Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[Red2112]

1 hour ago, ChrisWerb said:

Are you not in danger of creating a very useful functionality that does not exist in most (all?) vehicles in real life, thus indemnity the realism of steel beasts for training? ifso, perhaps it should be optional?

 

Are you sure of that?

 

Even on foot training rely on GPS now day´s...

 

Compas travel is tied to a reference point, you need a reference point on-map in order for a compas/protractor to be useful for travel and/or location.  A GPS (or other references, buildings, sumit etc) will give you a inicial location from which plotting can be used with other tools (compas/protractor). See navigation techniques, or mountaineering.

 

Yes, one square 1km is just that on map, but as I said, the waypoint added via Ctrl+LMB will not show on map, so you don´t know were that waypoint is to use the map location as a reference.  You will know your actual position beacuse you know your on grid xx/xx on map but that´s about it.  Again the waypoint added via CTRL+LMB is a visual waypoint with no reference to how far it is from your visual.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Red2112

[ChrisWerb]

Kraka TOW. MILAN, 20mm and cargo configurations.

M274 mechanical mule in M40A1 recoilless rifle, TOW and cargo configurations.

M151 jeep - basic (top up and down), pintle mounted M60, TOW and M40A1 (latter was M151A1C, then M825 series).

[Red2112]

1 hour ago, ChrisWerb said:

Kraka TOW. MILAN, 20mm and cargo configurations.

M274 mechanical mule in M40A1 recoilless rifle, TOW and cargo configurations.

M151 jeep - basic (top up and down), pintle mounted M60, TOW and M40A1 (latter was M151A1C, then M825 series).

 

Really? I think you miss the point here!

 

Iam not talking about vehicles with fitted nav systems! These could easily be fitted offboard!  Or you can wait for the stars to come out, or other primitive way´s of finding your way around if you want to be that way about it.

 

This is a wish list isnt it?.  There´s a mix of eras in Steel Beast so it makes no scence to bringing this up.  We/I are talking navigation, and how navigation could help in SB, nothing else...

[Grenny]

31 minutes ago, Red2112 said:

 

Really? I think you miss the point here!

 

Iam not talking about vehicles with fitted nav systems! These could easily be fitted offboard!  Or you can wait for the stars to come out, or other primitive way´s of finding your way around if you want to be that way about it.

 

This is a wish list isnt it?.  There´s a mix of eras in Steel Beast so it makes no scence to bringing this up.  We/I are talking navigation, and how navigation could help in SB, nothing else...

I don't think Chris's post was in any relation to your Nav suggestion...merely a vehicle wishlist...

[ChrisWerb]

5 hours ago, Red2112 said:

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Red2112 said:

 

Are you sure of that?

 

Even on foot training rely on GPS now day´s...

 

 

True, but SB covers a range of historical eras from c. 1965 onward. Such systems (that could calculate current distance to waypoints automatically) were not universal even in 1991 - so 25 years of Steel Beasts potential scenarios would tend not to include them. I am not suggesting your idea is bad or should not be added - I think it's of value. I just think it's inclusion might be made optional at the discretion of the scenario designer. We had a similar discussion around automatic azimuth determination which is included in the game, but likewise on a discretionary basis. I am not the Wish List Thought Police.

Edited November 3, 2016 by ChrisWerb

[12Alfa]

Well as for being realistic I would not agree, we just don't have that. What we do is tell the driver his next position to go to, and he does with the aid of terrain features, this is realistic, and can, and is done within the sim.

As for finding distances one could use the Lazar for such times needed.

 

As for getting to the other side of the trees, well heading in that direction will do that, along with keeping a eye on the end of said woods. 

Like the above post 1 grid=1 km + afv speed  will give you time and space, again as in RL.

 

calculate current distance to waypoints is taught in map-using/nav classes, something one would need to know before commanding a group on foot/AFV, we just don't let ppl get lost, well sometimes we do, but as a rule no.

 

You need this skill to operate in the Sim, if you don't have it ask one of the VU groups to train you, simple.

