Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[Gibsonm]

9 hours ago, Lumituisku said:

I 

I don't know.  It seems rather obvious necessity... In dark woods and swedes have centurions too.

 

Night fighting with AFVs is a relatively new idea (I know there are some exceptions) and given the 105mm Centurion originated in about 1960 I suspect the fire control system was designed for daylight conditions.

[Grenny]

17 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Night fighting with AFVs is a relatively new idea (I know there are some exceptions) and given the 105mm Centurion originated in about 1960 I suspect the fire control system was designed for daylight conditions.

In northern europe, lacking night fighting capability, would mean the AFV would not be useable from November to march 😉

[Lumituisku]

It's so dark here even at day times. Especially shadowy areas and dark green woods I'm background... Makes me wonder how they did it back then and before. Perhaps they painted gross hair on red or Something else.  Whatever they did.. that i wish for centurion. Just to be able to see reticle would be nice. 

 

 

 

 

[Kev2go]

T72B3 Mod 2016. - relikt sideskirts + better mobility with higher HP engine.

 

 assuming nothing internally has changed  from the T72B3 mod 2012, i would think doing that as a followup wouldn't be too big of a hassle, or at least in the realm of possibility?

Edited April 10, 2023 by Kev2go

[Grenny]

Better "resolution" in the realism setting.

 

Currently we can pick "low" "medium" and "high" with no direct control over the underlying effects.

 

I'd like to have a menue with a coupe of "yes " "no" hooks to customize realims settings.

 

-show lasertarget on map/BMS

-show arty impacts on map/BMS

-show crosshair in 3D view

-display FCS data 

etc etc

[Iarmor]

On 3/29/2023 at 12:55 PM, Gibsonm said:

Almost certain that Centurion at least never had this, not quite as certain as to the Shot'Kal.

 

In the Israeli army the 105 mm Centurions got M48 reticle, several years before the Diesel power pack. It had illumination for night firing. I don't know about the original British reticle, but my guess would be that it had illumination as well, as some of the Centurions also had a searchlight for night firing.

[Gibsonm]

12 minutes ago, Iarmor said:

 

In the Israeli army the 105 mm Centurions got M48 reticle, several years before the Diesel power pack. It had illumination for night firing. I don't know about the original British reticle, but my guess would be that it had illumination as well, as some of the Centurions also had a searchlight for night firing.

 

Yes I'm aware of the searchlights (there's one fitted to the Centurion at my old unit) - but that wasn't what he was asking for.

 

It's been a while since I've been inside it, but I recall internal turret lights, but no illumination for the graticule - and certainly no passive night fighting capability.

 

Again fully aware of the idea of a vehicle with a searchlight illuminating a target for other, non lit, tanks to engage.

 

[Lumituisku]

Wishing option for Steelbeast to have  MT-55   with longer bridge (game convenient)  and perhaps Biber as well, that Bridging would be more often viable.

 

Would be cool to see  MT-55 deploy it's bridge, and see how much that affects...  "Stealth"   in actual scenarios.   Other than seeing MT-55 carry bridge and just about never really using it.   (Atleast where bridge really is needed in SB)     

[Gibsonm]

12 minutes ago, Lumituisku said:

Wishing option for Steelbeast to have  MT-55   with longer bridge (game convenient)  and perhaps Biber as well, that Bridging would be more often viable.

 

Would be cool to see  MT-55 deploy it's bridge, and see how much that affects...  "Stealth"   in actual scenarios.   Other than seeing MT-55 carry bridge and just about never really using it.   (Atleast where bridge really is needed in SB)     

 

You are now wandering away from a "simulator".

 

Those fixed spans (in terms of distance) are a key consideration when spanning a wet gap.

 

If a AVLB spans 18m that's a known number and our Engineers and Armoured Corps people plan and train to that.

 

If the gap is wider, you need to extend the bridge by laying one AVLB on top of another (subject to the bank, etc.).

 

If an AVLB can suddenly span a wider gap then that training outcome goes out the window.

 

Also if you are a Defender you can identify crossing points and perhaps focus on them. If the attacker can cross "anywhere" then a river defence becomes pointless.

 

The next question is who determines how much longer? 20m, 25m, 50m?

 

We already have assumed away the weight limitations (the Leo 1 based AVLB in reality can not support the weight of M1A2SEP, etc.).

