Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[Ssnake]

Well, we can certainly look into the tree thing. But no matter what we do, there will always be a certain level of abstraction and compromise. We cannot take every possible combination of active vehicle and passive collision target into account, and simulating this in detail seems to be an ill-advised spending both of scarce development time and CPU cycles.

[Gibsonm]

I guess the other issue is where the training/involvement is aimed at.

If you are primarily focused on the 3D immersion / first person shooter type aspects then I fully understand that it may seem problematic, especially if you are crewing the broken vehicle.

If however you are trying to manage a lot of vehicles (e.g. The BG type missions of LNoT, TGIF, Rolling Thunder, etc.) many of which are under AI control, then its probably a correct reflection of non battle damage that X number of vehicles will get broken just through the normal course of events.

The alternative might be a high overhead requirement to track X% with poor maintenance, Y% with faulty components, Z% poor driver training, etc. to come up with the same overall percentage of non battle casualties.

[Major duck]

Or you could let somebody control it like a game master or server control because sitting 30 mins in a simulator where you are either using it to learn how to use it or using it for some creative fun in an immersive way like some of us do, then ½ an hour of not being able to do any of that simply dossent make sense to me, it is rather counter intuitive on both fronts.

I totally agree that there should be some kind of penalty for things but ½ hour or more in a 1-2 hour game dossent make sense.

The only place where this has any rationale is if its used as a strategy / Command and Control kind of way where there are AI control involved but that could be handled by the a game master or server control thingy if it existed.

I always prefer that the users can control as many aspects of a piece of software that they have payed good money to buy.

There are not much fun/Training in sitting around doing noting which is probably not the goal of this software!

[Gibsonm]

Well again in a training environment there is person filling an "Instructor Host" role who can determine how long someone should be out of the game (if it being used for crew training) and then magically repair the vehicle, once the lesson has be learned.

If its being used for larger CP type training with say a person per company equivalent, then the default model gives a role for the various logistic processes to happen and exercise them as well as the fighting units.

If Instructor Host were available to the PE version, it might address your concern but that role comes with a lot of "God like" powers and it maybe hard to partially implement, but I'm not in a position to comment on the feasability of that option.

[Tacbat]

I suppose one could setup "repair" zones the size of the map a scenario is based on and set custom repair times for the various damages.

[Gibsonm]

I suppose one could setup "repair" zones the size of the map a scenario is based on and set custom repair times for the various damages.

Sure but I think the concern is guys in tanks having an accident and being broken for 30mins.

If there's no recovery vehicle in the scenario then they can't get to the repair point.

If its purely dvr/crew trg then yes I guess you could follow them with a recovery vehicle, drag them to the accelerated repair zone and release them within the 30min window.

[Ssnake]

Sure but I think the concern is guys in tanks having an accident and being broken for 30mins.

If there's no recovery vehicle in the scenario then they can't get to the repair point.

...and there's the solution. Create repair zones and add recovery vehicles to your multiplayer scenarios and you can significantly reduce the downtime.

[Swordsmandk]

...and there's the solution. Create repair zones and add recovery vehicles to your multiplayer scenarios and you can significantly reduce the downtime.

Yeah will put zones with f.ex medic vehicle that can "replace" or patch up crews faster. Good idea

But if it could be tweaked in a later version it would be preferable 8)

Until then we will do it like mentioned above.

[Tjay]

I'm not suggesting for one minute that this should be done, but is it theoretically possible for a repair zone to cover the entire map so that if a vehicle is damaged it would automatically be repaired immediately?

[Swordsmandk]

yes

[Apocalypse 31]

I'm not suggesting for one minute that this should be done, but is it theoretically possible for a repair zone to cover the entire map so that if a vehicle is damaged it would automatically be repaired immediately?

No need to even use a repair zone.

Unit repair if - "this unit" is "anywhere"

I've used this option for a small counterinsurgency mission that relied on the use of a dismounted MG squad. They kept taking main gun damage and it was killing the scenario.

[Apocalypse 31]

Back to the wishlist

Let the riflemen have some F7, F2 iron sight loving!

[Tjay]

Back to the wishlist

Let the riflemen have some F7, F2 iron sight loving!

+1

[Bond_Villian]

Back to the wishlist

Let the riflemen have some F7, F2 iron sight loving!

+1

And some 3D crew commanders to shoot in the 3D face!

[Bond_Villian]

I wish for this stuff;

http://media.wix.com/ugd/279ff1_1263a011e25842fd891cbd1bd5358989.pdf

But i'd settle for just 3d crews

[Scrapper_511]

Cool silhouettes, Bond'.

I wouldn't mind this myself (see attachment):

Or...squint hard and allow current MT-LB to tow MICLIC?

Or...squint harder and allow current M113 to tow MICLIC? What? Ohhh.. ;-)

[mpow66m]

Husky

Buffalo

[Captain_Colossus]

The ability to raise the first person perspective slightly with using ATGMs and crew served heavy machine guns and automatic grenade launchers- the player's POV is often completely blinded in ground cover like grass, though the F8 view doesn't necessarily look like it should be, that is to say, from the external view, the grass isn't as tall as it appears to be in the first person view (the computer ATGM and MG teams never suffer a LOS penalty like this in practice, since ground cover isn't really 'there' and it's just ignored).

Maybe this could be done with a key depression- makes the perspective rise slightly to give a player some chance in gaining eye level looking over grass and things like this. It may not happen in all cases, but in some I think making some allowance might be more fair.

