Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[Gibsonm]

21 minutes ago, Kingtiger said:

@Gibsonm I was only refering to the filter function, not ALL PRO functions to PE. I wrote "feature" and not "features" for a reason.

 

/KT

Yes and there is a bunch of gunnery stuff in the AAR Feature. There are "Non Events", "Events" and "Gunnery" check-boxes.

 

That is why I mentioned it when you glibly asked for all the AAR functionality from Pro to be imported into Pro PE"I would like to have the PRO versions AAR feature ported to PE" .

 

Perhaps next time appreciate that I did read what you wrote and am replying to that before you launch.

 

Edited February 17, 2018 by Gibsonm

[Ssnake]

13 hours ago, Kingtiger said:

I know there is no point in arguing over something you have already decided, but I just want to point out that more people then "us who play huge battles online" is that Im sure many offline people that play larger battles with AI with them would benefit from the filter function as well.

For single player mode, I think the upper practical limit for a single person is the tactical level of a company team, possibly just parts of it. You could create bigger scenarios of course, but I think that pretty much every player will then be effectively overwhelmed and therefore play each individual platoon worse than he could with undivided attention. So, from a design point of view I think that your decision that regular PE players will probably not miss the absence of event filtering is still valid. I may have forgotten about previous cases, but I honestly don't remember a PE customer requesting an event filter for the AAR in the last 15 years; even if there were previous cases, I bet they were less than a handful.

[Bond_Villian]

On the topic of filters and multiplayer (this has been said before, im mentioning it again because its relevant to multiplayer functionality);

Some kind of UI function that would list all units that any given player has under their command/ownership. (No more; "Who has 1/A"...."Who has 1/A?"...."EVERYBODY CHECK YOUR MAP AND SEE IF YOU HAVE 1/A!" )

Also, a text and/or 'radio' filter for contact reports, so that players arent constantly overwhelmed by irrelevent/less relevant information (again this is with Multiplayer in mind).

'Helmet Fire' is almost constant in any scenario with more than a handful of vehicles, and its out of control when youve got infantry units from everywhere on the map telling you theyre under fire every 3 seconds!

 Cheers

Edited February 19, 2018 by Bond_Villian

[Marko]

I was just reading about the upgraded Finnish BMP-2  equipped with thermals for the gunner /commander.

Also there looking to replace the 30mm cannon.

I was thinking it would make for an interesting addition to SB,

 

Also coupled with the T-72B3 from what i have been reading the Russians won't be fielding the T-14

In numbers anytime soon.

they are buying some additional T90M's But the T72B3 will be there most numerous tank for quite awhile.

Even a none playable version of the T-72B3 would be great.

Edited February 19, 2018 by Marko

[Major duck]

On 2/19/2018 at 3:07 PM, Marko said:

I was just reading about the upgraded Finnish BMP-2  equipped with thermals for the gunner /commander.

Also there looking to replace the 30mm cannon.

I was thinking it would make for an interesting addition to SB

They also removed the Missile launcher and smacked barracuda on it , and i think new smoke dischargers (They might be the same):

 

There is prolly also added new armor and/or equipment bags on the turret as its profile has changed considerably and notice what i think is a wire cutter besides the gun i might be wrong there again

 

New

 

New with MTLB

 

Old

[Marko]

Looks like a wire cutter to me.

 

I like whats the finns have done to the BMP-2 and wonder how such upgrades improve its overall capabilities.

In compatible terms with western designs. 

I would like to see a improved version of the BMP-2 in game

There are many upgrade packages available for BMP-1/2 some are complete rebuilds.

I think this is the most comprehensive veriant built for the czech army trials for a new IFV i believe.

 

 

 

 

[Ssnake]

The fundamental problem with such upgrades is, you can't really fix the underlying problem of high vulnerability of these vehicles. The BMP-2 packs a punch, yes, and I guess you just got to work with what you have, and adding Barracuda to make it stand out less in the thermal spectrum can't hurt either. But you have a vehicle with a glass chin, no matter what you do, unless you take away its mobility.

[Bond_Villian]

I noticed that the rocket arty doesn't create dust when its firing. Adding that would be nice

[Hedgehog]

Enhanced Ammo selection algorithms for the AI TCs

 

I.E. If firing at cast armour use HEAT as primary AT round.

 

Because at the moment the AI selection appears to be: AP/Fin > HEAT > Smoke > HESH > HE FRAG

 

Or would that be too much?

Considering the AI knows everything about the target as soon as it see one pixel.

(another Bug Bear)

[dpabrams]

• Remodeled M113 FISTV and Mortar vehicle to include the M125 (81mm) and M106 (107mm)
• Remodeled M1 and M109
• M2/ M2A1 and M3/ M3A1
• M163 Vulcan
• Stinger missile teams
• M60A1
• M151 Jeep

 

[Gibsonm]

1 hour ago, Hedgehog said:

Enhanced Ammo selection algorithms for the AI TCs

 

I.E. If firing at cast armour use HEAT as primary AT round.

