Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[Grenny]

24 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

Which, the "shrubbery" (cue Monty Python chorus) or the shack?

yeah, the shrubbery too if it also fools the AI. Shack? More buildings are always nice...but i meant the not so obvious: MILAN mounted on various APCs

[Bond_Villian]

An option/ functionality to instruct units to observe a particular arc or facing whilst moving, or perhaps to be able to give units  'priority target types' ie; "dont look over your shoulder at infantry behind you, look at the tank in front of you". I know its possible to give turret traverse commands from the commanders position, but you cant be in every vehicle under your command at the same time, and units often get fixated by enemies behind them when trying to bypass a position.

 Also, an idea for helping to ease management of units in MP games;  a binding to "jump to last reported event" (like contact reports, spotted reports, arrived at waypoint etc). Perhaps clicking on a report in the dialogue box takes you to the event. Something like that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And 3D crew please

Edited March 26, 2016 by Bond_Villian
info

[Kingtiger]

Something for the editor:

Right now we have STOP sign but no give way sign, and at least in Sweden give way sign is far more common then STOP signs, so that is something I am missing in the editor, and should be easy to add

/KT

[Marko]

1 hour ago, Kingtiger said:

Something for the editor:

Right now we have STOP sign but no give way sign, and at least in Sweden give way sign is far more common then STOP signs, so that is something I am missing in the editor, and should be easy to add

/KT

You don't need to give way in a tank the guy in the car does. LOL

[Ssnake]

4 hours ago, Bond_Villian said:

"dont look over your shoulder at infantry behind you, look at the tank in front of you". ... units often get fixated by enemies behind them when trying to bypass a position.

 

Well, bypassing infantry can be quite dangerous if they have an RPG. Maybe you should reconsider your tactics in these cases, I'm just thinking out loud here.

Enemy in your flanks or rear are usually not a good position to be in. Even humans would have a hard time deciding in an objectively correct manner which target really deserves priority attention in such a situation. All I'm saying here is that you may think that the tank in front is more important, but I and other humans might argue that it is not. Of course it totally depends on the individual circumstances. I have no doubt that you could construct a case where the computer-controlled units would get fixated on a single soldier who may or may not have an RPG, and that the RPG might actually be so weak that his chances to kill a vehicle are decidedly smaller than those of the units in front of the tank.

 

Our aim is to get the computer about 98% right in such decisions. Beyond that it gets really difficult to come up with manageable decision tree algorithms that don't cost too much computing power (e.g. fuzzy logic, neural networks). One error in 50 doesn't sound as if humans would be much better, on average.

 

I mean, my impression is that you're mostly upset about the apparent loss of control. That's quite understandable, but like you wrote, you can't be everywhere. So the units which are not under your direct control MUST be able to make autonomous decisions. Whenever we have an idea to improve the underlying algorithms, we implement them. But no matter what, there will always be cases where you will be in disagreement with the computer about certain decisions. The more freedom we would give you to define your own priorities, the bigger the chances of unintended consequences (cases that you didn't think about before).

Target prioritization is a pretty complex case. You need to consider capabilities, engagement ranges, the direction of attack, the ability of your own unit to effectively combat a threat, and more. I think we currently have about 18 factors in play that we refined over the last 15 years of software development. It is likely that this can be improved. It borders almost on certainty that a user-defined decision tree would produce inferior results because of the complexity of the issue. What's easy for the human brain to decide (not the least because our brains are constantly simplifying the situation and are even playing tricks on us) is really difficult to program because a computer, like a (high-functioning) autist, is fundamentally unable to blend out factors that may not appear particularly relevant. This is one of those cases where "machine intelligence" and "bio intelligence" are fundamentally different.

 

 

[This is NEAT! Three hours ago I a friend of a friend spilled a beverage on my keyboard and I had to perform an emergency shutdown. A trip to the city and a new keyboard later I notice that my answer above was stored by the new forum software. I'm beginning to like it. Or maybe it's my browser, in which case I shall reconsider my opinion about the forum software. ...j/k]

 

 

Quote

Also, an idea for helping to ease management of units in MP games;  a binding to "jump to last reported event" (like contact reports, spotted reports, arrived at waypoint etc). Perhaps clicking on a report in the dialogue box takes you to the event. Something like that.

 

Don't we already have Shift+F11 or something for this, "jump to last unit in contact" or so?

[Rotareneg]

The problem is you'll have units spot an enemy (any unit, doesn't matter) thousands of meters away just for a instant while driving in hilly terrain and then for the next 30 seconds or so (I've never actually timed it, it feels like an eternity when you're playing) the AI gunners will want to do nothing else other than aim in that direction even after they've completely lost line of sight. A simple work-around to the problem when players are present would be a "clear target memory" control, perhaps by default bound to SHIFT-I, that clears the current unit's "memory." If attached groups of vehicles share "target memory" then have it clear all of them together.

