Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[Kev2go]

On 8/21/2017 at 8:25 AM, thewood said:

Well, except when the module has failed, Eagle Dynamics has had to step in and finish the module themselves.  It looks like the WW2 module caused all kinds of issues for ED and their involvement has delayed other development.

 

Theres another team behind that. ED  as the core team has be consistently busy with the Usual stuff ( hornet ( as well as developing new ground Radar Technology for it), Nevada, 2.5 Merge, future maps like straight of Hormuz, bug fixing, as well as supporting 1.5  and 2.0 alpha)

 

 IT didnt fail. Simply the kickstarter was a scam. The guy who promised ran off with the money. Frankly kudos for ED for going along with it. even though they didnt have to. IT made many people happy.

Edited August 22, 2017 by Kev2go

[Gibsonm]

25 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

No it would make sense.

 

 your jsut thinking of it the wrong way. Players would see X model, but merely would be able to physically control from crew roles. Just via map for eg.

 

Purchasing it would allow you to physically crew it with fully detailed interiors and modeled FCS as other ESim vehicles.  simple.

 

Who owns what wouldnt be an issue Really as there are still many standard models from ESim to chose from and custom content that could still be left to AI command or physically ordered via Map.

 

Well I didn't buy into the earlier discussion, as I said the guy whose opinion counts said "no" (but more elegantly) and I was just relaying the "why".

 

As I said "IIRC".

 

Anyway the answer was "no", so I'm going with "no".

[Kev2go]

11 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Well I didn't buy into the earlier discussion, as I said the guy whose opinion counts said "no" (but more elegantly) and I was just relaying the "why".

 

As I said "IIRC".

 

Anyway the answer was "no", so I'm going with "no".

 

But you "why" was incorrect. And i in fact correctly along with another poster corrected you Why it would be possible and not work how you described it.

 

"the guy whose opinion counts" has stated  other reasons for not doing so. "Business Model".

Edited August 23, 2017 by Kev2go

[Gibsonm]

Ok fine, the why was incorrect. Doesn't change his answer.

[Kev2go]

On 8/21/2017 at 2:43 AM, Ssnake said:

One obvious solution is to roll out every model to everybody, but to suppress the models in the UI unless a suitable license is present. I am not sure however why any consumer would actively want to ask for the DLC system. DLCs have become popular among game developers because they increase revenue. In other words, it's pretty obvious that it is the more cumbersome solution that costs the average player more. At least I as a consumer don't like that salami tactic of selling me one slice at a time when I can have the entire sausage at less than half the price. Also, the ship has sailed. DLCs are an option if designed into the concept from the get-go. Had we made every playable vehicle a separate DLC since Steel Beasts 1 where the only vehicles available to every player were the M1A1 and the Leopard 2A4, it would make sense to keep them in the base package, and then to sell every other vehicle as a separate item.

Selling Steel Beasts with everything as it is right now and now starting to sell an individual vehicle would pretty much guarantee that the vehicle would be played by next to nobody. In turn, it would fail to generate the economical incentive for eSim to concentrate more on the addition of playable (vintage) vehicles that the proponentos of a DLC concept seem to hope for.

 

In short, I cannot discern any meaningful advantage for the average Steel Beasts customer, but a lot of disadvantages. I'm not sure if people asking for a transition of our business model have a clear understanding of the consequences for themselves. I probably am not the most genial businessman who ever lived in the computer games sector, but that is only to your advantage. Don't jinx it.

 

and yet. in a game  Like team fortress 2, the main game is actually free, people pay for Hat dlc's.  Youd think it go by that logic of why buy that when Most of the content is here in main game? but hey youd be surprised how many profits are generated from Hat DLC's.

 

Ive actually felt that games where most of content is already offered by BASe price and  a few DLC'S ( as they should be) being content that players may want buy  to thier own desire, butare not crucial to games enjoyment for the greater playerbase,  rather than creating DLC's as necessary to the enjoyment of a game to a thin base game.

Edited August 23, 2017 by Kev2go

[Ssnake]

I'm not sure if I understand what you're getting at, to be honest. But in any case, as a matter of principle, I like clear-cut and balanced customer/vendor relations.

 

 

Steel Beasts Pro PE as is represents two decades of work put into it. It caters to a really small market. That's why we set a price that makes it worth our while to keep working on it. Likewise we sell updates from time to time as the PE community's contribution to the continued development. This creates a very transparent situation for every customer with respect to price, and value. You can try out the value with low priced short term licenses. If the quality convinces you, you can support our work with a moderately priced annual subscription, or pay a one-time fee for unlimited access with occasional upgrades.