 

Because at the moment the AI selection appears to be: AP/Fin > HEAT > Smoke > HESH > HE FRAG

Why use HEAT as a preference for cast armour?

 

I presume you mean cast steel compared to welded?

[Ssnake]

1 hour ago, Hedgehog said:

Enhanced Ammo selection algorithms for the AI TCs

... Because at the moment the AI selection appears to be: AP/Fin > HEAT > Smoke > HESH > HE FRAG

Or would that be too much?

Since there's a direct question involved: First of all, I don't think that you have properly identified the selection algorithm (it's a bit more sophisticated than what you suggest). Second, the choice involves factors like whether a target is vulnerable against a certain type of ammo in the first place. Third, we do not store any kind of information about the manufacturing process of the armor, therefore the proposed change is impossible without going through all vehicle models and to introduce that meta information. Also, it's completely superfluous. Every surface is designed with a certain resistance against the various types of attacking projectiles. Either the vehicle is vulnerable against it, or it is not. A cast turret with non-steel inserts might be very well immune against the currently loaded HEAT round (think of T-72B without ERA, frontally), so firing that round just because the target has a cast turret would only result in a waste of ammo.

[Gibsonm]

Two things for the Mission Editor:

 

1. Giving the "embark if ..." and other conditional menus the ability to limit choices.

 

E.g. I have a PC with two squads onboard (for simplicity lets say the callsigns are "PC", "Squad 1" and "Squad 2"). I get to a way point and dismount the infantry. I want to create an "embark if ..." route.

 

I go to the dialogue box and select "This unit is ...".

 

Currently I get the entire unit list in the scenario (perhaps a hundred or so), when only "PC", "Squad 1" and "Squad 2" are the only valid choices.

 

Can we add some smarts to the dialogue box so it only offers viable choices?

 

2. The ability to type in times.

 

If I need to chose "Mission time (< or >) ..." for say 29:50, I have to click the mouse like a madman to scroll through the minutes and seconds.

 

The ability to type "29:50" would be great.

 

By the way I'll add that to the questionnaire you sent out too.

[Ssnake]

44 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

1. Giving the "embark if ..." and other conditional menus the ability to limit choices

Currently I get the entire unit list in the scenario (perhaps a hundred or so), when only "PC", "Squad 1" and "Squad 2" are the only valid choices.

Can we add some smarts to the dialogue box so it only offers viable choices?

I've been told years ago that this was actually a rather difficult task because you need to fo through all routes connecting to the origin waypoint of the conditioned route in reverse order and check which units are connected to the route graph (and which conditions would prevent a unit from ever reaching this route, even if it was connected to the waypoint.

So, I haven't been pressing this issue.

But a "less than perfect" solution would still be superior to a perfect one that never materializes. Thanks for reminding me of this, though I can't say when exactly we'll be able to address this.

[TankGirl90]

I would like to see the Leclerc become playable and maybe even interiored if possible, my girlfriend is a fan of it. Also the T-64 as it's one of my favorite Soviet tanks, again playable and interiored if possible, finally the BMD-2 same as the other two

[Kev2go]

To actually be able to zoom up and see through the M60A3 TC  Cupula view-ports by clicking on them  like you can in other tanks

Edited March 25, 2018 by Kev2go

[Hedgehog]

On 22/03/2018 at 5:35 PM, Ssnake said:

Since there's a direct question involved: First of all, I don't think that you have properly identified the selection algorithm (it's a bit more sophisticated than what you suggest). Second, the choice involves factors like whether a target is vulnerable against a certain type of ammo in the first place. Third, we do not store any kind of information about the manufacturing process of the armor, therefore the proposed change is impossible without going through all vehicle models and to introduce that meta information. Also, it's completely superfluous. Every surface is designed with a certain resistance against the various types of attacking projectiles. Either the vehicle is vulnerable against it, or it is not. A cast turret with non-steel inserts might be very well immune against the currently loaded HEAT round (think of T-72B without ERA, frontally), so firing that round just because the target has a cast turret would only result in a waste of ammo.

Ok, Plain Steel Armour.

I.E. No Composite inserts / Laminate Armours / Ceramic inserts.

 

And I was thinking of the AI factoring the possible post penetration effects.

 

For example, using  a 1950s 105mm fin vs a 105mm HESH/HEAT firing against against say a T-55 / M60

Both have "roughly" the same penetration, but the HE has a better chance of igniting the flammable materials within the target.

 

And during this era 1950s/60/70s HEAT / HESH was the primary AT round. (I belive anyway, look at the Leopard 1 design philosophy)

[Rad]

IL-2 graphic.

[Bond_Villian]

On 3/29/2018 at 3:14 PM, Rad said:

IL-2 graphic.

IL-2 graphic need IL-2 engine. SB not IL-2. SB graphic not IL-2 graphic. No IL-2 graphic.

