don't really care about new vehicles. What I would like though are new crewable vehicles. There are some fairly large gaps for mission makers when it comes to crewable equipment. For example we have M113 ATGM carriers, but lack a Soviet equivalent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a hard one to choose. Right now, I'd vote for none because I want both. In fact, what I want is the new UI, the new game engine complete overhaul completed, so after that, consequently adding new vehicles and making infantry behave better and more convincingly will be allegedly easier. In the end thats what I want, more playable afvs and better infantry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally?

If I was running eSim?

Infantry improvements would be the next big project.

 

(Like the vehicle implementation code Al wrote as his one of his last contributions before retirement.

Or the Terrain Engine and the map restructure.)

The things I'd focus on is that bloody pop up in a forest shit, either take the shot or your fucking head down.

And Infantry would become bloody ninjas in a wooded/built up area

 

At the moment Infantry are targets acting like a squad of vehicles.

 

In built up area, they'll happily lie down in the middle of a road rather than using building edges as cover (or if inside they'll stick to a window, in the middle of the window rather than off to a side)

 

They have come a long way from 2D sprites.

But they have a long way to go.

Foxholes and grenades would be a big improvement both cover and concealment

You could hide in the open then, no more TIS targets sitting on a forest edge.

 

As an aside a woods tree density adjuster would be awesome.

Tree density that prohibits tank passage.

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

Tree density that prohibits tank passage.

Yeah, well, there's the rub. If the trees are big enough to stop a tank they are usually so far apart from each other that you can wiggle trough. Conversely, if they are very close together they are usually still small and weak, and you can plow through. The number of cases where this rule doesn't apply is very small in real life. the real problem is that as a tank crew, your mobility and vision and your ability to rotate the gun are heavily restricted.

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

.... your ability to rotate the gun are heavily restricted.

Adding barrel collision would be an option.

But my feeling is that this might be a bigger can of worms then I imagine...

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

Adding barrel collision would be an option.

But my feeling is that this might be a bigger can of worms then I imagine...

 

Not just the barrel, don't forget the turret bustle hanging off the other end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...