 

There are no hidden costs. You know what you get, and you know what we're asking for it.

 

I understand that the idea of third party developers stepping in to add playable vehicles, sold separately as DLCs, has a certain appeal. For a number of reasons that isn't going to happen, period. I'm not at liberty to talk about the two most important reasons why it's not going to happen. You'll have to trust me that those reasons are valid.

[ChrisWerb]

[This comes with the disclaimer that SB PRO PE is far and away my favourite sim or computer game of all time and is magnificent as it is. I realise these may be far from the top of the list of things to add from a military training or gaming perspective]

 

It may be possible to do this via preferences, but what I would like is some way to give a standing order units to displace to a pre set location and assume a pre set stance (hold, defend etc.) toward the direction they retreated from, once firing a set number or all of their anti armour rounds/disposable weapons.

 

I would also like to see more flexibility both in the types of and total number of AT weapons/rounds an infantry section can carry so that it could have Tier 1, 2 and 3 - for example 2 Rbs57/N-LAW, 4 M72EC and 12 HEDP 40mm or HEAT rifle grenades.

I probably mentioned it before, but some ambient noise featuring wind, precipitation, thunder and species native to locations (as, surprisingly, is done quite well in World of Tanks) would be really great for atmospherics/immersion.

The ability to plant much smaller minefields and obstacles than the present minimum sizes allow.

 

The ability to set sniper/anti material rifles to engage targets other than designated high value ones.

 

Off route mines and anti vehicle optimised directional fragmentation mines (both used by Finland in RL).

[Bond_Villian]

2 hours ago, ChrisWerb said:

It may be possible to do this via preferences, but what I would like is some way to give a standing order units to displace to a pre set location and assume a pre set stance (hold, defend etc.) toward the direction they retreated from, once firing a set number or all of their anti armour rounds/disposable weapons.

I think you can achieve something like this with 'embark if' conditions and relevant route/BP tactics

[ChrisWerb]

4 hours ago, Bond_Villian said:

I think you can achieve something like this with 'embark if' conditions and relevant route/BP tactics

 

Thank you - I'll give that a go BV.

[Ssnake]

Also, check out the standard waypoint options for the different movement tactics.

[Boner]

TR -  series of tanks would be epic ....with default interiors if need be  

[Kev2go]

What are the possibilities of a M2A3 Bradley being added at some point?

 

It would be feel more in line with the M1A2 sep   in the 21st century sporting more Digitized functions and Newer FCS.

Edited August 27, 2017 by Kev2go

[ChrisWerb]

I may be missing this somewhere, but is there a way that rifle grenades can be enabled for infantry under AI control? I know how to manually launch them, but have never knowingly seen my own infantry so equipped use them when not using the "launch (HE or smoke) rifle grenade at" menu command. 

 

 

 

 

[Mirzayev]

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

What are the possibilities of a M2A3 Bradley being added at some point?

 

+1 

 

It would be great to pair the M1A2 with its IFV counterpart. 

[Ssnake]

5 hours ago, ChrisWerb said:

I may be missing this somewhere, but is there a way that rifle grenades can be enabled for infantry under AI control? 

 

No.

At least, not yet. You want computer-controlled units to use them sparingly, but under the right conditiond. That's hard to cast into an algorithmic solution.

[Varjag]

Are there any plans for towed artillery and trenches for infantry?
 

[ChrisWerb]

Thank you Ssnake. It would be nice to see a new position for infantry where they press themselves flat into the ground when targeted by ground bursting HE or DPICM or otherwise heavily suppressed by fire. They would then stay down for a random number of seconds within a predefined range after the last burst/impact within a given distance. That would presumably help infantry become much more survivable once micro-terrain and the new damage model are implemented. 

Edited August 28, 2017 by ChrisWerb
Sucky grammar

[Apocalypse 31]

7 hours ago, ChrisWerb said:

It would be nice to see a new position for infantry where they press themselves flat into the ground when targeted by ground bursting HE or DPICM or otherwise heavily suppressed by fire

 

This x100.

 

Visual feedback for dismounts that are being suppressed would be amazing. The cowering animation from Combat Mission immediately comes to mind.

 

Visual feedback would also alleviate the "why is my infantry not shooting" frustration.