 

Don't we already have Shift+F11 or something for this, "jump to last unit in contact" or so?

 

Huh... never noticed that!

Edited March 26, 2016 by Rotareneg

[LoupGarou]

On Saturday March 19, 2016 at 10:25 PM, Grenny said:

yeah, the shrubbery too if it also fools the AI. Shack? More buildings are always nice...but i meant the not so obvious: MILAN mounted on various APCs

 I second that! Personally I would like to see more wheeled ATGM carriers like the M1134, the swiss 6x6 piranha, the above shown Milan-equipped Fuchs etc. or simply the ability to mount the various launchers on various PCs as it's already possible with the RMWs
 

[Bond_Villian]

Thanks for the reply Ssnake, any thoughts on the idea/possibility of  "clicking on a report in the dialogue box takes you to the event." As it stands, i personally find myself getting overwhelmed by the amount of events requiring attention, and i think that would be a simple way of getting to the various units/events quickly

[Bond_Villian]

13 hours ago, Rotareneg said:

A simple work-around to the problem when players are present would be a "clear target memory" control, perhaps by default bound to SHIFT-I, that clears the current unit's "memory." If attached groups of vehicles share "target memory" then have it clear all of them together.

+1 this

Sounds similar in concept to ARMA where you tell the AI "No Target"

[Gibsonm]

1 hour ago, Bond_Villian said:

Thanks for the reply Ssnake, any thoughts on the idea/possibility of  "clicking on a report in the dialogue box takes you to the event." As it stands, i personally find myself getting overwhelmed by the amount of events requiring attention, and i think that would be a simple way of getting to the various units/events quickly

 

Pretty sure that was what he was referring to when he spoke about "shift + F11".

[Bond_Villian]

6 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

Pretty sure that was what he was referring to when he spoke about "shift + F11".

 

Yeah, i use that shortcut a lot, but there are events other than "under fire" being reported in the text field

[Grenny]

there are 4types afaik: spot reports, reached waypoint, under fire and taking losses. The last two will work with the Shift+F11 feature.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Grenny

[matsimus]

Maybe these? ;-)

 

Ajax SV Scout AFV

Trojan CR Engineer AFV

 

 

[Zaphod]

I would like if we edited a scenario that the edited skin could be added to that scenario.

Looking through the AAR files it would also be nice in the little window to click the indicated unit red and blue their status at that time .... damage detail . ammo.

[Grenny]

You can always ad an info text about the recommended skin into the briefing txt. 

 

Edited April 5, 2016 by Grenny

[Grenny]

We need more engineer stuff!!!

 

M3 amphibious rig would be high on my wishlist. Useable a bridge or as ferry.

[wilso845]

On 30 March 2016 at 2:43 AM, matsimus said:

Maybe these? ;-)

 

Ajax SV Scout AFV

Trojan CR Engineer AFV

 

 

 

[Hedgehog]

On 3/30/2016 at 2:43 AM, matsimus said:

Ajax SV Scout AFV

 

 

 

 

 

*Cough* Ulan *Cough*

[Stratos]

This puppy as crewable...

 

[Grenny]

This would really be cool:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HED5XWOLgYU

[Lumituisku]

11 minutes ago, Grenny said:

This would really be cool:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HED5XWOLgYU

 

I would love this as well. Many armies have similar systems.

 

But I think it would be hard to imply so that it would be fully immersive / realistic. To say it simply... I'm afraid that it would be too much effort and little actual profit.

 

How about instead a short cut. Vehicle would be there. And you would need two of these. One to each shore... and then.. option "Build combat bridge" And if vehicles are intact after certain amount of time... a combat bridge would appear?

 

[Grenny]

Don't know, but a way to bridge wider rivers in SB would be helpful. I agree, the M3 might be hard to implement. Player controlled maybe(???) but AI...ah never.

The current AVLB's are to short for most rivers, and due to the "low res" terrain model, the rivers it could bridge...can be forded anayway.

So we need a better terrain model so that the Biber and MT55 become usefull or other bridging systems or ferries...perferably both :-D

Edited April 21, 2016 by Grenny

[Grenny]

Or more engineer stuff.

"OP Barma" anyone?

 

[matsimus]

11 hours ago, Hedgehog said:

*Cough* Ulan *Cough*

Is it fully crewable?

 

*cough*

[Lumituisku]

30 minutes ago, matsimus said:

Is it fully crewable?

 

*cough*

 

It is. And really well modeled as well. You should try it. ^^   

 

Though drivers place only has standard vision block looking view that most vehicles share.

 

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=Ulan

 

And currently it is only vehicle in Steelbeast with automatic target tracking.

 

And it have very good armor, if not the best of all IFVs

Edited April 22, 2016 by Lumituisku