 

As for AVLB vs MT55 that's up to a Scenario Designer. A "realistic" force of Russian / Soviet tanks and IFVs would come with a MT55. If the designer wants to give them an Biber style AVLB, then that's up to them.

 

Making the width unrealistic to me dare I say it is a B too far.

 

Edited April 23, 2023 by Gibsonm

[Lumituisku]

Here's the thing. We have 2 models of AVLBs why not to have option to have them carry different lengths of bridges that would simulate other AVLB bridges in use, then there wouldn't need to be exact models for those. It could read on mission text that this particular AVLB is meant to be simulated.

 

And really MT-55 just needs same length of bridge as biber as currently wet caps that it can bridge are so shallow that often one can drive over without need to bridge it first place (if theme traction allows without getting stuck).

 

Length of Bibers bridge is better but still feels like way too often it lacks just couple of meters.  I very much doubt that the real life water caps have that deep slopes and deep bottoms as we get in Steelbeast. 

 

Again i am all up for simulation realism. But we have here known simulation engine limitation it reads even on wiki page. Not sure if V5 will bring help to that or not. So that is why I thought to write that wish here. 

[Gibsonm]

9 hours ago, Lumituisku said:

Here's the thing. We have 2 models of AVLBs why not to have option to have them carry different lengths of bridges that would simulate other AVLB bridges in use, then there wouldn't need to be exact models for those. It could read on mission text that this particular AVLB is meant to be simulated.

 

And really MT-55 just needs same length of bridge as biber as currently wet caps that it can bridge are so shallow that often one can drive over without need to bridge it first place (if theme traction allows without getting stuck).

 

Length of Bibers bridge is better but still feels like way too often it lacks just couple of meters.  I very much doubt that the real life water caps have that deep slopes and deep bottoms as we get in Steelbeast. 

 

Again i am all up for simulation realism. But we have here known simulation engine limitation it reads even on wiki page. Not sure if V5 will bring help to that or not. So that is why I thought to write that wish here. 

 

Its not an engine limitation, its a platform limitation.

 

In real life these things only cover a certain gap.

 

If you want to replicate say a M1074 Joint Assault Bridge System, then perhaps ask for that, but even it in real life only spans an 18m gap.

 

If you want a game fine, but I (and my trainees) want a simulation.

 

Edited April 24, 2023 by Gibsonm

[Ssnake]

The limitation is that the rivers in Steel Beasts aren't variable enough. That certainly is something on our mind in our development work.

[Lumituisku]

Ability to easily tell / see what maps have come with basegame. That are common to everyone so that a person who has lot of modded maps / map packages because he plays with lot of groups or so,  could make beginner friendly scenarios that do not need special maps that may or may not be found from the server.  

 

I have stumbled to this problem before...  Kouvostoliitto map especially seems very troublesome as there apparently is edited map that cannot be found from server that is very difficult to tell if it comes with basegame or not.  People who edit maps... may not remember to change name / details significantly enough when they start making missions on those so perhaps somesort of mark or text to maps when looking those on map browser while picking a map for mission would  be good. 

[ben]

16 hours ago, Lumituisku said:

Ability to easily tell / see what maps have come with basegame. That are common to everyone so that a person who has lot of modded maps / map packages because he plays with lot of groups or so,  could make beginner friendly scenarios that do not need special maps that may or may not be found from the server.  

 

I have stumbled to this problem before...  Kouvostoliitto map especially seems very troublesome as there apparently is edited map that cannot be found from server that is very difficult to tell if it comes with basegame or not.  People who edit maps... may not remember to change name / details significantly enough when they start making missions on those so perhaps somesort of mark or text to maps when looking those on map browser while picking a map for mission would  be good. 

Good point, it would be nice to have a  “Default Map” tag or some way you could filter maps in the pick map screen of scenario editor

[Parachuteprone]

Be nice if when the "xxx taking fire" dialog pops up we could click on the text.

Then the map zooms out and the unit is highlighted in an obvious color - purple or something, until we click off of it again.

 

[Parachuteprone]

One other thing. When I'm looking through the commanders sight I'm having trouble finding the point I want to call artillery on the maps.

