Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[hoggydog]

5 hours ago, Ssnake said:

...everyone but the British Army.

Have you seen the folks we let run things over here? As if they are capable of making good choices! 

 

Don't punish the rest of us plucky Brits

[hawes]

4 hours ago, Crusty said:

Don't let that stop you Nils 😁

👍

 

54 minutes ago, hoggydog said:

Have you seen the folks we let run things over here? As if they are capable of making good choices! 

 

Don't punish the rest of us plucky Brits

👍

[Marko]

On 7/17/2019 at 9:54 AM, Ssnake said:

...everyone but the British Army.

I remember chatting to a high ranking British army officer who liked SB 

And seen its potential as a training tool.

 

Tip for selling to the British MOD.

Hire a couple of posh boys who went to Eton /Oxford chances are they will have gone to school with the guys in the MOD

Make sure you over charge for the product stick a made in the UK sticker on dongles.

Job done. LoL 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Marko

[Grenny]

Hmm, We have english, french german etc etc voices...how about a latin version 🙂...that would stick out!!!

Edited July 19, 2019 by Grenny

[Marko]

26 minutes ago, Grenny said:

Hmm, We have english, french german etc etc voices...how about a latin version 🙂...that would stick out!!!

I am currently working on a Klingon version.

 

Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam

[stormrider_sp]

The 2nd best thing after the full Pro map import/creation tools:

 

The ability to import GIS data from Pro PE map/terrain editor.

This means that we would still have to ask our fellow Pro users to import a DEM, but we would have the flexibility to further process the map ourselves in the terrain map/map editor.

 

🗺️

 

 

 

[Japo32]

I will like to see the option to make squared selections with mouse and move all the units with just one order of movement.

Also would like to make hotkey quick selection of group (or single) units as RTS games has (Ctr+1, ctr+2, etc.. or whatever hotkey we want to press).

 

Edited July 30, 2019 by Japo32

[Kingtiger]

7 minutes ago, Japo32 said:

I will like to see the option to make squared selections with mouse and move all the units with just one order of movement.

Also would like to make hotkey quick selection of group (or single) units as RTS games has (Ctr+1, ctr+2, etc.. or whatever hotkey we want to press).

 

It's already in the game.

[Ssnake]

...though not in this form. You need to create "preset groups" in the planning phase.

[Gibsonm]

3 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

...though not in this form. You need to create "preset groups" in the planning phase.

As mentioned one page earlier in this thread:

 

 

[Japo32]

Didn't know we could create groups. That is a great addition! (long time since I played SB)

 

BUT still I don't find the options I ask... These are my thoughts about the system. (I read  the manual searching for the preset groups but didn't find what I wanted)

 

1. To make the groups we have to search for the unit name and add it. Sometimes we need to be quick. In RTS games you choose your units visually in the map and press a key or option menu and add it to a group number. Fast an easy.

 

2. When we want to select a group in SB we don't know which group are part of. Even we don't know if they are part of a group or not all the units. We have to select one unit and see if the right-mouse options appear the new "new group route" option to see it we did it right. When we are in a middle of a battle with several units all can be a mess and we cannot know where are all the units. 

The hot key selection would fix that. Pressing for example Control+1 would select Group1, Ctr+2, group 2. BUT the way SB is done wouldn't allow to have the option to make the "new group route" as when we select several units, even they are part of the same group, the system don't show the option to make the group for all.

 

3. When we mark a new group route, we have to give the order to "proceed all the group" so we have to make lots of clicks to make the group move. We want to be fast in case of sudden attacks. The ideal would be: Ctr+number of the group, then ctr+alt+left click on the map, (or any other combination) so all the units would move quick to that point (I don't know if that option to move quick units in map is implemented already.

 

Anyone that has played starcraft would see the fast you can move units with key combinations and click over map.

 

 

I know this is a sim, but even I can say in real life "group one, retreat 200 meters to the west" very fast and the units would do it. Here in SB I have to make several clicks to achieve that and some of my units would be dead trying to find which ones where part of the group. Since this sim, is more a "almost all time in map moving units" sim, it would be nice the addition of these selection and order features in future.

 

 

 

If I miss something please tell me. Thanks!

