Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[Ssnake]

And you need to zoom in to place them properly.

Sure, for fine tuning this is still necessary. But at least you can bring it in a lower zoom level so close to the desired final location that you need to zoom in only once. At least that was the idea behind it.

[Gibsonm]

Sure, for fine tuning this is still necessary. But at least you can bring it in a lower zoom level so close to the desired final location that you need to zoom in only once. At least that was the idea behind it.

OK I'll give it another go.

Perhaps we should spread them out in the deployment zone too. One of my issues on Saturday (TGIF) was selecting one out of a pile of four or so and then just moving it.

No offence meant to the scenario designer.

[Gibsonm]

OK tried again this time for mission 2 of Rolling Thunder and it still "unworkable" (for me anyway).

Perhaps I'm doing it wrong?:

Zoom 3.5:

Zoom 16:

Zoom 40:

Still a very fine line, almost impossible for me to click on, let alone click and drag ...

Perhaps if the centre of the symbol was selectable (but transparent) so you don't have to click on the actual lines to select it?

[Ssnake]

We'll rework the whole GUI code later this year. After that is done changes like what you request should be easier to implement. Right now we are hampered a bit by certain code inefficiencies that make such changes a pain.

[Gibsonm]

As it happens, by accident I found a sweet spot - if I click just to the top right of the IED, I seem to be able to select them and use the contextual menu there more easily than trying to click on the line drawing itself.

[RedWardancer]

That's military jargon (from the OLD days) for the ribbons and medals. Just for people to be awed by the veteran's campaign ribbons, it would be nice if they would detail out which each one means by holding the cursor on the ribbons.

[Gibsonm]

That's military jargon (from the OLD days) for the ribbons and medals. Just for people to be awed by the veteran's campaign ribbons, it would be nice if they would detail out which each one means by holding the cursor on the ribbons.

Well that might ba bit hard since its just a dumb graphic file.

There is a thread detailing which ribbons apply to what:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=19033&highlight=ribbons

Edited May 5, 2015 by Gibsonm
added link for the search impared.

[Tacbat]

And has nothing to do with the content of SB.

[Lt DeFault]

Well, it would be kinda neat. I must admit, being a civilian, when I first started frequenting this site, I thought they were actual ribbons, not just bling from SB campaigns. You'll kindly forgive my stupidity based on the number of current and retired armed forces personnel here, and my ignorance of online gaming practices in general. :clin:

[Tacbat]

I forgive you, but only because of your awesome avatar.

[Lumituisku]

Since new engine is coming.. I thought to add here couple of my wishes. Of course I hope that these are already coming but well... some sunny day in future I hope.

First... Houses.. It really annoys me that infantry inside some... actually make it "in most" houses, infantry inside is not visually able to be detected by player at all. But AI fortunately seems to notice them. Yet it doesn't exactly make me happy when I take RPG out of nothing and only thing I can do, is to go to F8 and hope my AI gunner knows where enemy is. That I'm not able to detect with eye, binoculars or thermal camera.

Some time ago I started working list of building that have this problem but I completely forgot it due real life issues, until I remembered it again while looking photos from last ITEC.

There are several maps especially on certain European maps where this problem is not as bad. But too many maps, there is trouble with this thing. Thought it can be dealt with mission editing.

Nowww.. what else. I could make small list but I assume those are forever known subjects here. Such as killer trees for example and weird collision damages. for example yesterday I reversed to another cv9040.. and lost driver and commander. While other CV lost engine.. wtf? Well I admit that it was stop at march route and reverse but still. -sighs.-

Anyways that building thing is really only features that annoys me overly much.

Oh there is another... probably much complained subject again

Infantry! especially missile teams are so freaking slow, that I cannot understand why they even are made to be able to move at all in game. Being infantry soldier myself with rather heavy team weapon of 150kg + another 150kg of ammunition and other stuff, I can tell that they should be able to move at least speed of normal infantry on jogging, and even move with weapon while crouching although it would be slower.

