Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[Gibsonm]

6 minutes ago, Breakthrough7 said:

It's imperfect for sure, though in testing with Bradley's as stand-ins for Marders w/Milans, detaching the vehicle from the platoon mitigates problems associated with blanket-platoon-logic settings.  It's not a 100% or even 90% solution, and it could be gamed by dismounting Milan teams, and keeping a fire team inside the vic (effectively doubling your milans), but it is a surprisingly ok solution.

Yes but then you need to control two units (i.e. the MILAN equipped vehicle and the non MILAN equipped vehicle(s), instead of one platoon icon).

 

So a Mission designer now has a bunch more scripting to do or the human player has more "units" to worry about, as well as the "gamey" aspect (although you'd just arguably convert the dismounted MILAN team carried by the vehicle with the MILAN permanently attached to a rifle squad).

 

But yes its a work around.

 

(Of course then there will the case of when the only vehicle left is the one with the MILAN welded on and you really want to dismount it and take it somewhere ... )

 

Edited December 26, 2019 by Gibsonm

[DK-DDAM]

id like to have a spike on the cv9035..

[Ssnake]

WRT the Milan, all obvious simplified solutions (and then a few non-obvious ones) were pitched but the customer rejected them all, insisting on full flexibility. I respect that if this is the way the mech guys fight, but then it's got to wait until the stars are right.

[ChrisWerb]

On 12/22/2019 at 7:47 PM, stormrider_sp said:

I'd argue that statistically, most times modern MBTs engaged each other were in open desert spaces at distances between 2 and 3.5km.

 

Accepting that that which is not dead doth eternal sleeping lie, and that with strange aeons, even death may die, we already have a demountable weapon in SB in the MG3 on the Pinzgauer which is available to either the squad on the ground or pintle mounted on the vehicle, but not both simultaneously.  Very nice addition to SB BTW!

[ChrisWerb]

On 12/22/2019 at 7:47 PM, stormrider_sp said:

I'd argue that statistically, most times modern MBTs engaged each other were in open desert spaces at distances between 2 and 3.5km.

The places where I'd want to be engaging T-15s in game are those that simulate NW Europe, the Baltic Republics and Finland. You are mostly looking at much shorter engagement ranges there, which the new "bumpy" terrain in SB make even shorter (the most significant upgrade to the game in recent years IMHO).  From experience in game, trading shots with a T-15 at 3+km is not going to be profitable in most circumstances given its highly effective ATGM armament. What is sometimes going to make vehicle IDing problematic is not so much distance and the acuity of current imaging systems, but partial obscuration of the vehicle, either intentional or otherwise. 

[Apocalypse 31]

10 hours ago, Ssnake said:

were pitched but the customer rejected them all

And there it is

[DK-DDAM]

how about a little less salt apoc ?

[Ssnake]

Not even sure what this is about. A customer who wants a feature but can't pay for priority development will eventually get it anyway, time permitting. Which is, just in different words, exactly what I wrote before, and it's not even new, nor could it be somehow surprising to anyone familiar with how reality and capitalism work. eSim is a business. We either apply business logic to our operations, or we'll be out of business sooner rather than later. And anyone interested in SB Pro PE would be worse off, simply because that would be the end of all development work on Steel Beasts.

 

Think back ten years, SB Pro PE 2.6; it's not like no improvements were made since then. Not every new feature was one that you asked for, and not every feature that you asked for was implemented. But there is considerable overlap, and anyone who bought SB Pro PE 2.6 for $125.- and bought every single upgrade ever since witnessed what happened in those ten years. It's much easier to formulate ideas for new features or feature improvements than to actually implement them. Let's just go back to the start of this thread and see how far we got.

[Ssnake]

On 12/26/2011 at 6:43 AM, Azure Lion said:

What would you like to see in Steel Beasts?

I haven't seen any kind of wish list thread, so I thought I'd post one. [i apologize if I missed it.]

For me, I'd like to see:

-- Bridges you can drive under.

-- M1A2 SEP with all the pilot-able positions. [minus loader of course.]

-- More 3D interior driver positions.

-- Company Halt command

Three out of four, and we're working on the last one.