 

 

Edited November 3, 2016 by 12Alfa

[12Alfa]

3 hours ago, Red2112 said:

 

 Again the waypoint added via CTRL+LMB is a visual waypoint with no reference to how far it is from your visual.

 

Add additional WP's to your route that you can see, as in RL

[Bond_Villian]

4 hours ago, Red2112 said:

the waypoint added via CTRL+LMB is a visual waypoint with no reference to how far it is from your visual.

 

I know this isnt exactly what your original request was, but if you want to mark the position of something that youre looking at in the 3d world, so that its position is shown on the map, you can use the 'observe here' order from the bottom right of screen - when you look at the map, the bubble in the vehicles view arc is that location. Handy for pinpointing stuff on the map for arty and orientation sometimes.

----------------------------

 

WISHLIST!!

 

 I wish!

 

[Red2112]

4 hours ago, ChrisWerb said:

 

True, but SB covers a range of historical eras from c. 1965 onward. Such systems (that could calculate current distance to waypoints automatically) were not universal even in 1991 - so 25 years of Steel Beasts potential scenarios would tend not to include them. I am not suggesting your idea is bad or should not be added - I think it's of value. I just think it's inclusion might be made optional at the discretion of the scenario designer. We had a similar discussion around automatic azimuth determination which is included in the game, but likewise on a discretionary basis. I am not the Wish List Thought Police.

 

3 hours ago, Bond_Villian said:

 

I know this isnt exactly what your original request was, but if you want to mark the position of something that youre looking at in the 3d world, so that its position is shown on the map, you can use the 'observe here' order from the bottom right of screen - when you look at the map, the bubble in the vehicles view arc is that location. Handy for pinpointing stuff on the map for arty and orientation sometimes.

 

 

I know what you mean ChrisW, but that´s the thing, it´s a mixed era sim and that brings some handycaps with it.  Somethings were just not there at the time.  It´s not the only sim with a mixed era of units, DCS happens to have the same handycap. It´s then up to the scenario designer to include what he/she feels fit for that specific era, and/or to replicate that happening (mission or what have you).  We could also say that a 3D view from behind the unit is not very realistic, but then there is that line between realistic and a sim (peripheral view) that must be drawn. It´s not a perfect world 

 

The thing is to try NOT to have to jump in and out of a map view in order to follow a waypoint with some minor info (mt./ft.).  Of course I can add another waypoint in the map view, but that´s it, losing time is sometimes crucial IMHO.  You might need to go to the map view to cross check that waypoint but as a option.

 

Thanks for the insight so far!

 

Anyhow, I wish I was... In Mars with a redhead.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Red2112

[ChrisWerb]

Some warnings on setting up missions would be good - for example:

 

1. Take cover in nearest building, even if it means unit will not engage enemy? Y/N (default N)

2. You have placed a unit in the water, do you want it to remain there? Y/N (default N)

3. Your unit cannot see further than 10 metres in any direction from this position, do you want it to remain there? Y/N (default N - will move to closest place where it can see at least 50 metres)

 

Also, in game.

 

1. Do you really want your unit to drive into deep water? Y/N (default N)

Edited November 5, 2016 by ChrisWerb

[12Alfa]

6 hours ago, ChrisWerb said:

Some warnings on setting up missions would be good - for example:

 

1. Take cover in nearest building, even if it means unit will not engage enemy? Y/N (default N)

2. You have placed a unit in the water, do you want it to remain there? Y/N (default N)

3. Your unit cannot see further than 10 metres in any direction from this position, do you want it to remain there? Y/N (default N - will move to closest place where it can see at least 50 metres)

 

Also, in game.

 

1. Do you really want your unit to drive into deep water? Y/N (default N)

 1- Really? You need a warning for this?

 

2- Why would you place a unit in the water, do you need a face slap y/n (default Y)

 

3- See #2 Default Yes and return to desktop.

 

I can't really see how any of this would to be applied to the Sim. Where would it end? One would think, if you can operate a AFV, and learn different FCS's one could overcome the above.

