Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[Marko]

1 hour ago, Hedgehog said:

 

 

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

 

 

 

Oh and can we have Ferret scout cars?

I had a Action man ferret scout car when i was six.

So I will +1 hedge

Probably started this insane interest in all thing armour. LoL

 

[Iarmor]

12 hours ago, Hedgehog said:

 

you could add scoring?

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

Sometimes absorption of war booty can be very quick, but in most cases tanks captured in one mission are not used immediately on the next mission at the same area by the same force who captured them, unless that force already has the knowledge to operate that specific tank model (for example: Syrian rebels who operate a captured tank which they know from their former military service).

When absorbing unfamiliar enemy tanks into service, it should take some time to organize the formation: recover (after your own damaged vehicles), fix (with no manual), repaint and mass (from several battlefields) enough usable tanks (at least a company), train crews (again no manual), recover and mass enough ammunition, etc. On the other hand, the absorption of captured soft-skins (and maybe APCs) may be much faster. 

During the 1973 war, the first T-62s were pressed into Israeli service on October 9th, 3 days after the war had started. A picture gallery taken in a 1973 war booty lot can be seen here.

I think that use of enemy vehicles should remain as an option for the mission designer, regardless whether the mission is a part of a campaign or whether any vehicles were captured during the previous mission.

[Bond_Villian]

23 hours ago, mpow66m said:

Hand grenades would be useful,but H2H will never happen

 

Yeah, the infantry just needs to be able to kill each other effectively when they get very close, instead of close combat like this: 48:46

hehe

 

Edited November 7, 2016 by Bond_Villian

[dpabrams]

On 11/6/2016 at 6:07 AM, mpow66m said:

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?

I will put out a IPM1, M1A1 and M1A1(HA) pack, a T-62 and a AS1 to Leopard 1A3 first and I do have a thread in mods.

[Hedgehog]

The ability to put down a smaller template, without this friggin' message popping up:

 

Quote

"Template does not fit (Remove all the parties units)!!"

 

Every f**king time.

Even when there's space in the call sign list.

 

 

[Apocalypse 31]

3 hours ago, Bond_Villian said:

 

Yeah, the infantry just needs to be able to kill each other effectively when they get very close, instead of close combat like this: 48:46

hehe

 

This x100000000

 

I have been advocating for player-controlled riflemen, similar to what we have with LMGs and ATGMs. Would be nice if I could line up and pull the trigger then move on, instead of watching my AI miss each other at 5m. 

[Volcano]

FWIW...

 

As said many times in the past (but not in recent years), there are certain things in real life that have to be abstracted in SB. Minute cover or TRUE concealment, for example (SB does not have true concealment, because infantry laying in thick ground clutter are fully visible at long range). IRL when two infantry squads engage each other in combat the ordeal is seldom over in seconds, resolved by the full extermination of the other element, unless of course two squads make contact with each other in an empty parking lot.

 

The artificial and exaggerated dispersion and/or "bad aim" are part of simulating those intangibles -- essentially an intentional wargaming element to keep the infantry around longer than several seconds of contact.  It has been this way since SB1, and has nothing to do with AI intelligence (the AI can hit moving vehicles at 4km away after all, with the proper FCS). Allowing the human to fire the rifle essentially allows the human to become a killing machine, which then requires that the infantry have these wargaming restrictions removed, which then ensures that anytime infantry are in contact then you will essentially lose them all in a matter of seconds if the enemy fired first.

 

What's the solution? Obviously the current approach is not ideal, especially because it ends up looking silly when infantry can't hit each other when they are 5m away, but in our opinion it is necessary to keep this wargaming element/abstraction at the for the foreseeable future, at least until things like concealment can be modeled. With the simulation of concealment from ground clutter that both the AI and human can benefit from, then it might open up the possibility of removing some of these abstractions. But properly simulating concealment is a big hurdle.

[Apocalypse 31]

33 minutes ago, Volcano said:

What's the solution? Obviously the current approach is not ideal, especially because it ends up looking silly when infantry can't hit each other when they are 5m away, but in our opinion it is necessary to keep this wargaming element/abstraction at the for the foreseeable future, at least until things like concealment can be modeled. With the simulation of concealment from ground clutter that both the AI and human can benefit from, then it might open up the possibility of removing some of these abstractions. But properly simulating concealment is a big hurdle.