Well maybe that is balance factor that missile teams are so freaking slow... but please could you do something to those houses that infantry would either be seen or something. Or just make houses that work appear on mission editor map on different color.

Sincerely. Lumituisku

[Grenny]

Infantry in buildings should be improved, but more like the other way around.

I find it quiete annoying that AI detects them from miles away.

If the grunts are not complete morons, the first thing the enemy would see weapons fire when they engage them.

If you set up you BP' inside a house in the correct way, you are as good as invisible.

I hope it will be that way in SB too.

Currently the Infantry sits right at the windows in many building models...they could as well paint themselfes purple and shout: "Here, shoot me shoot me..."

On the missle team speeds. Agreed...jogging should at least be possible for them.

And a quick and short sprint when leaving a compromised BP woud help as well.

[Lumituisku]

I mean. That if you as gunner try to engage enemy. In some building you just don't have any change to see infantry in buildings. But AI sees them. That sucks.

And I do so much agree with you. Especially from my own experience. It's just ridiculous to watch these missile teams.

[Gibsonm]

It's just ridiculous to watch these missile teams.

FWIW, they are faster than they used to be.

I'm unsure how robust the fatigue model is, but getting a TOW team to run 5km cross country with the weapon and say 4 missiles and their personal weapon/kit is a bit of an ask IMHO, regardless of the support weapons guys boasts.

[Lumituisku]

FWIW, they are faster than they used to be.

??? they didn't move at all before?

I'm unsure how robust the fatigue model is, but getting a TOW team to run 5km cross country with the weapon and say 4 missiles and their personal weapon/kit is a bit of an ask IMHO, regardless of the support weapons guys boasts.

5 kilometers? That is long distance, but how about even 500 meters.

And honestly.. I have really hard time believe that TOW team would be more demanding than 95mm bored reqoilles riffle that itself weighs 150 kg, + 8 x 10kg default ammunition load, 3x heavy basookas, 6x light basookas, 2-4 mines (10kg each), and other battle equipment spread to 7 persons. Sometimes we did that with even less mens. So really... Running cooper test several times with that... and getting result of... 2 kilometers something. (I honestly don't remember end score.. I might have blacked out but we did atleast two km. So yeah... really... even 500 meters of fast movement from position where vehicle dropped team and back to vehicle.. instead of crawling like tortoise. Would that be too much asked?

[Rotareneg]

Giving them movement like other troops but without the fastest sprint option and with less endurance (or faster "consumption" of endurance) would seem to be a reasonable improvement.

As far as troops in buildings go, some of the older building models don't have actual windows modeled which is why they are completely invisible to the player. Also, don't forget that thermal cameras can't see through glass in real life, so until the sim is able to model windows being open/broken/closed there's going to be issues with troops in buildings anyway.

[Grenny]

I mean. That if you as gunner try to engage enemy. In some building you just don't have any change to see infantry in buildings. But AI sees them. That sucks.

Yes, and that why AI should NOT see them too.

AI should however react with raining doom onto a building, as soon as they receive fire from it...

Edited May 6, 2015 by Grenny

[Lumituisku]

Giving them movement like other troops but without the fastest sprint option and with less endurance (or faster "consumption" of endurance) would seem to be a reasonable improvement.

As far as troops in buildings go, some of the older building models don't have actual windows modeled which is why they are completely invisible to the player. Also, don't forget that thermal cameras can't see through glass in real life, so until the sim is able to model windows being open/broken/closed there's going to be issues with troops in buildings anyway.

I do so much agree with you. Something like that would make me satisfied enough, as long as stamina consumption doesn't mean that missile team cannot run at least 500 meters (I mean run or at least jogging... not sprinting.)

And thank you Rotar for letting me know what this issue is all about, from origin. with windows i mean.

[Grenny]

Giving them movement like other troops but without the fastest sprint option and with less endurance (or faster "consumption" of endurance) would seem to be a reasonable improvement.

As far as troops in buildings go, some of the older building models don't have actual windows modeled which is why they are completely invisible to the player. Also, don't forget that thermal cameras can't see through glass in real life, so until the sim is able to model windows being open/broken/closed there's going to be issues with troops in buildings anyway.