It's a tool for learning, do you really think warnings of such basic planing/placement is required.

 

I just don't get it

 

[Marko]

The ability via a command option to order a crew to bail out./destroy your own AFV if it was not recoverable

Also the ability to take over a captured tank if still serviceable lost a track etc.

I know crews are supposed to blow there AFV up rather then let I be captured but it does not always work out the way.

Have read numerous articles about captured AFVs been used in various conflicts

ISIS even captured some M1 tanks from the Iraqi army, well they did hopefully there all been knocked out.

Think of the possibility's in a mission/ campaign with limited assets captured armour would be very useful.

Well it is a wish list, LoL

 

Edited November 5, 2016 by Marko

[ChrisWerb]

26 minutes ago, 12Alfa said:

 1- Really? You need a warning for this?

 

2- Why would you place a unit in the water, do you need a face slap y/n (default Y)

 

3- See #2 Default Yes and return to desktop.

 

I can't really see how any of this would to be applied to the Sim. Where would it end? One would think, if you can operate a AFV, and learn different FCS's one could overcome the above.

It's a tool for learning, do you really think warnings of such basic planing/placement is required.

 

I just don't get it

 

 

1. Is not really a warning - just a way of stopping the annoying behaviour.

 

2. When you're putting units out, they sometimes end up in water all by themselves when the game starts. In the Gotland scenario I was making, a 0.50 cal HMG team that was a good distance from water materialised in it in the game. This happened three times in a row until I moved the 0.50 so far into the woods that it couldn't reliably engage targets. I mentioned this elsewhere on the forum today, I think.

 

3. When putting units out at the start of the scenario, and there are lots of them, it would be good to be able to just put them on the board without having to go to view and physically look at each one. This gets very old when you have a couple of companies worth of infantry with LMGs, HMGs, ATGW etc. Even dropping them onto the LOS indicator on the map doesn't work reliably as a distance of a few metres can seriously affect visibility.

 

4. I take it you had no objection to the in-game water suicide warning then?

 

 

Edited November 5, 2016 by ChrisWerb

[12Alfa]

1 hour ago, ChrisWerb said:

 

1. Is not really a warning - just a way of stopping the annoying behaviour.

 

2. When you're putting units out, they sometimes end up in water all by themselves when the game starts. In the Gotland scenario I was making, a 0.50 cal HMG team that was a good distance from water materialised in it in the game. This happened three times in a row until I moved the 0.50 so far into the woods that it couldn't reliably engage targets. I mentioned this elsewhere on the forum today, I think.

 

3. When putting units out at the start of the scenario, and there are lots of them, it would be good to be able to just put them on the board without having to go to view and physically look at each one. This gets very old when you have a couple of companies worth of infantry with LMGs, HMGs, ATGW etc. Even dropping them onto the LOS indicator on the map doesn't work reliably as a distance of a few metres can seriously affect visibility.

 

4. I take it you had no objection to the in-game water suicide warning then?

 

 

 

I as many here have not had those issues, or fix in the planning phase to avoid any issues.It could be that your new at this and time will make you a bit more wiser like the rest of us, we all had to learn the Sim, and it does take time no matter how good we think we are  

Make sure you check the facing of said units, the range fan is the best method =, and combined with the formation/spacing will improved that H2O issue.

Edited November 6, 2016 by 12Alfa

[ChrisWerb]

No problem. I did always set the facing because I needed them to cover a bay (improvised harbour) into which a Russian air assault was scheduled (not an entirely realistic scenario - I'm still partly using self-made scenarios to learn). What I found strange is that, when you set the unit out, sometimes the two other men in the HMG section would appear together a good distance from the HMG gunner (at least 10 metres away). It's not entirely clear where the unit is centred. The gun ending up in the water is something I can and have replicated in controlled conditions - I just can't prove it. However, when I said I "played" the scenario, I was still in Mission Editor and pressed "Test" to play it, so I did not open it from the Offline Sessions menu. I wonder if that could have made a difference? The "moving into the nearest house and sit the game out" problem with the HMG team is likewise totally replicatable. To prove that I would need to record it or have someone else watch via something like Team Viewer I guess?