[12Alfa]

The ability to raise the first person perspective slightly with using ATGMs and crew served heavy machine guns and automatic grenade launchers- the player's POV is often completely blinded in ground cover like grass, though the F8 view doesn't necessarily look like it should be, that is to say, from the external view, the grass isn't as tall as it appears to be in the first person view (the computer ATGM and MG teams never suffer a LOS penalty like this in practice, since ground cover isn't really 'there' and it's just ignored).

Maybe this could be done with a key depression- makes the perspective rise slightly to give a player some chance in gaining eye level looking over grass and things like this. It may not happen in all cases, but in some I think making some allowance might be more fair.

Yes, I have found this to be a issue in more times than not, good call.:luxhello:

[Bond_Villian]

Also, it seems the FO team/observer cant currently 'observe'/ use bino's whilst standing. Not a big deal, but not ideal either

[Major duck]

Artillery Wish list

FDC (Fire direction Center

A computer list of all Fire Missions where it’s possible for the human commander to prioritise and change people's firemissions

Also a screen to set up who can make fire missions with which units

fx… Mech INF are the only ones that can directly make FM with the Mortars of their own unit

The FO and CO are the only ones that can call the of MAP and M109s directly.

On the map by clicking a unit and marking a FM you can see their observation line on the map and you can chose what type of observation it is fx.

Is it a TIS / Laser / GPS /Compass / Binocular / Eyeball Mk8 these choices will automatically induce a degree of error.

FO

Fo unmounted team will have choices off armament fx

TIS / Laser / GPS /Compass / Binocular / Eyeball Mk8 on top of Rifles MG etc….

They should also be able to do their business from any carrier like M113/CV90 etc…

even from turret baskets on the MBTs of course unprotected with all that entails.

On the FO vehicles there should be a screen to type in the fire mission for data transmission as well as in the field

For all players

Give them a direction method either as a compass in the commander's pos double QQ as well as all sights (Make it possible to use both degrees and TS(Mils))

Make it possible to have range/angle tool from anywhere on the map so people can draw directions and direct fire by that way as well both direct and indirect

Zulu or Target Altitude

Shells

WP aka White phosphorus (Both as Ground burst and air Burst)

HC smoke (Long lasting , larger area smoke shell)

HE Air burst that explodes 20-40m up (with proximity fuse)

Copperhead 155 mm Rounds

Strix Mortar Rounds

Illumination

Edited February 25, 2016 by Major duck

[Hedgehog]

WP aka White phosphorus (Both as Ground burst and air Burst) = Smoke

HE Airburst that explodes 20-40m up + Target type = in the open

Illumination = Possibly on the_List

** ALL HAIL the_List!!!**

[Major duck]

** ALL HAIL the_List!!!**

Actually i know WP could be used as smoke but i am actually more interested in the other effect of WP aka Fire starting and burning WP fragments.

We used to say 2 groups of HE that would get the target to lay down and present a big target then give them 2 groups of air burst while they where laying down, and lastly finish them of with 2 groups of WP air burst.

The best kind of smoke (longer lasting and over a greater area) was always HC we called WP for instant smoke and HC (Hexachloroethane) for delayed smoke (Long lasting)

HC

WP

This should actually be an addendum to my other post

[Gibsonm]

We used to say 2 groups of HE that would get the target to lay down and present a big target then give them 2 groups of air burst while they where laying down, and lastly finish them of with 2 groups of WP air burst.

Ah, another customer for the ICC.

[Major duck]

Ah, another customer for the ICC.

You are partially right Mark if the weapon was designed to have the primary effect as Incendiary

The Protocol defines incendiary weapons as

any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target.

But even if we where using them on civilian targets (which i consider more then bad taste and against the law and morally wrong)

In keeping with this definition, any munition, including improvised devices, containing WP and that is ‘primarily designed’ to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons is covered by the Pro

tocol’s provisions. Consequently, aerial delivery, in the conduct of hostilities, of incendiary weapons containing WP within a concentration of civilians is prohibited.

Excluded from the definition of an incendiary weapon under Protocol III, and, hence, from the scope of the Protocol, are munitions with ‘incidental incendiary effects’, and combined effects munitions ‘in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons’. The use of munitions containing WP that are primarily designed to illuminate or obscure rather than to harm through fire or heat are not regulated by the Protocol on the grounds that their incendiary effects are considered incidental .

Also note:

United States of America

A textbook of the US Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth from 2000, notes in relation to ‘burster-type white phosphorus’: ‘It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.’ More recent US military publications do not appear to reflect this position.

The Independent Fact-Finding Committee on Gaza to the League of Arab States found ‘that white phosphorous was used as an incendiary weapon in densely populated areas’, that ‘weapons used by the IDF, particularly white phosphorous …, caused superfluous and unnecessary suffering’. The Committee concluded that ‘While white phosphorus and flechettes are not expressly prohibited by humanitarian law, it is highly arguable that their use in densely-populated civilian areas constitutes an indiscriminate attack and hence a war crime.’

In a combined report, several UN special rapporteurs concluded with regard to the use by Israel of WP artillery shells: ‘(e) Unlawful use of incendiary weapons (white phosphorous artillery shells): the use of white phosphorous during a military offensive may be permissible where it is intended to provide cover for troop movements. There are, however, reports that Israel used such weapons in densely populated civilian areas, with severe consequences for residents.’

So no ICC if used against military targets even though it might be on the borderline morally !

Even though the law / Moral makes no sense when you consider a lot of other weapons that only technically circumvents ICC rules.

Such as the NATO 5.56mm ss109 bullet that is made to tumble and in effect work like a dum dum bullet, Uranium Sabor rounds, Fuel air explosives, TOS-1 Buratino with incendiary and thermobaric warheads etc.....