Also there is some inconsistency here.

Depending on when the building model was made, troops are visible (day/TIS) even if there is supposed to be "glas".

But that is only part of the problem. More of an issue is the positioning of the troops inside the building.

They should stay away from the windows unless they want to shoot at something. And even then they should fire from inside the room, as far away from windows as possible.

[Volcano]

Also there is some inconsistency here.

Depending on when the building model was made, troops are visible (day/TIS) even if there is supposed to be "glas".

This should be fixed in the next full upgrade.

[Gibsonm]

This might be several versions off, but ....

Is it ever going to be possible to integrate the graphics and the tactics?

At the moment I draw say an ABF orientated in some direction. To support that I then need to create a route and set a tactic and orientation to suit.

Might it be possible to draw the graphic and then with the unit create the route to the symbol and then the symbol drives the orientation and tactic?

Similarly say a "Clear" graphic would have the units dismount their infantry and conduct fire and movement in the direction of the graphic with the dimension of the graphic determining the frontage and limit of clearance?

If you commited two Platoons to the task they'd each be on a smaller frontage than if only one were comitted, etc.

Boundaries might even block a unit's path, or is that going too far?

It would mean that trainees could transcribe their overlays and have them executed and it would also allow "casual" (non uniform) players to learn and take advantage of the built in control measure graphic library.

Just a thought.

[Lt DeFault]

That sounds awesome...and complicated to implement.

[Ssnake]

It would require a totally different approach. Also, one has to ask if the current scope and purpose of Steel Beasts wouldn't be compromised.

SB Pro was designed for tactical training at the reinforced company team level. Everything else that it can do is a result of features that were tacked on later, or a consequence of extremely generous "safety margins" (meaning that it can handle much more units than we actually intended).

Now, if the purpose of Steel Beasts is to identify deficits in a junior officer's tactical analysis, or his precision in giving orders, the degree of autonomy that you have in mind would essentially blanket those mistakes that were made by a thick layer of AI behavior which denies the instructor to recognize that his student actually "has a problem".

If on the other hand Steel Beasts were to be mainly used as a constructive simulation such a degree of autonomy would of course be quite desirable. The practical problem is that we have customers for both purposes.

I recognize that our current user interface requires a higher workload on the individual operator/forces a larger headcount on LOCON personnel for an exercise. I don't know how much of a problem this is for you. Without a thorough analysis, I nonetheless suspect that the marginal costs in personnel are still much lower than the software development effort to develop a high level AI for Steel Beasts.

[JustSomeGuy]

Would it be hard to include simple, "dumb", immobile models of

1) flatbed railway car

2) generic diesel locomotive (like DB Class 218)?

Point being that many AFVs were to be transported by railway to their staging area and with these two models, it would be possible to manually place them onto "railway" portions of maps and thus simulate ambush/defense of nearby parked "just unloaded" and thus unarmed AFVs, deciding about the overall outcome of the mission...

Also, given it would be faction-affilated object, it would be possible to use it on both sides with different user-skins, so that the same locomotive model could play DB Class 218 on NATO side and "Sergei" class on Soviet side...

[Grenny]

Would it be hard to include simple, "dumb", immobile models of

1) flatbed railway car

2) generic diesel locomotive (like DB Class 218)?

Point being that many AFVs were to be transported by railway to their staging area and with these two models, it would be possible to manually place them onto "railway" portions of maps and thus simulate ambush/defense of nearby parked "just unloaded" and thus unarmed AFVs, deciding about the overall outcome of the mission...

Also, given it would be faction-affilated object, it would be possible to use it on both sides with different user-skins, so that the same locomotive model could play DB Class 218 on NATO side and "Sergei" class on Soviet side...

More vehicles Object are always good, but that sounds a bit far out.

AFV are not supposed to teh frontline on rails, but deploy a far bit of. The rest is a road march.

And even then, the point of embarkment would be protected by a security force..