If we could click on the lower right (where we choose move to, suppress here etc. ) and have an option "mark point" to add a reference point on our map view that would be good. Our current maps don't really have enough map features to accurately find the exact spot all the time. 

Jumping to and using a rangefinder would work , but this would be simpler and simulate doing the same.

 

 

 

[mpow66m]

Im not sure but iI think you can mark a point on the map then call arty,if thats what you mean

[Parachuteprone]

14 minutes ago, mpow66m said:

Im not sure but iI think you can mark a point on the map then call arty,if thats what you mean

I'll try to explain.

IRL I can stand outside and guess distances pretty well because I'm looking at a real landscape, with many undulations and features, rocks stumps,  etc.

In game I find it very difficult to guess ranges because there are far fewer references.

It makes it more difficult to call artillery on that line of troops when I switch to the map screen because you (I) can't tell how far away they are.

If they are near a house or other feature it is ok, but sometimes they are not.

 

Being able to click a spot you are looking at in the game view and have it appear as a reference point on the map screen would be helpful.

Ideally it would be better to have more detailed terrain like you would see in some of the shooters but I don't think that is coming til 5.0.

Even then we may not have that level of detail ?

 

Or are you saying that we can do that now ?

I haven't seen that in the manual.

 

 

Edited May 8, 2023 by Parachuteprone

[Apocalypse 31]

1 hour ago, Parachuteprone said:

It makes it more difficult to call artillery on that line of troops when I switch to the map screen because you (I) can't tell how far away they are.

If they are near a house or other feature it is ok, but sometimes they are not.

It's part of the challenge with calling for artillery fire in real life and being able to orient terrain to a map. 

 

Some vehicles in SB allow you to call for fire on your LRF. 

 

Also - SB lets you adjust follow-on fire missions, so if your original mission is off-target then you can simply adjust. 

[TSe419E]

1 hour ago, Parachuteprone said:

Or are you saying that we can do that now ?

While looking through binoculars click on your unit symbol in the lower right area.  Pick "Observe Here" then click on the unit/area in your bino view you want to observe.  Go to the F5 (map) view and your unit should have a tactic applied that shows coverage arc with the view bubble on top of the unit/area you selected to observe.

[Parachuteprone]

Perfect, Thanks

 

[Parachuteprone]

 I tried it.. It just allows my unit to proceed to that spot to observe, not mark it on the F5 map to call artillery on that spot - if I'm following you.

[mpow66m]

4 hours ago, Parachuteprone said:

I'll try to explain.

IRL I can stand outside and guess distances pretty well because I'm looking at a real landscape, with many undulations and features, rocks stumps,  etc.

In game I find it very difficult to guess ranges because there are far fewer references.

It makes it more difficult to call artillery on that line of troops when I switch to the map screen because you (I) can't tell how far away they are.

If they are near a house or other feature it is ok, but sometimes they are not.

 

Being able to click a spot you are looking at in the game view and have it appear as a reference point on the map screen would be helpful.

Ideally it would be better to have more detailed terrain like you would see in some of the shooters but I don't think that is coming til 5.0.

Even then we may not have that level of detail ?

 

Or are you saying that we can do that now ?

I haven't seen that in the manual.

no I misunderstood what you meant.I cant judge distance in game very well either.

4 hours ago, Parachuteprone said:

 

 

 

[Ssnake]

I should perhaps only say only one thing, that we do not want the map view to become too powerful. It could easily be made into a real-time tool to view the battle with every detail exposed. But you don't have that in real life, therefore there will always be "comfort features" that are easily imaginable, but run against the design principle that to understand the full detail of the situation, the 3D scenery must be observed too.

 

That more variety in the terrain is desirable is undisputed.

 

Note that with medium realism set, it is possible to mark a point in the terrain (hold Shift, press Lase, guide the pointer to the desired spot, release the Lase button). Then, in the map view, there'll be a small red star denoting the marked spot.

It's your decision if you want to use this helper function if you find the terrain insufficiently detailed for proper range estimation.

[iamfritz]

This has probably been said, but I would like every unit that identifies something to identify themself- "This is 3-2 Tank Right!"

 

And for targets out beyond 500 or 1000 yards , that the spotting/reporting unit provide a 6 digit grid coordinate. This could be mostly for older 60s-90s units. Or, an alternative for in case IVIS or GPS gets jammed.