 

Solution:  Give players full control and functionality of riflemen, much like LMGs, ATGM, Mortars, HMGs. 

 

This would also add another dimension to the ground combat aspect of Steel Beasts - I'll stop there, as I have explained this before on the forums, but acknowledge that my interests differ from the developer. 

[Volcano]

That is NOT the solution, as the previous text explained why the abstraction exists.

But really you hit upon why it cannot be allowed, at least not without serious work, when you said you want to be able to jump to the rifle sight just to finish off the infantry that the AI keeps missing. That is precisely why it couldn't be allowed - because that "missing" is the abstract representation of intangibles which exist in reality that allow infantry to survive longer on the battlefield.

 

This is why things like true concealment would have to be modeled, along with sights moving from breathing/beating, recoil; a whole can of worms, lest it all just ensure that AI aiming penalties/abstractions are removed, and infantry in an SB scenario have a survivability of milliseconds after contact.

 

There are serious design issues that would have to be worked out; it isn't as simple is as just allowing the user to access rifle sights.

 

To put it in another way, the hurdle is that any change to allow direct control of rifle fire essentially creates a game problem where the side with more humans directly controlling infantry will be able to easily eradicate the other side's infantry with ease. Essentially, he who has the most infantry infantry players has a constant and serious advantage. That would be bad game design.

[Apocalypse 31]

10 minutes ago, Volcano said:

To put it in another way, the hurdle is that any change to allow direct control of rifle fire essentially creates a game problem where the side with more humans directly controlling infantry will be able to easily eradicate the other side's infantry with ease. Essentially, he who has the most infantry infantry players has a constant and serious advantage. That would be bad game design.

I gotcha; My perspective is shaped by 95% cooperative play.

 

 

Edit*

But technically can't this same logic be applied to ANY situation where its human vs AI?

 

For example, if a human conducts aggressive and effective berm drills then you can easily kill any AI tank. I've done it before, fully knowing that it takes the AI more time to aim and engage than it takes me. I'm not sure what the correct answer is for infantry; I know that I watched a dismounted platoon (fully manned) conduct a near-perfect attack during a multiplayer scenario yesterday - all ruined by AI dismounts that cannot fight dismounted. 

Edited November 7, 2016 by Apocalypse 31

[Volcano]

I am not saying its impossible -- merely explaining why more infantry control hasn't been allowed and why the 'infantry missing at 5m' situation exists. Yes, the same logic can be applied to everything regarding human and AI, but in the case of infantry: allowing full control of infantry voluntarily opens a huge discrepancy, which is what we do not intentionally do.

 

Of course human vs. AI discrepancies do happen by accident. For vehicles most of this is tolerated because the AI is dumber than the human at one thing, but smarter than the human at another and you generally don't have a complete advantage just because you have more humans in vehicles (at least not from what I have seen).

 

As far as a scenario being ruined by AI dismounts that cannot fight dismounted, well, that is entirely subjective depending on how they are used within their current limitations.  Clearly infantry need to be improved, but there are ways to work within their current limitations.

 

 

[ghostdog688]

Perhaps infantry accuracy can be raised or lowered by the shape of the terrain, grass height and distance from solid cover?

Some examples: infantry in a building engage infantry in the open (infantry in hard cover get a bonus on accuracy for fighting from a prepared position with decent cover, and infantry with little to no cover get penalties for having no solid cover to hide behind and die easier due to lack of cover),

or infantry near a wall compared to infantry in a grassy field (infantry behind wall get a partial bonus to aiming from low cover, but the slight concealment of the tall grass negate some of this etc).

this means the degree of "wargaming" going on is affected by distance and the amount of nearby cover (LOS could help with this) accuracy goes on a sliding scale, tending to 95% at point blank distance, but decreasing over distance, moreso if cover/concealment comes into play.

i know this isn't going to completely satisfy those that want to pick up a rifle, but it helps somewhat surely?

[Volcano]

This is not easy to do otherwise it would have been done already.

 

But really, time spent making changes like that would be better spent trying to represent more concealment, but there just hasn't been time for those things. We certainly want to improve infantry in ways like modeling concealment, usable RPGs, but its going to have to be like it always has been: a slow and steady pace...

 

 

 

 

[Apocalypse 31]

3 minutes ago, Volcano said:

We certainly want to improve infantry in ways like modeling concealment, usable RPGs

Just saying...