Edited March 30, 2018 by Bond_Villian
more stupidity

[dpabrams]

4 hours ago, Bond_Villian said:

IL-2 graphic need IL-2 engine. SB not IL-2. SB graphic not IL-2 graphic. No IL-2 graphic.

Math made easy. Thanks Bond, that's funny sh*T!

[TankGirl90]

On 3/25/2018 at 6:20 PM, Kev2go said:

To actually be able to zoom up and see through the M60A3 TC  Cupula view-ports by clicking on them  like you can in other tanks

I agree with this too actually and I forgot to add the Leo 2A7 to my list  

Edited March 30, 2018 by TankGirl90

[Splash]

6 hours ago, Bond_Villian said:

On 3/29/2018 at 2:14 AM, Rad said:

IL-2 graphic.

IL-2 graphic need IL-2 engine. SB not IL-2. SB graphic not IL-2 graphic. No IL-2 graphic.

Edited 5 hours ago by Bond_Villian
more stupidity

 

Um ... I don't see the problem.

 

[Splash]

OK, so I'll join the party. Here are a dozen or so "I'd Like To See" items from my wishlist:

 

Nation-specific mod folder paths for normals and speculars.

 

Adjustment of the mod path hierarchy to include a query of mods/textures/woodland for vehicle textures before proceeding to the main game installation textures.

 

Inclusion of all available infantry models in "set look of infantry" and "set look of crew" options.

 

Additional infantry models: particularly UK (Cold War and modern); modern Russian Federation; and modern Israeli. And maybe some additional nation folders for present-day potential hotspots that also feature vehicles in SB -- Ukraine, Afghanistan (ANA), Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey, Poland, the Baltics. 

 

A separate, less-hot TIS file for vehicles pre-placed on maps as "destroyed." It would also be great if they would use the already-included "destroyed" skins.

 

Updated models for remaining ASLAV family.

 

A T-50 turret option for the M113A1.

 

An A-CAV option for the M113A1 (twin M60s with shields mounted on the troop hatch).

 

Crewable USMC LAV25

 

Animated water, rather than a static texture.

 

Ability to display animated flags and pennants from armored vehicles.

 

Ability to have troops mounted on outside of vehicles.

[Kingtiger]

Wish list: 

 

What:
A Compass and a ruler (Distance) in F5 Map view.

 

Why:
FOO and infantry can now in SB hit "K" key for Azimuth that gives both degrees and mils and with Binos with mils in it we can now calculate the distance to target. This give us the two of three important things when calling for indirect fire (last is altitude, but that we get from the map) and the two things that is needed to plot with good results enemy units on map when Enemy contacts are disabled. However once you have Azimut and distance you dont really come any further with that data once you go into map view.
In real life I Can take my compass and ruler (if the ruler on the compass doesn't stretch far out enough) and plot on map where the enemy are using as stated, azimut and distance, (asuming I already know my own position).
But in SB I do not have a compass or a ruler, which makes both azimut and distance a "qualified guess" at best. I a forested/Urban area this can somewhat be mitigated by reading the terrain, but for example in desert or more open areas this "qualified guess" are often way off. So a tool in the map view to transfare the data recived in 3D mode would be much appreciated.

 

Effect:

Practice in taking out direction and distance using compass and binos and transfer it to map to get more accurate contact reports AND calling in artillery fire more precisly.

 

/KT

Edited April 2, 2018 by Kingtiger

[Nike-Ajax]

40 minutes ago, Kingtiger said:

Wish list: 

 

What:
A Compass and a ruler (Distance) in F5 Map view.

 

Why:
FOO and infantry can now in SB hit "K" key for Azimuth that gives both degrees and mils and with Binos with mils in it we can now calculate the distance to target. This give us the two of three important things when calling for indirect fire (last is altitude, but that we get from the map) and the two things that is needed to plot with good results enemy units on map when Enemy contacts are disabled. However once you have Azimut and distance you dont really come any further with that data once you go into map view.
In real life I Can take my compass and ruler (if the ruler on the compass doesn't stretch far out enough) and plot on map where the enemy are using as stated, azimut and distance, (asuming I already know my own position).
But in SB I do not have a compass or a ruler, which makes both azimut and distance a "qualified guess" at best. I a forested/Urban area this can somewhat be mitigated by reading the terrain, but for example in desert or more open areas this "qualified guess" are often way off. So a tool in the map view to transfare the data recived in 3D mode would be much appreciated.

 

Effect:

Practice in taking out direction and distance using compass and binos and transfer it to map to get more accurate contact reports AND calling in artillery fire more precisly.

 

/KT

I concur and second everything KT wrote. This would bring it closer into the actual interaction between a FO/FOO and the troops that they are supposeed to interact with and support, as well as making the artillery much more effective and flexible if you use it correctly.

Edited April 2, 2018 by Nike-Ajax