[Ssnake]

On 12/26/2011 at 2:39 PM, Parachuteprone said:

I would like to see some AI equipment from nations we don't have now. China/Israel/NK/SK/some UK apc's etc.

Also would really like to add skins when placing units in the editor so we can have individual skins & multiple blue nationalities for both inf & vehicles.

And weather effects - eye candy I know.

Also would love some sort of Campaign or even scenario generator for quick missions for when we feel lazy.

Four out of four.

[Ssnake]

On 12/26/2011 at 3:19 PM, Marko said:

I say lets give Ssnake a much needed christmas break.

Then as soon as the festive season is over.i Wont I Wont.I Wont,

We need a playable T-80/BMP /T-55/T-62/Challenger/helicopters/etc

No T-80 and helicopters yet, but check on everything else.

[Ssnake]

I can do this all day, you know.

[Marko]

3 hours ago, Ssnake said:

No T-80 and helicopters yet, but check on everything else.

LoL

 

Yep.

Things are progressing nicely SB continues to evolve.

 

 

 

[Parachuteprone]

6 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Four out of four.

Well, I'll give ya three and a half Lol !

Scary I've been here 13 years and I wrote that 8 years ago.

Guess you must be doing something right.

Or were all just too old to know any better

 

[Koen]

😊

👍

[Parachuteprone]

One thing I notice is that if trying to simulate a group not expecting an attack. Ie : rear area etc. the troops you place will be standing up straight or prone.

It would be nice if there was a relaxed stance where troops would individually stand or wander about maybe sit, kneel  - just hang about within a given area until the shooting starts.

Would add little to gameplay but would add a lot to the feel of the game in my opinion.

I know we can set drain areas but then troops /civ drain towards a defined region.

I don't know of a way to accomplish this currently.

 

 

[CalAB]

Something like an “at ease” command or condition. 
Then we’d also need a marijuana patch tile set 🤗

[Parachuteprone]

Exactly !

Would go a long ways to changing the atmosphere - literally

Don't know if it would be a big or small job to have your squad make those movements randomly ?

 

 

I would be happy even with a sit/kneel/casual stand stance for a squad with a few poses premade which does not involve moving around.

Just switch the squad to "at ease" and the squad widens 10 ft or so and each soldier takes up one of the poses.

That might be easier to do as I don't think it is something that you want the devs to spend a lot of time on as its just a visual thing.

 

 

 

 

[Gibsonm]

5 hours ago, Parachuteprone said:

One thing I notice is that if trying to simulate a group not expecting an attack. Ie : rear area etc. the troops you place will be standing up straight or prone.

It would be nice if there was a relaxed stance where troops would individually stand or wander about maybe sit, kneel  - just hang about within a given area until the shooting starts.

Would add little to gameplay but would add a lot to the feel of the game in my opinion.

I know we can set drain areas but then troops /civ drain towards a defined region.

I don't know of a way to accomplish this currently.

 

Off the top of my head ....

 

You could use "civilians" (but set the look to be country X so they have a uniform) then use the "arm if ..." condition to reflect the "trigger" for them to go from base lurkers to base lurkers with weapons.

 

You can set their posture to be standing and their training level to Conscript (or worse). You could even give them limited ammunition initially to reflect them just carrying a magazine on the weapon not their full load bearing gear / chest rig / ...

 

Given who they are meant to represent the lack of crew served / heavy weapons should be OK.

 

Also any vehicles, could be "dormant" (achieved via say dead crews) and have their crew casualties "repaired" by the same items that arms the dismounts.

 

As a result for the first X minutes you'd have static vehicles and base lurkers just wandering around (via the spawn / drain process) then something happens then "something plus X minutes" they and the vehicles react.

[Splash]

6 hours ago, Parachuteprone said:

One thing I notice is that if trying to simulate a group not expecting an attack. Ie : rear area etc. the troops you place will be standing up straight or prone.

It would be nice if there was a relaxed stance where troops would individually stand or wander about maybe sit, kneel  - just hang about within a given area until the shooting starts.

I've done this sort of "in the rear with the gear" thing fairly convincingly for a screenshot. And the thought did occur to me that it would make a nice basis for an infiltration attack scenario. Result can be seen with my Australian M577 in the downloads section.