 

 

Edited July 30, 2019 by Japo32

[Grenny]

...just in case: You do note that SB is not primarily a RTS game?

[Gibsonm]

Well arguably you've already made your "teams" in your plan (this Tank troop will move with that Infantry Platoon).

 

I have no need of what you are asking for, but that doesn't mean you can't ask for it - FWIW I think its similar to a request a few pages back where someone wanted a "quick and dirty" way to make a group.

 

Edited July 30, 2019 by Gibsonm

[Japo32]

 

35 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

I have no need of what oyu are asking for, 

Yes, of course I understand that there are people that don't need those features, but as you said we can ask them (devs will decide to implement them or not). For sure you guys that have been making hundreds of battles in steelbeasts for years don't need those new features as you have already trained to be quick and fast, but I ensure you that if you engage in a Human vs Human battle, both with same skills.. One uses the starcraft method and other the SB method of selection and grouping, the Starcraft one will win most of the times because he will be faster.

 

"SB is not primarily a RTS game" but when I see people playing in youtube videos mostly all the time they are in the map view. So it is a RTS game - sim or whatever you want to call it. It is a Real Time Strategy simulator so anything that can make us be less time giving orders but making the units do the orders, I think is better. 

If esim want to bring new fresh people (I don't know if they want to) to SB then I think the good things that are already invented and working in other RST games (still think SB is a sim-game as I don't have any real tank in my garage to train with) would be good to have in SB. Meanwhile I will be ranting while I move units in the map.

 

Another good feature to add in group viewing would be to change the colors of the groups, so they could be identified fast in the map.

Edited July 30, 2019 by Japo32

[Kingtiger]

Im not sure I follow how you play, so bear with me....

 

You want to change color on icons to know which group they belong to? they have callsigns that denotes platoon and company they belong to already? 

When you preset the groups you hit the tagent needed for that group and it gets indicated who belongs in that group.

 

How big scenarios are you running? Battalion size? considering you just need to grasp a bunch of units and throw them towards (or away from) threats. I play platoon to company sized missions where company is the roof for me and there single platoons gets detailed orders where to go and support, attack towards etc. Just grabbing a bunch of icons and sending them towards or from something seems rather caotic in my view.

 

Figure out preset group first and get to play around with that first, I actually think it covers all your needs. In the release notes  for 4.156 Ssnake has dedicated 2 pages to explain how it works, so that is a good start I would say.

 

/KT

 

[Retro]

Actually I've been thinking of RTS games and things like 'lasso select' and the CTRL+1..n modifiers when doing/designing this features.. but we simply only had a limited amount of time to do this 'v1.0', hopefully we'll (eventually) find some time to add these things..

[Japo32]

well lasso selection is too problematic maybe to make. Nothing you cannot do very fast with shift + quick square selections. Of course I understand the limitation of time but I think these quick selection hot keys, color for groups (understand that maybe are other army colors around, so could be done a marquee color around the units to identify them, preserving the main color of them), would make the sim more visual playable and make decisions better.

 

37 minutes ago, Kingtiger said:

 Just grabbing a bunch of icons and sending them towards or from something seems rather caotic in my view.

 

 

of course it would be caotic if the tools are not corrected. The right menus will be still there, but imagine you have the option to have those right-mouse options with hotkeys you select. You learn those selection keys (or just give assignations to voice attack program) and then with group hotkey selection selects your units and make quick movements in the map.

 

we don't have to be Koreans, but these guys with the right tools can be very fast. Maybe not good strategical but for sure they don't waste time giving orders. But for sure, yes!! Starcraft is a very total different type of game, but do the group selection and task very well.

 

 

Edited July 30, 2019 by Japo32

[thewood]

Don't forget that SB is first and foremost a training tool for AFV crews and commanders.  While every Combat Mission-like tool they add only makes my life as a gamer better, I never lose sight of how they have to focus on the MilSim aspect over the gamer aspect.

[Japo32]

They sell me a PE game version. Not the PRO without the PE version which has limitations over the PRO one. Because they have different features don't see any problem implementing more features in the PE that wouldn't have the PRO one to make everything easy. As said I don't have a tank in my garage and most of the PE users don't neither.