 

[Grenny]

6 minutes ago, Volcano said:

This is not easy to do otherwise we have done it already.

 

But really, time spent making changes like that would be better spent trying to represent more concealment, but there just hasn't been time for those things. We certainly want to improve infantry in ways like modeling concealment, usable RPGs, but its going to have to be like it always has been: a slow and steady pace...

 

 

 

 

Again, usable RPG type weapon would be  a nice start.

Doesn't break the "infantry abstraction" needed for the wargaming...but eases player frustration A LOT when the grunts don't take fool-proof shots at an enemy AFV. But keep popping up/down till they get maschine gunned

[MDF]

16 hours ago, Volcano said:

you generally don't have a complete advantage just because you have more humans in vehicles (at least not from what I have seen).

 

 

Gotta disagree with you on this.  In my experience, a force of, say, 10 human-controlled vehicle X's has a big advantage over a similar AI-controlled force, except possibly in completely flat, open terrain.  The AI can shoot reasonably well (too well in some respects) but its use of terrain and self-preservation are not very good.  Its ability to use broader maneuver in reaction to contact is completely dependent on fixed waypoint decision points and routes, and there is only so much a mission designer can do with this.

Edited November 8, 2016 by MDF

[Hedgehog]

On 11/6/2016 at 11:39 PM, Marko said:

I had a Action man ferret scout car when i was six.

So I will +1 hedge

Probably started this insane interest in all thing armour. LoL

 

 

I had the Scorpion tank.

Tracks lasted the expected 5 mins

 

[Maj.Hans]

Playable Weasels!

 

 

Wait, wait, I did it wrong...

Playable Wiesels!

 

 

 

We already have the TOW variant, which made it's way into a scenario I'm working on as reinforcements you can call in on choppers, but the 20mm version and the ability to crew these would be excellent.  We don't really need a full 3D interrior view, really, just periscopes/gunsights for the buttoned up view, and an unbuttoned/TOW sight view.

[TSe419E]

I'd like to have one of those just to drive around in.

[Volcano]

2 hours ago, MDF said:

 

Gotta disagree with you on this.  In my experience, a force of, say, 10 human-controlled vehicle X's has a big advantage over a similar AI-controlled force, except possibly in completely flat, open terrain.  The AI can shoot reasonably well (too well in some respects) but its use of terrain and self-preservation are not very good.  Its ability to use broader maneuver in reaction to contact is completely dependent on fixed waypoint decision points and routes, and there is only so much a mission designer can do with this.

 

OK fine, but its entirely subjective and given that I have seen the behavior much worse through the years, I think it is acceptable, given the limitations of what can be achieved.

 

But the point was that vehicle related behavior was more tolerable to infantry behavior, in this specific example (accuracy), because the mission designer and/or commander of the vehicle units can at least take some action to minimize the behavior discrepancy (mostly via micromanagement). This is all entirely subjective too of course, I admit, yes.

 

 

 

 

 

[mpow66m]

On 11/7/2016 at 9:41 AM, dpabrams said:

I will put out a IPM1, M1A1 and M1A1(HA) pack, a T-62 and a AS1 to Leopard 1A3 first and I do have a thread in mods.

ahhhh,ok thnx.

[dpabrams]

1 minute ago, mpow66m said:

ahhhh,ok thnx.

The IPM1 and M1A1 4.006 is up.

[mpow66m]

just looked,must not been approved yet.

Edited November 8, 2016 by mpow66m

[MDF]

1 hour ago, Volcano said:

 

OK fine, but its entirely subjective and given that I have seen the behavior much worse through the years, I think it is acceptable, given the limitations of what can be achieved.

 

But the point was that vehicle related behavior was more tolerable to infantry behavior, in this specific example (accuracy), because the mission designer and/or commander of the vehicle units can at least take some action to minimize the behavior discrepancy (mostly via micromanagement). This is all entirely subjective too of course, I admit, yes.

 

Just to clarify, I understand and agree with your overall points about the infantry AI issues vis-a-vis the terrain resolution/rendering "boundary."

[dpabrams]

33 minutes ago, dpabrams said:

The IPM1 and M1A1 4.006 is up.

OK, I see it as the latest uploaded but still only one DL, which was my test, I guess.