Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[Lt DeFault]

More conventional control of infantry, using WASD controls to move, the mouse to look and aim...

You can do all that already.

[Tjay]

Well, I wish in my wildest dreams we could have:

More conventional control of infantry, using WASD controls to move, the mouse to look and aim, the ability to designate targets for the remainder of the squad (Similar to "Suppress Here", but rather "Engage hostile targets in this area" if you will), and perhaps some other features to make them a little more playable. Not so that humans can play as individual soldiers, but so that they can play as the squad leader and participate directly in mechanized infantry operations.

Yes I know it's a tank sim, but if we opened that door up we could perhaps attract some additional players and make infantry more effective in offensive missions by letting players get more hands on with them.

Oh, yaaas pleeeeese.

[Tjay]

You can do all that already.

Well, you can't jump to the member of the rifle squad carry the RPG/LAW and aim and fire the weapon. Which is very frustrating bearing in mind that the AI frequently refuses to engage even when the target is a sitting duck. :icon_frown: That is currently top of my personal wish list. Other than a date with Michelle Jeneker.

[apelles]

Of course Claudia Schiffer...

But really Chieftain early and late model... Or some more Korean map... Or korean K1 or K2 (:-) i know, i know it's not much chance) M47-M48 Patton, T55 early.

[Maj.Hans]

You can do all that already.

Let me clarify:

W to move foreward, S to move back, A and D to move ("strafe") left and right instead of turning, using the mouse to adjust the heading of the unit and aim your rifle/MG/RPG/etc.

Edit: To clarify, I am not asking that we turn this into a game where players will be individual infantrymen. I am asking that we give them a better way to control the leading soldier of the squad, and to personally aim and fire the squad leader's rifle as well as the squad's MG and RPG weapons. In this manner, I think that we can make infantry a much more potent tool in offensive use as I imagine that with greater human control we will see far more aggressive use of the infantry squads.

Also, perhaps an easier request:

An M1A1/SA or another variant appropriate for use as an Australian Abrams.

Perhaps clone and modify the existing M1A1/HA to have the newer generation TIS and electronics?

[Hedgehog]

The ability to split inf squads?

Tjay, you Dirty Old Git.

I like your style.

[Gibsonm]

Also, perhaps an easier request:

An M1A1/SA or another variant appropriate for use as an Australian Abrams.

Perhaps clone and modify the existing M1A1/HA to have the newer generation TIS and electronics?

We at least, have already done that.

In fact there was a post devoted to it when the SEP came out.

Its close enough for use to use for "in service" training and its good enough that I'm pretty sure we aren't asking for a AIM SA for the military version.

[Gibsonm]

The ability to split inf squads?

Tjay, you Dirty Old Git.

I like your style.

Just use Mech Inf and then remove the vehicles.

[Hedgehog]

Just use Mech Inf and then remove the vehicles.

Pretty sure the Inf vanish with the vehicles.

The ability to specify where the "My Documents/eSim Games" folder goes.

Most of us will probably leave it as default, but it would be nice to to have the option to specify where the "Stuff" that seems to accumulate goes.

(For those of us who run separate "Windows Only" HDDs/SSDs.)

[Gibsonm]

Well haven't checked as I don't need it but why not park the vehicles off the map and give them a stay command if that is the case?

Then use the dismounted infantry teams on the map.

[Tjay]

The ability to split inf squads?

Do you mean further subdivide rifle and HMG teams? Seems to me each is about the smallest viable unit already.

[AlphaSierra]

I'm sure you could maybe get an approximation of those facilities using a region encompassing the building or object and the repair if.. settings under the units options menu. i.e "repair if unit this is in region x" or something along those lines. you could even have a delay on it using the 'delay after condition is true' timer.

Well that doesn't solve what I want... That's barely a method for applying certain events if somethings happen or not. I do not want to hide some vehicle in the vincinity to do this.

I want options for buildings, roads, bridges and objects. :luxhello:

Examples:

Destroy bridge A after B-company has passed.

Secure the fueldepot from destruction in area C.

[Gibsonm]

Well that doesn't solve what I want... That's barely a method for applying certain events if somethings happen or not. I do not want to hide some vehicle in the vincinity to do this.

I want options for buildings, roads, bridges and objects. :luxhello:

Examples:

Destroy bridge A after B-company has passed.

Secure the fueldepot from destruction in area C.

Well you can do this now - with a bit of work.

Put IED in bridge,

Setup a region on the far side (or near side) of the bridge

Set conditions for the IED to detonate based on the criteria being that A Coy is in the region on the far side (or no A Coy on the near side).

[Marko]

When, Or if we ever get a campaign mode.

It would be fun if you could promote some of your virtual crews the same way you were able To M1 Tank platoon (It you ever owned M1TP2) go on admit you enjoyed giving them Medals and battlefield Commissions, I used to get really annoyed if a crew I had promoted To veteran, got killed and I had to start all over again. LoL

On a serious note it also so would hold some training value for none military users your less likely to send a crew You have spent time getting to a certain level of competence on a Suicide mission.

Also you could restrict the amount of units a player could have in respect to his rank

I.e. Platoon Lieutenant , Company captain etc. I would give new players an added incentive

To study and learn.

,

[Burnes15th]

I know its been mentioned before but something that would really help in my opinion with multiplayer would be a radio system akin to ACRE or TFAR for ArmA. I.e a communication system with a plugin for teamspeak that mutes all other participants in your channel unless they are in your vehicle or on the same radio frequency as you in game and presently transmitting (channels and settings controlled in game with a radio overlay or other such visual control/representation.