Of course I understand the importance of the PRO military part. But I think eSimGames would have more profit in the PE version if they would apply different politics.... but hey man! everyone has his own personal valid opinion, of course (as stated in the past, I work in the videogame industry for +25 years already)

Edited July 30, 2019 by Japo32

[Grenny]

24 minutes ago, Japo32 said:

They sell me a PE game version. Not the PRO without the PE version which has limitations over the PRO one. Because they have different features don't see any problem implementing more features in the PE that wouldn't have the PRO one to make everything easy. As said I don't have a tank in my garage and most of the PE users don't neither.

Of course I understand the importance of the PRO military part. But I think eSimGames would have more profit in the PE version if they would apply different politics.... but hey man! everyone has his own personal valid opinion, of course (as stated in the past, I work in the videogame industry for +25 years already)

Yes, but the adding of new features that you need, and that are totaly alien to the training version, would create a workload that has no synergy effect for esim.

[Ssnake]

1 hour ago, Japo32 said:

They sell me a PE game version. Not the PRO without the PE version

Technically, we're selling you SB Pro PE, a homework tool for our army customers who want to teach officer cadets and junior NCOs tactics with the help of a virtual simulation. Having been an officer cadet myself some thirty years ago I found (combined army combat) tactics to be an interesting and engaging topic so I was enthusiastic to seize the opportunity when a programmer asked me for my input to work on his "tank game".

Steel Beasts 1.0 is what happens when you lock an electronics engineer with programming skills and a C++ compiler and a tank soldier into a room for four years. This we designed for gamers (and maybe it shows that we weren't the most talented game designers ever since the elements of a training tool for tank officers are shining through in many places).

Steel Beasts 2.0 we then named "Steel Beasts Professional" because we were contacted by a number of defense market related customers if we could adopt our tank game to their specific requirements. And while we were working on that a number of Steel Beasts 1.0 players demanded that we make something available to them as well, but that meant that we had to adapt the scope, and the licensing conditions so that we could release it at a price that was near the upper edge of what might still pass as a consumer price level while it would not cannibalize the sales of the classroom version. And we figured that if we could offer our military customers a product variant that they could hand out to their students for "tactics homework" we might serve the needs of two customer groups with a single derivative product.

 

I remember well that in the first five to seven years at least I tried to hammer home in all our public communications that we did not market SB Pro PE as a game. To me, a game is designed to give preference, with every design decision, to entertainment value. The prime justification of a game, its purpose is to entertain. You can design a game with educational elements, but even for an educational game you want entertainment first, and education only where it doesn't take away the fun parts.

 

Steel Beasts Professional is a training tool. That means, it's designed to give preference to educational value. Whenever we have to choose, we go for educational. Entertainment value is acceptable as long as it isn't detrimental to the educational aspect.

 

The question of a user interface featuring a Lasso function and ad-hoc grouping of units like pioneered in Dune, Command & Conquer, or Starcarft is of course none that falls into the "fun" or "educational" category, that's purely a matter of good user interface. To that extent I'm entirely agnostic about this. But we also have to think about priorities. For the last six years that priority was the new terrain engine (and the new HE/fragmentation model in the last three), generally, improving the fidelity level of simulation results.

The next major topic is a redesign of the GUI framework so that in the future any work on the GUI is less maintenance intensive, easier to work with, supports very high and ultra high screen resolutions. And while we're working on that we will certainly review established practices. I do not intend to axe everything just because it's old. But I think we're witnessing right now the impact of a change in the handling of map files and the repercussions that it has with respect to established workflows and scenario design procedures that UI changes are not something universally positive. We want to be careful with this.

[Japo32]

Understand your point of view, but I have been for many years hearing people belittling games against simulators. As you said educational is where you go, and I have to say that the way the children learn, is with games. Games are a very strong tool to learn, and in every hard simulator I have been in (x-plane, Command modern air naval operations, iracing, orbiter, steel beasts, run8, etc...) users were all of professional, but all at the end of the "matches" they had in those sims that had multiplayer where with a big smile in their face (or happy by voice) saying that "it was fun". 

With your mistakes you learn, and maybe (hope not) I learned that if in future I will be in a middle of a real battle of tanks, because any reason, I will undersand, they have optics that will catch me very easily. That is the closest I am going to be, to become something professional with tanks. And the same with planes, trains, race cars, astronauts, etc. For me is fun to learn, and I love the sims as much as the good games.

