Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[stealth]

I would love to see snipers with selectable camo ( diferents types of  ghillie camo and camo rifles also).

 

Is there a mod or something similar to this?

 

Edit: Already exists!!   (not selectable camo but exist).  Anyway, exist any mod for snipers?

Edited July 4, 2019 by stealth

[Gibsonm]

1 hour ago, stealth said:

Edit: Already exists!!   (not selectable camo but exist).  Anyway, exist any mod for snipers?

 

Well that was easily satisfied.

[hoggydog]

Ok this is my current wishlist.

 

The CR2 model to be to be finished including the FC system.

The Chieftan to be a playable vehicle.

An FV432 

T-64 playable.

 

And for pie in the sky wishes, T34/85 and T-10.

[Gibsonm]

With the proliferation of vehicle specific keys, perhaps producing more of the Keyboard Reference Charts?

 

While I don't think you need one per vehicle type there maybe utility in producing maybe 5 or 6 or so?

 

This would let a player print them all off and put on the top of the stack the one they were going to use for a given session.

 

This would increase the number of PDFs (they could be in a single multi page bundle), but avoid the alternative of trying to have one sheet with every keyboard short-cut for every vehicle crammed onto it.

 

[Vikingo]

Now that we have the TAM tank (btw great model) and other (local for me) units please can we have Argentina [AR] in the list of countries? Or maybe is actually there   Thanks! 👍

[Gibsonm]

2 minutes ago, Vikingo said:

Now that we have the TAM tank (btw great model) and other (local for me) units please can we have Argentina [AR] in the list of countries? Or maybe is actually there   Thanks! 👍

I didn't see it in the list here:

 

 

[Vikingo]

21 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

I didn't see it in the list here:

[...]

 

Thanks Gibsonm, yes that was the list that make me ask (nice addition the country names). Maybe is just add the [AR] in a single line of code  and the TAMs can have the country attached  I know it should not be that easy  

Edited July 12, 2019 by Vikingo

[Hedgehog]

On 6/27/2019 at 2:39 PM, Ssnake said:

IMO vehicles should never be part of a MAP, even if without drivers/without function. Conceptually they need to be handled through the Mission Editor. That said, I'm all for making it easier to handle a larger number of unoccupied cars.

With inert cars as map objects, the load on the game engine would be easier, no LOS calcs.

Also scrapped / long abandoned cars (Broken / Green Windows, Wheels missing etc) would add immersion. (Bad neighbourhood)

 

On 7/4/2019 at 9:39 AM, Gibsonm said:

 

 

Once the mission starts you select the option from the menu:

 

 

then pick the members of a given group, you can have 6:

 

 

then you'll get additional choices in the right click menu:

 

 

I find it useful if you are moving say an echelon and the designer hasn't created a dedicated Platoon.

 

You can group say a Supply Truck, ARV, AMB and Refueller as one composite group, issue one set of orders and they'll all react to it.

 

Once you have selected the group route, the individual unit routes will be plotted and you can then fine tune them to avoid any issues.

Ooo Ctrl + 1 , Nice.

(Old Command & Conquer reference, you used Ctrl + a number to create a group in that game.)

 

On 7/12/2019 at 6:53 PM, hoggydog said:

Ok this is my current wishlist.

 

The CR2 model to be to be finished including the FC system.

The Chieftan to be a playable vehicle.

An FV432 

T-64 playable.

 

And for pie in the sky wishes, T34/85 and T-10.

They said that about the T-72, once upon a time.

Now we have 7!

M

A/M1

B

B ERA

B1

B1 ERA

M4

@Volcano they sound awesome. (I take a moment to listen to the idle when i'm in the range.)

Edited July 15, 2019 by Hedgehog

[Bond_Villian]

4 hours ago, Hedgehog said:

Ooo Ctrl + 1 , Nice.

(Old Command & Conquer reference, you used Ctrl + a number to create a group in that game.)

 

If it were that quick and simple to create groups in SB iwould actually use that feature

[Maj.Hans]

On 7/12/2019 at 12:53 PM, hoggydog said:

Ok this is my current wishlist.

 

The CR2 model to be to be finished including the FC system.

The Chieftan to be a playable vehicle.

An FV432 

T-64 playable.

 

And for pie in the sky wishes, T34/85 and T-10.

I made a joke about getting the Tiger I as a model...But in all seriousness I would *LOVE* for someone to develop a WW2 era tank sim based on the ProPE engine, and would gladly plunk down another $125 for a copy of it.

[stormrider_sp]

1 hour ago, Maj.Hans said:

I made a joke about getting the Tiger I as a model...But in all seriousness I would *LOVE* for someone to develop a WW2 era tank sim based on the ProPE engine, and would gladly plunk down another $125 for a copy of it.

Oh yes!

[hoggydog]

1 hour ago, Maj.Hans said:

I made a joke about getting the Tiger I as a model...But in all seriousness I would *LOVE* for someone to develop a WW2 era tank sim based on the ProPE engine, and would gladly plunk down another $125 for a copy of it.

Although a WWII version is highly unlikely And has been discussed previously I feel that the T34/85 and T10 along with possibly older early cold wat veteran vehicles are a good idea both for historical and modern asymmetrical warfare

[Gibsonm]

37 minutes ago, hoggydog said:

I feel that the T34/85 and T10 along with possibly older early cold war veteran vehicles are a good idea both for historical and modern asymmetrical warfare

 

Currently a bunch of people complain when there have a T-55, can you imagine what it will be like with a T34/85.