Edited November 6, 2016 by ChrisWerb

[thewood]

Frankly, you seem way too focused on finding things that you don't think work.  Focus on learning the simple parts of the game.  It almost looks like your attention is too focused on trying to perfect every part of the game instead of learning each part as you go.  IOW, you are kind of all over the place.

[Ssnake]

I think Chris explained a while ago that he doesn't have much of a chance to force his brain into "normal mode"; your advice, while well-intentioned, may not bear fruit in this case.

[thewood]

OK...I am not familiar with the personal history of most of the board members.  Didn't know that was a requirement.  I'll stop posting.

[Bond_Villian]

Hand Grenades and/or hand to hand combat of some sort would be awesome. Something like this comes to mind        

 

 

 

[mpow66m]

9 hours ago, Bond_Villian said:

Hand Grenades and/or hand to hand combat of some sort would be awesome. Something like this comes to mind        

 

 

 

Hand grenades would be useful,but H2H will never happen.Ill be happy when AFVs navigate around obstacles better,esp water.It has improved a lot tho.

[mpow66m]

On ‎10‎/‎31‎/‎2016 at 1:40 PM, dpabrams said:

I did Canadian and Bundeswer 1A3's based on the AS1 and the 1A5DK and they are in the library but not quiet the same. Sights, turret bustles and tool boxes eff with an anal guy like me. The 1A3/4 is just a sexy beast, pure tank porn!

Could you put all your skins in a giant zip file for downloading?Or start a thread with all the new ones and the one u are going to redo?

[Iarmor]

13 hours ago, Marko said:

The ability via a command option to order a crew to bail out./destroy your own AFV if it was not recoverable

Also the ability to take over a captured tank if still serviceable lost a track etc.

I know crews are supposed to blow there AFV up rather then let I be captured but it does not always work out the way.

Have read numerous articles about captured AFVs been used in various conflicts

ISIS even captured some M1 tanks from the Iraqi army, well they did hopefully there all been knocked out.

Think of the possibility's in a mission/ campaign with limited assets captured armour would be very useful.

Well it is a wish list, LoL

 

Being able to capture intact enemy vehicles is a great idea IMO. I think the user should get extra points for capturing non-destroyed, deserted vehicles (and POWs). There should be several options for vehicle crew behavior when things go bad: fight to the death, surrender, orderly retreat (with or without the vehicle) or flee.

However, capturing an enemy vehicle and using it in the same battle is very rare. I think that use of enemy vehicles should remain as an option for the mission design phase, as those vehicles should represent war booty from an earlier battle.   

[Hedgehog]

7 hours ago, Iarmor said:

However, capturing an enemy vehicle and using it in the same battle is very rare. I think that use of enemy vehicles should remain as an option for the mission design phase, as those vehicles should represent war booty from an earlier battle.   

 

you could add scoring?

and for vehicles captured in a previous mission: Add new vehicle > (Captured vehicle type)

 

I think definable behaviour for crew dismounts etc for AI would be good. 

(And maybe a dismount option.

 

I'd like a mount up option, (Just a little thing, you could have an in mission "O group"   )

[Gibsonm]

16 minutes ago, Hedgehog said:

I'd like a mount up option, (Just a little thing, you could have an in mission "O group"   )

 

You're assuming everyone does the Infantry thing and gathers in a little circle to look at a 1:1 scale mud map.

 

Radio / Digital orders don't need the hugfest and lets you save time.

[Hedgehog]

19 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

 

You're assuming everyone does the Infantry thing and gathers in a little circle to look at a 1:1 scale mud map.

 

Radio / Digital orders don't need the hugfest and lets you save time.

 

 

And what if I want to set the mission 20/30/40/50 years ago?

 

 

 

Oh and can we have Ferret scout cars?