Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[Vikingo]

I'm guessing this will be a paid upgrade, what with the new terrain/particle engine and all:

thanks for the info Lt DeFault :gen004:

[TSe419E]

...even if "you" wouldn't do it, someone else will.

And that is what gets me the most.

[mpow66m]

in game translator for the briefing.

[Ssnake]

And that is what gets me the most.

Well, that's the nature of trolls. The few making life miserable for the many because the many are afraid of bending the rules like the trolls do. So we rather change the rules so it becomes more complicated for everybody ... because there are the hypersensitives who create a major drama because they can't see the difference between a troll and those fighting him, and differentiate between action and response.

:c:

[Captain_Colossus]

I think that using medical units against the rules is a 'legitimate dirty tactic'- it's not that enemies have never taken advantage of the white flag of truce, nor haven't used hospitals to conceal their operations nor haven't used medics to call artillery nor pick off troops when they aren't supposed to- and may risk paying the price if the other side figures out what they're doing. Sometimes the other side just won't respect the rules of warfare and the lives of medics, either, and so they find themselves in the position that they have to fight.

It may not convert as well to a simulation, though, you can't get the computer to figure out it's being cheated, there is no court martial for war crimes, there is no real penalty for dying in a simulation like in real life- so, there is every reason to cheat with none of the drawbacks, unless a mission depended on a medical unit surviving intact. Perhaps after awhile, it would just be second nature for everyone to kill medical units upon detection, just because they would be presumed to be hostile- and then their purpose would become less useful anyway- may as well just use armed scouts instead.

[Maj.Hans]

Maybe we should have a "Controllable medic vehicles" option in the scenario builder, and the ability to set it per side.

Perhaps we should also have an option, again set per side, to determine if that side will respect the protected status of an "ambulance" vehicle?

[mpow66m]

Maybe we should have a "Controllable medic vehicles" option in the scenario builder, and the ability to set it per side.

Perhaps we should also have an option, again set per side, to determine if that side will respect the protected status of an "ambulance" vehicle?

I dont think esim would have gone the current route if that was possible.

[Gibsonm]

I dont think esim would have gone the current route if that was possible.

I think his comments are within the "wish list" context.

[Maj.Hans]

I think his comments are within the "wish list" context.

I wish, I wish, I were a fish!

[TankHunter]

And that is what gets me the most.

Same here. Regretfully there are some very sad little people out there, but thats the internet for you. Thankfully they are few here and now for the most part we need not deal with them.

[Ssnake]

I think that using medical units against the rules is a 'legitimate dirty tactic'

1) Yes.

2) As long as computer-controlled units cannot respond adequately to such an abuse, it's still a bad idea to make it possible.

While it sometimes cannot be avoided, I still am very much against giving humans special powers in a combat simulation that the computer cannot replicate. If you willingly go down that route you end with a "multiplayer only" title that also features "target bots".

Steel Beasts is supposed to ALSO work in single player mode. For that we need a balance of powers between the human and the computer, be they allied with or opposed to each other.

It may not convert as well to a simulation, though, you can't get the computer to figure out it's being cheated, there is no court martial for war crimes, there is no real penalty for dying in a simulation like in real life- so, there is every reason to cheat with none of the drawbacks, unless a mission depended on a medical unit surviving intact. Perhaps after awhile, it would just be second nature for everyone to kill medical units upon detection, just because they would be presumed to be hostile- and then their purpose would become less useful anyway- may as well just use armed scouts instead.

In other words, you hope for enough of a negative training effect to condition human players to routinely shoot up ambulances because they assume first and foremost that they are exploiting a regulatory gap.

So, let me just repeat my standard reply since 2003: Steel Beasts Professional is a training tool, first and foremost. We just can't promote violations of the Geneva rules, to the extent that they can be applied to situations within the simulation. Steel Beasts is not a game. We add entertainment elements as long as they do not stand in the way of proper training. So, requests that go into that direction in this thread are utterly futile.

(You are of course still welcome to voice your opinion, we would however not feel inclined to oblige.)

[Deputy276]

Ssnake: Thanks for thinking of us that play as single player/offline. We appreciate it.

[ssidiver]

Ssnake: Thanks for thinking of us that play as single player/offline. We appreciate it.

:bigsmile:

[mpow66m]

I think his comments are within the "wish list" context.

yes they are for sure,just sayin some people are cheaters.:clin:

[Rotareneg]

The MIM-72 Chaparral and M163 VADS would be nice so we don't have to keep using ZSUs and Tunguskas as NATO air defense.