All of Mark's suggestions are valid, although I wouldn't use "civilians ... set the look to be country X so they have a uniform", because SBProPE doesn't work that way. With CIV or any other country your only "set look of" options are other civilians or the three flavors of armor crew. Instead, you need "Infantry" unit(s) to get them in uniform. Set them initially as "discard weapon if this unit is anywhere" if you want them milling about/resting unarmed at runtime. But also apply an "arm if" condition as required. Spawn/drain regions or some simple scripted routes, and viola.

And don't forget the "kneeling" posture. When the figure is unarmed, it provides a very casual/at rest look.  Make a "march" route ending at a waypoint with the troop posture "kneeling" (tactics NONE) ... and your unarmed grunt will walk to the spot and take a knee.

[Gibsonm]

Make it easier to move / orientate wire, IEDs, and other smaller obstacles / items (ISO containers, etc.).

 

Suggestion: Add the long "orientation bars" now provided to Bunkers and Vehicle scrapes to all obstacles / fortifications.

 

Often these items will be in an "off map" area and need to be placed.

 

The current solution seems to be:

 

1. Think about where to place the obstacle / fortification.

2. Move the map to centre on the area where the items are stockpiled.

3. Zoom right in so you can control it (trying to grab it at a normal amount just results in you re-orientating it or re-sizing it)

4. Move to part way to where you want it (because the destination is most likely not on the screen).

5. Zoom back out to confirm where it has to go.

6. Locate it again.

7. Zoom back in so you can control it.

8. Move it to the desired location and orientate it, etc.

9. Look for where to site the next one.

 

Often all of this "stuff" is just left on the side of the map as you don't have the time to set them up, as the other side is bleating about what is taking so long, and only the "easy" stuff such as minefields are taken.

 

At least the Bunkers / Vehicle scrape now have the long line that you can click on and control (move and orientate) the item with.

 

Also adding this extra control would help Scenario Designers adjusting the locations of things during playtesting (IEDs are my favourite PITA item in this regard).

 

Edited December 28, 2019 by Gibsonm

[Gibsonm]

Add: The ability to label all graphics.

 

Currently lines, rectangles, circles, ... and some graphics (e.g. NATO Battle Position) come with an attached Text Box.

 

I can place a NATO BP and type "2A" so the 2A player knows its their BP.

 

However for a SBF or an ABF I need to create a separate Text Box and then type "2A".

 

The tethered Text Box also has the advantage that when you click on the graphic, the text is highlighted if you want to edit it, saving the angst of randomly clicking to edit a free floating Text Box.

 

If possible, can everything in the "New Graphic ..." sub menus have a tethered Text Box added to them?

 

And for Bonus Points - Can the four types of "Boundary" have two Text Boxes (since you need to type text for the unit on each side of the boundary)?

 

Edited December 29, 2019 by Gibsonm

[stormrider_sp]

10 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

Add: The ability to label all graphics.

 

Currently lines, rectangles, circles, ... and some graphics (e.g. NATO Battle Position) come with an attached Text Box.

 

I can place a NATO BP and type "2A" so the 2A player knows its their BP.

 

However for a SBF or an ABF I need to create a separate Text Box and then type "2A".

 

The tethered Text Box also has the advantage that when you click on the graphic, the text is highlighted if you want to edit it, saving the angst of randomly clicking to edit a free floating Text Box.

 

If possible, can everything in the "New Graphic ..." sub menus have a tethered Text Box added to them?

 

And for Bonus Points - Can the four types of "Boundary" have two Text Boxes (since you need to type text for the unit on each side of the boundary)?

 

There is already the option to add just a text box so you can place text whenever you want. It makes it easier to declutter whenever you dont want any text.

[Kingtiger]

Talking about text...

Can we get text size 0.25,0.50,0.75 added in the map? Right now there is a to big gap between Tex size 0 and 1, 0 is to thin to see when zooming out and 1 is to thick when you start zooming in. Really clutters the map when you need some graphic in close vicinity.

/KT

[Ssnake]

SB Pro 5.0 will do that.