This is absolutely vital in arma realism units where 100+ players will be in a server each needing their own radio nets and to communicate with their own CoC (i.e I command a tank in the 15th MEU and must be on 4 seperate radio nets to coordiate with other elements + my CoC) and I feel it would add a alot to the immersion and ease of coordination in Steel Beasts although I have no idea what radio system or approximation of system would be appropriate in this context and understand that implementing this kind of thing purely for 'gamers' would not really be prudent.

Although actually i would be interested in finding out what coms protocols you more experienced SB multiplayer's use during coordinated events with a CoC and maybe giving that a go

[Grenny]

This actually has been discussed here before. I stick with my opinion:

ACER and the like do not add more realism them correct channel settings/whisper lists in TS already provide.

So: no gain...why the fuss

I know its been mentioned before but something that would really help in my opinion with multiplayer would be a radio system akin to ACRE or TFAR for ArmA. I.e a communication system with a plugin for teamspeak that mutes all other participants in your channel unless they are in your vehicle or on the same radio frequency as you in game and presently transmitting (channels and settings controlled in game with a radio overlay or other such visual control/representation.

This is absolutely vital in arma realism units where 100+ players will be in a server each needing their own radio nets and to communicate with their own CoC (i.e I command a tank in the 15th MEU and must be on 4 seperate radio nets to coordiate with other elements + my CoC) and I feel it would add a alot to the immersion and ease of coordination in Steel Beasts although I have no idea what radio system or approximation of system would be appropriate in this context and understand that implementing this kind of thing purely for 'gamers' would not really be prudent.

Although actually i would be interested in finding out what coms protocols you more experienced SB multiplayer's use during coordinated events with a CoC and maybe giving that a go

[Maj.Hans]

I would like to request a few additional key mappings for the M1A2 commander's station; I don't ask that these be mapped by default, merely that we have the option to map them.

Push CITV Scan button

Push CITV GLOS button

Push GPS GLOS button

Unless I missed them last time I went looking (I admit I am fallible!), the only way to use those buttons right now is with the mouse, which I find somewhat distracting particularly as the CITV Scan button sometimes winds up off the edge of my screen. I'd like to be able to use hotkeys on the keyboard so I don't need to take my hand off the control stick, and I think in the real vehicle I'd just reach up with my left hand anyway.

Do you mean further subdivide rifle and HMG teams? Seems to me each is about the smallest viable unit already.

I'd have to say that I don't think this would really be of a benefit for most scenarios, and might even become detrimental.

For scenarios that require the use of small one or two man infantry units, they can be created when creating the scenario. My concern would be that if this were possible, we would see some certain few players take infantry squads and break them up into a bunch of single man units and start playing 'Call of Duty' with no fear of "death" in the middle of a serious scenario instead of engaging in normal infantry tactics. I'd like to see better control of them so we can work more closely with intelligent (human led) infantry but that's all.

[Rotareneg]

Casualty scoring might be an interesting addition. I know there's already force scoring, but it ranks tanks 25x higher than infantry, which probably doesn't help the troops morale much.

[Gibsonm]

Although actually i would be interested in finding out what coms protocols you more experienced SB multiplayer's use during coordinated events with a CoC and maybe giving that a go

Well do a search.

The current TS config without any plugins is quite good at replicating RL. You can setup nets for sub groupings.

I really don't want to get bogged down again with posts from people that start off with "I'm new here" that then rapidly transition to lecturing me on how TS doesn't reflect RL and concludes with suggesting we are not open to the possibilities of using TS to do things better, when "better" isn't.

[Grenny]

Well do a search.

The current TS config without any plugins is quite good at replicating RL. You can setup nets for sub groupings.

I really don't want to get bogged down again with posts from people that start off with "I'm new here" that then rapidly transition to lecturing me on how TS doesn't reflect RL and concludes with suggesting we are not open to the possibilities of using TS to do things better, when "better" isn't.

Well, he didn't. Don't go on defence too soon ;-)

[Gibsonm]

Well, he didn't. Don't go on defence too soon ;-)

Yes, I apologise.

To answer his question, you can manage 4 or more nets with TS as it is now through the use of whisper lists, without plug ins.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Gibsonm

[Scrapper_511]

Wish: Self-leveling roads. Pretty PLEASE, with sugar on top!

[Azure Lion]

Wish: Self-leveling roads. Pretty PLEASE, with sugar on top!

This would be a nice one. Especially laterally.

[MDF]

"Vanilla" TeamSpeak is adequate for representing separate nets. Unlike a programmatically-integrated app like ACRE, however, "vanilla" TeamSpeak cannot reflect simulation state such as line-of-sight between transmitter and receiver, jamming, or other environmental factors affecting propagation (sunspots, etc.).

[Scrapper_511]

Just one more for tonight...

Wish: When the endpoint of a stream intersects water (a river, for instance), perhaps the stream graphic shouldn't float on the surface of the water. Instead, maybe the water should hide whatever length of stream happens to be lying in it? It would help shave a lot of time off fine-tuning the end point of streams so that they look like they're naturally running off or draining into large bodies of water.

What? This isn't SimCity 3.017? Oh ok. Commence squinting. :clin:

Edited May 7, 2014 by Scrapper_511
Grammar correction