[mpow66m]

map icons for the Russians and Germans at a minimum.

[Grenny]

map icons for the Russians and Germans at a minimum.

I don't understand that one. We to use map icons according to STANAG

[mpow66m]

i mean for Russia mostly.im sure other NATO countries have there own diff from Nato.I guess Germany being in NATO they use the same as US,but they do have some diff icons.

[12Alfa]

The US has used NATO standard map symbolism for some time now, was no issues for me when I was deployed with them as they used what I had been training all along with.:luxhello:

(no :wink2: for this post I think:wink2:)

[Grenny]

i mean for Russia mostly.im sure other NATO countries have there own diff from Nato.I guess Germany being in NATO they use the same as US,but they do have some diff icons.

Would be hard to implement for esim. We are in a "finding phase" for the tac-icons since more then 10 year now. Who knows when it will be finalized. ;-)

edit: and in 95% of all cases we use the NATO symbols anyway

Edited November 3, 2015 by Grenny

[mpow66m]

ok,thnx.:bigsmile:

[Maj.Hans]

Easier infantry/PC management!

The new system is great. I can make a scenario where PCs approach to a location, drop their troops, and provide fire support while the infantry advance on foot.

The trouble is that I can't easily get infantry to accompany their PC in a dismounted mode when I desire it, particularly during a scenario in progress. Even when I get them to dismount and walk ahead of their carrying PCs they all converge on a single ending point instead of maintaining formation.

What I'd like to have would be:

Troops...

Mount

Dismount

On Point

Button

Unbutton

Troops...

On Point - RIFLE squads mounted on a PC will dismount and keep position 100-300m in front of their own PC.

When the PC's are given a route at slow speed the dismounted troops will advance at walking speed. At either fast or top speed the troops will advance at a run.

If they cannot see any enemy but are under direct fire they will advance at a crawl.

The PC's assigned to the route will move along their route at an appropriate (probably slow) speed, and stop and wait if necessary to allow the troops to move further ahead.

The player can use Embark if... and Disembark if... conditions to get them to change behavior if he wants them to, for example, run back to their PC and mount if under artillery fire and get back On Point when no longer taking artillery.

MG, AGL, ATGM, Mortar, SAM, and FO teams will remain mounted when given the order to go on point. The player can use Disembark if... conditions to get the PCs to drop their troops if they spot enemy tanks, infantry, choppers, etc.

This provides an easy way to get infantry to scout ahead or assault a position with the support of their APCs.

Some units seem to default to open or closed troop hatches and players may want to override this:

"Button" will order mounted troops to shut hatches and stay that way as long as they are mounted. If they dismount and remount they will button/unbutton as logic dictates.

"Unbutton" will order mounted troops to open hatches and keep them open as long as they are mounted, even if it's a really bad idea because it blocks turret movement over the frontal arc. If they dismount and remount they will button/unbutton as logic dictates.

Finally a command to allow a player controlled unit, regardless of type, to select a nearby infantry unit and order them to walk point in front of his tank. If the player orders a speed faster than "slow" they are released from walking point and take up "Defend" orders. As long as the player maintains slow speed the driver will stop and wait as required to let the troops stay ahead of his tank.

This allows a player in a tank to commandeer nearby troops, maybe from destroyed/disabled APCs, and have them walk point for his tanks.

[Gibsonm]

Well they used to have basically all that with the downside that you lost flexibility because the vehicle and passengers were linked (passengers from one vehicle wouldn't mount another - so you could have a squad that had lost its vehicle and another vehicle that had lost is squad and the two wouldn't consolidate).

So its seems like an either / or situation.

[Ssnake]

There's always room for improvement. But we have to address a few fundamental issues first, and breaking this parent-child relationship between PCs and their squads was a necessary first step. We then went for the next best solution that AT LEAST offered the promise of reliability of the end-user (you would finally know what kind of behavior you could expect), but it's not intended as the end state for our development.

[RedWardancer]

Allow dismounts to mount up into a different vehicle if room allows?

SCENARIO: US infantry platoon. All teams dismount. Big fight. Teams 1-A, 3-B, 4-A and 4-B with one trooper are alive but vehicles 1 and 2 are destroyed. Team 1-A is allowed to mount up in either 3 or 4 because there's room still available. In the current system, team 1-A is out of luck. No mounting anywhere else, no reloads, reduced to straight leg grunts. In real life, switching to different vehicles is easy and practical.

Good idea? Meh idea? Bad idea? Let's hear it folks.