 

[hoggydog]

4 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Currently a bunch of people complain when there have a T-55, can you imagine what it will be like with a T34/85.

 

Well there is no right or wrong way to play SB but I do believe that if you stick to all the modern Gucci stuff you are missing out on a lot of fun. The T-55 is one of my favourite vehicles in SB.

[Hedgehog]

Hetzers gonna Hetz.

Sorry.

Haters gonna Hate.

[Maj.Hans]

13 hours ago, Hedgehog said:

Hetzers gonna Hetz.

Sorry.

Haters gonna Hate.

 

That reference is about to trigger the heck out of someone lol

 

I think the reason why people hate the T-55 and such is that it's basically a step BACKWARDS from the pinnacle of WW2 era gunnery.  I swear I have always had an easier time with Zeiss style optics than that Soviet made garbage.

[Gibsonm]

1 hour ago, Maj.Hans said:

I think the reason why people hate the T-55 and such is that it's basically a step BACKWARDS from the pinnacle of WW2 era gunnery.  I swear I have always had an easier time with Zeiss style optics than that Soviet made garbage.

 

Sure but I suspect the T-34/85 was "the pinnacle". I'd suspect it wasn't even base camp.

 

If you don't like the T-55, I doubt very much that you'll embrace the T-34/85.

 

Quite apart from the very clear previous direction that eSim isn't interested in a Second World War version.

 

Edited July 17, 2019 by Gibsonm

[hoggydog]

37 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Sure but I suspect the T-34/85 was "the pinnacle". I'd suspect it wasn't even base camp.

 

If you don't like the T-55, I doubt very much that you'll embrace the T-34/85.

 

Quite apart from the very clear previous drection that eSim isn't interested in a Second World War version.

Indeed esim have been very clear about WWII but a number of tanks from the war had a service life long after the war was finished. T34/85 and M4 being the obvious ones. From the Arab Israeli wars to Yugoslavia I think there could still be a place for these vehicles in a modern tank simulation.

[Maj.Hans]

2 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

Sure but I suspect the T-34/85 was "the pinnacle". I'd suspect it wasn't even base camp.

Yhea I didn't mean that one, I meant the Panzer3/4/5/6 etc.  Somehow I always found the Zeiss gunsights easy to use and quite effective when they were simulated properly.

[Gibsonm]

Yes I know.

 

What I'm saying is that the T-34/85 optics are worse than the T-55s and people already have very strong opinions about the T-55's. If they don't like the T-55, they'll hate the T-34.

 

The Panzer optics are a totally different issue and even more unlikely to be modelled since very few lasted beyond 1945 (yes I know about French Panthers and Syrian Panzer IVs) compared to other nation's Second World War vehicle fleets used in Korea as well as numerous other "small wars".

 

Anyway is a very unlikely wish to be realised.

[stormrider_sp]

1 hour ago, Gibsonm said:

Yes I know.

 

What I'm saying is that the T-34/85 optics are worse than the T-55s and people already have very strong opinions about the T-55's. If they don't like the T-55, they'll hate the T-34.

 

The Panzer optics are a totally different issue and even more unlikely to be modelled since very few lasted beyond 1945 (yes I know about French Panthers and Syrian Panzer IVs) compared to other nation's Second World War vehicle fleets used in Korea as well as numerous other "small wars".

 

Anyway is a very unlikely wish to be realised.

Wishing is still for free.

[Ssnake]

I'm not saying that it would never happen - Supershermans and IS-2s would be an obvious combination with historic potential - but our priorities are in other areas, and there's always cascading effects.

 

"Supershermans? But in Battle X they were confronted with PzIVs! We need them!"

"Can't do Egyptian IS-2s without T-34/85s!"

"What, no M3 halftracks?"

"Well... now that you have M3s, adding SdKfz 251 wouldn't be such a big effort, right? Right?"

"Period firearms! Can't have the Israelis without Uzis!"

 

Of course, since a line must be drawn somewhere, it could just as well be drawn with the Supershermans. But we all know, it wouldn't feel right. And that means that the request for a Supersherman actually is a request for a whole group of vehicles and equipment fitting the 1948...1968 time period. And let's not even start with map data. 

[hoggydog]

53 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

I'm not saying that it would never happen - Supershermans and IS-2s would be an obvious combination with historic potential - but our priorities are in other areas, and there's always cascading effects.

 

"Supershermans? But in Battle X they were confronted with PzIVs! We need them!"

"Can't do Egyptian IS-2s without T-34/85s!"

"What, no M3 halftracks?"

"Well... now that you have M3s, adding SdKfz 251 wouldn't be such a big effort, right? Right?"

"Period firearms! Can't have the Israelis without Uzis!"

 

Of course, since a line must be drawn somewhere, it could just as well be drawn with the Supershermans. But we all know, it wouldn't feel right. And that means that the request for a Supersherman actually is a request for a whole group of vehicles and equipment fitting the 1948...1968 time period. And let's not even start with map data. 

And of course this detracts from all the lovely British vehicles everyone wants 😀

[Ssnake]

...everyone but the British Army.

[Crusty]

2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

...everyone but the British Army.

Don't let that stop you Nils 😁