 

I'd also add that it would be nice to have another quality level for dismounts that makes them immune to suppressive fire - call it Fanatical or Suicidal.

[ChrisWerb]

I realise I have to be realistic here, but I would really like to see a HEAT or HEDP rifle grenade added to the rifle grenade selection we currently have.

Again, I would love the "Shoot (weapon x) here" option that rifle grenades currently have extended to include nominally anti armour weapons such as M72, Pzf-3, Carl Gustav etc. I suspect that, historically, very few of these weapons/munitions expended in actual combat were launched at armoured vehicles vs a myriad of other battlefield targets so this would add to reality.

Anti-structure munitions such as Matador and the M72A9 LASM would be a nice addition that would be relevant to current or recent real world operations.

In my dreams I would like to be able to carry multiple ammunition natures for the reloadable anti-armour weapons in the same squad/section or fire team too, as well as multiple natures of M72 and other disposable weapon.

 

Late edit: some way to tell the crew of a crew served weapon like the MILAN to leave it in the IFV/APC and act as pure infantry instead of bringing it with them would be highly desirable as would a "leave the weapon in situ" command so as not to be burdened with the weapon whilst retreating in some circumstances. Obviously it would be nice if they could later pick the weapon and ammunition back up if circumstances allowed. This could happen when you simply want every member of the fire team shooting their rifles rather than manning a useless (in that situation) ATGW launcher - for example if on the receiving end of a close infantry assault etc. I know I'll probably be told that would not have happened if I had done X, Y or Z correctly, and I'm sure that's true, but I would still appreciate the option.

Edited August 28, 2017 by ChrisWerb
Brain fart.

[ChrisWerb]

Vehicle crews that bail out when their vehicle is KO'd (assuming they are still able to) and the option of ordering them to bail out (or just getting out of) an immobilized (or indeed any) vehicle and re mount it or another one as crew or passenger. Crews that bailed out or left their vehicles would become dismount units for game purposes. Given the emphasis on force protection in current operations and the basic human desire never to leave anyone behind, this could be useful in various scenarios as well as adding to the atmosphere/immersion of the game.

[ChrisWerb]

Selectable size of IED (at present the only size seems very large/large casualty radius which is great in some scenarios (culvert bombs, static VBIEDs etc.) but not in others.

Ability to have IEDs in moving vehicles (at least pick up truck, truck and BMP-1)

Buildings you can drive a vehicle into and close the doors to hide inside.

Deployable cammo nets.

 

[MAJ_Fubar]

1 hour ago, ChrisWerb said:

Ability to have IEDs in moving vehicles (at least pick up truck, truck and BMP-1)

 

 

This is already present.  Use the "Vehicle explode if..." from the right-click context menu during scenario development.  As for a smaller IEDs, I wouldn't mind seeing this myself but if you don't mind needing a trigger-man present, the new Claymores aren't a bad substitute.

Edited September 2, 2017 by MAJ_Fubar

[Apocalypse 31]

1 hour ago, MAJ_Fubar said:

As for a smaller IEDs, I wouldn't mind seeing this myself but if you don't mind needing a trigger-man present, the new Claymores aren't a bad substitute.

Id like to see a victim operated IED that doesnt require scripting...think an individual mine instead of a conditional IED

[ChrisWerb]

58 minutes ago, MAJ_Fubar said:

This is already present.  Use the "Vehicle explode if..." from the right-click context menu during scenario development.  As for a smaller IEDs, I wouldn't mind seeing this myself but if you don't mind needing a trigger-man present, the new Claymores aren't a bad substitute.

 

Thank you MAJ. That really helped. The Claymore implementation in game is wonderful, even if it's a bit more fidly to employ them in scenario editor. It would be nice to be able to put down and command detonate a Claymore manually in game. I know in reality it would usually be very hard to spot a claymore or IED, but I would like them to appear visually in game with some chance of spotting them*. Likewise to differentiate between radio and wire initiation with the IED, some chance of spotting a wire (user selectable probability or degree of hiding) and RF jamming of radio links would be nice. I know some might see that as gilding the lily, but IEDs and counter-IED operations/considerations have been a major part of recent operations.

 

*I  realise there would be a CPU penalty for this as it involves calculating probability of detection for a potentially large number of units.

[ChrisWerb]

4 minutes ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

Id like to see a victim operated IED that doesnt require scripting...think an individual mine instead of a conditional IED

 

This x10.