SB Infantry

[Hedgehog]

The biggest thing lacking for infantry in this sim is fortifications.

Specifically ones that can withstand artillery bombardments.

 

But a "shoot rocket here" or crosshair for RPGs or RRPGs (even if they fly in straight line) would be much more welcome now as a "here is a workaround until we can fix it" thing.

 

Like has been done with the map engine.

I actually feel we've gone a bit backwards with that one.

Certainly the choice of maps avaliable has gotten smaller.

And most of the ones we have now are "rough" versions of the old maps anyway.

But that's for a different thread.

[Gibsonm]

7 minutes ago, Hedgehog said:

But a "shoot rocket here"

 

Well its not perfect but that already exits in the 3D world. Click on the place you want to shoot at and choose engage here, or select the unit and select "shoot at this unit" (or similar wording).

 

Admittedly that doesn't stop them doing the stand up, look around, take a knee, stand up, get shot routine, but the choice is there.

 

[Grenny]

2 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Well its not perfect but that already exits in the 3D world. Click on the place you want to shoot at and choose engage here, or select the unit and select "shoot at this unit" (or similar wording).

 

Admittedly that doesn't stop them doing the stand up, look around, take a knee, stand up, get shot routine, but the choice is there.

 

I'd call it a "fake choice", as the base problem still remains (you described it pretty well)

In fact this "shoot at.." command frustrates me even more, as in 90% of the cases they will do the up-down clowning till finally the OPFOR decides to put them out of their misery

Edited November 25, 2021 by Grenny

[Apocalypse 31]

2 minutes ago, Grenny said:

I'd call it a "fake choice", as the base problem still remains (you described it pretty well)

In fact this "shoot at.." command frustrates me even more, as in 90% of the cases they will do the up-down clowning till finally the OPFOR decides to put them out of their misery

YES!

 

Sometimes I find myself hitting it over and over, just HOPING something would happen. Only for nothing to happen.

 

It's like hitting the 'Close Door' button on this elevator.

[Apocalypse 31]

[Grenny]

37 minutes ago, Hedgehog said:

The biggest thing lacking for infantry in this sim is fortifications.

Specifically ones that can withstand artillery bombardments.

 

...

 I agree here.

Any fix there would be most welcome...

[Poofydoodle]

1 hour ago, Grenny said:

The point is, if you want to model combined arms combat...it just helps when modelling all arms as good as possible. In this setting tanks never work without infantry and infantry (should) not work without the tanks.

When you want to do that in multi player also, the infantry should be attractive to play...not only the tanks. or else...why would anyone man the infantry part??(and believe me, that is a big problem)

And its highly frustrating if you place infantry in a perfect spot, only for them to never take the shot...without any indication for you on why that is.

Would you find playing tanks attractive, if you have no control on when /if they are going to engage?

I havent commanded the infantry too much beyond in my own scenarios so I cant comment too much but I have noticed their behavior with at weapons can be a bit odd.

 

In my mission I created a little scripted sequence where a bridge could be blown as you were crossing it but still with enough time to stop. Then an rpg gunner would spawn in (you could stop the ambush by spotting the other two men and killing them) and you would have a moment to pop smoke and throw the tank in reverse 

 

The first time I tested it everything went perfect with the rpg gunner popping off a shot a few seconds later hitting the vehicle and also collapsing the bridge where they were for a very dramatic and fun death.

 

However after that first time I could never get it to proceed so smoothly again and usually the soldier would just hide in the bushes and maybe pop off a shot after retreating for a bit. So it would be nice to get more feedback about stuff like that.

 

Also im pretty sure we can control the infantry who have light mgs cant we? I swear I remember controlling one in first person during an mp scenario.

[Grenny]

21 minutes ago, Poofydoodle said:

 

Also im pretty sure we can control the infantry who have light mgs cant we? I swear I remember controlling one in first person during an mp scenario.

...yes that is true.

 But maschine guns don't do much against AFV, or help taking out positions in building etc etc etc

Just for comparsion: it is like controlling a tank where you can't use the MG or the main gun... 😉

 

Anyway, this thread by me is not a general criticism of the software. It still is one of the best tank/AFV and to an extent combined arms game around.

 

And from what I understand, the developers have every intent to make even the infantry better and more useable(and have really come a long way in doing so)...but its a question of resources of getting verything fixed.

 

 

 

Edited November 25, 2021 by Grenny

[Ssnake]

4 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

I don't know much about rocket science but I do know there HERE and NOW: the in-game infantry is LACKING.

Gee, thanks for letting us all know, I had no idea! 🙄

Seriously, you're harping that point for a good while now, and it's not like I pretend that everything is fine the way it is. So then, what's the point of repeating the same thing over and over when I'm telling you - like I did before - that we're on it. It's begun to remind me of a petulant child. Keep going like that, and people will start treating you accordingly.

 

All that this extra drama will accomplish is to poison the atmosphere not just between you and me, but also other people here. It's not going to accelerate the development. The work on it has begun months ago, it's scheduled to go on for more months between other jobs for which we have contractual obligations, and we'll introduce 1st person RPG shooting once that it's in presentable shape. We're not delaying with deliberation, but we're also not going to rush it.

 

I have on numerous occasions explained what our development priorities are, and why (and these priorities are not up for public debate).

First come contractual obligations, because they help us to finance all other work.

2nd priority is work on the new engine, because only with a new engine can we maintain a viable product and, long-term, add new features.

3rd come high priority bugs.

4th, new feature development for version 4 (1st person RPGs are somewhere here, among other things),

5th are medium priority bugs, followed by,

6th, low priority bugs.

 

If you can't accept that 1st person RPG shooting is somewhere in the middle of the heap, I'm sorry, but then we probably have to agree to disagree about this point because I have a responsibility for the long-term development of the whole company and its primary product. Steel Beasts was never intended as a 1st person shooter. We are adding more and more infantry-related features - 1st person ATGMs, MGs, 40mm AGL, all the work on pathfinding, 3D characters, animation system - but the lowest command level of Steel Beasts is the team leader, and even that was possible only with some contortions in the code.

 

4 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

Analysis is paralysis

See, you're so far left on the Dunning Kruger scale, you don't even have the slightest idea how wrong it is to apply military leadership phrases to a software project that has legacy code of 25 years and which is intended to be kept working for at least another two decades. I'm well aware that in combat command paralysis can occur as a result of too much analysis. But software development is not combat. It's pretty much the opposite of it. You can't brute force a solution by throwing wave after wave of programmers at a problem. Typically, assigning more programmers to a task actually slows down progress. You can make certain hacks to accelerate a development, but hacks are effectively drawing a credit. If the project goes on for long enough, you have to pay back, typically with interest, every corner that you decided to cut years ago. Insufficient analysis will result in paralysis later because you get entangled in co-dependencies that result in unexpected side effects that you then need to fix, and then you might need a fix for the fix, and very quickly you're down a recursive rabbit hole where you might not even have a remotely adequate estimate of how deep it might be.

I have said everything there is to say on my end as far as this matter is concerned. I hope you can accept it. The whole picture is a bit bigger than the field of view of an RPG sight.