 

With that said, if you want to make things as real, then you will need to achieve the hability in real life to give orders fulfill them. I suppose in the battlefield communication has to be clean and fast. When we, in our 50 people arma3 battles online receive orders we do it via voice communication and we do what the command says. In Arma3 we are owners of our own body or single vehicle, but in SB we have to deal with several units. sometimes hundreds of them and can be very problematic undestanding where they are. I think adding those features would make things easier.

 

Thanks.

 

[Grenny]

3 minutes ago, Japo32 said:

....

 

..., but in SB we have to deal with several units. sometimes hundreds of them and can be very problematic undestanding where they are. I think adding those features would make things easier.

 

Thanks.

 

That is not a problem of SB, that is a problem of how you set up your games.

Don't blame esim for bad mission design.

 

[stormrider_sp]

2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Technically, we're selling you SB Pro PE, a homework tool for our army customers who want to teach officer cadets and junior NCOs tactics with the help of a virtual simulation. Having been an officer cadet myself some thirty years ago I found (combined army combat) tactics to be an interesting and engaging topic so I was enthusiastic to seize the opportunity when a programmer asked me for my input to work on his "tank game".

Steel Beasts 1.0 is what happens when you lock an electronics engineer with programming skills and a C++ compiler and a tank soldier into a room for four years. This we designed for gamers (and maybe it shows that we weren't the most talented game designers ever since the elements of a training tool for tank officers are shining through in many places).

Steel Beasts 2.0 we then named "Steel Beasts Professional" because we were contacted by a number of defense market related customers if we could adopt our tank game to their specific requirements. And while we were working on that a number of Steel Beasts 1.0 players demanded that we make something available to them as well, but that meant that we had to adapt the scope, and the licensing conditions so that we could release it at a price that was near the upper edge of what might still pass as a consumer price level while it would not cannibalize the sales of the classroom version. And we figured that if we could offer our military customers a product variant that they could hand out to their students for "tactics homework" we might serve the needs of two customer groups with a single derivative product.

 

I remember well that in the first five to seven years at least I tried to hammer home in all our public communications that we did not market SB Pro PE as a game. To me, a game is designed to give preference, with every design decision, to entertainment value. The prime justification of a game, its purpose is to entertain. You can design a game with educational elements, but even for an educational game you want entertainment first, and education only where it doesn't take away the fun parts.

 

Steel Beasts Professional is a training tool. That means, it's designed to give preference to educational value. Whenever we have to choose, we go for educational. Entertainment value is acceptable as long as it isn't detrimental to the educational aspect.

 

The question of a user interface featuring a Lasso function and ad-hoc grouping of units like pioneered in Dune, Command & Conquer, or Starcarft is of course none that falls into the "fun" or "educational" category, that's purely a matter of good user interface. To that extent I'm entirely agnostic about this. But we also have to think about priorities. For the last six years that priority was the new terrain engine (and the new HE/fragmentation model in the last three), generally, improving the fidelity level of simulation results.

The next major topic is a redesign of the GUI framework so that in the future any work on the GUI is less maintenance intensive, easier to work with, supports very high and ultra high screen resolutions. And while we're working on that we will certainly review established practices. I do not intend to axe everything just because it's old. But I think we're witnessing right now the impact of a change in the handling of map files and the repercussions that it has with respect to established workflows and scenario design procedures that UI changes are not something universally positive. We want to be careful with this.

I'm glad that this product was and still is under continuous development with future projects and goals already set. The new handling of maps is a big step forward in the right direction; the repercussion can't be judged in the short term. Some people are easier to adapt to changes, some people just need more time. The GUI framework, just like the new map handling, in my opinion, have to prioritize always its long term benefits even if at the cost of some short term pain. We all had to learn to handle the sim once in the first place, in fact we are all still learning it, more so after every new update. Don't be too careful I'd say.

[CalAB]

Someday,

a while from now,

distant and in the future,

over the horizon,

down the road, maybe,

by a twist of fate,

after a massive influx of capitol from an mysterious billionaire,

Pro PE comes to Mac OS