Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[Gibsonm]

1 hour ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

Please. 

 

Just let me manually fire rifles and RPGs. 

 

Maybe an interim step could be the ability to manually fire the "RPG" as a key weapon, a bit like the MG?

 

Then you'd have the key weapon systems in the Infantry squad controllable.

 

The rifles, GLA, etc. arguably could wait (note, not "off the menu").

[ashdivay]

Manual Fire RPG would be nice. 

[DK-DDAM]

most shoulder fired weapons would be nice

 

[Mirzayev]

It would make the infantry much more of a credible threat IF the player can manually fire their AT weapons. Right now, it is unreliable at best in a forest environment, which is where the infantry should realistically thrive.

[Apocalypse 31]

33 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

The rifles, GLA, etc. arguably could wait (note, not "off the menu").

I'm assuming you are referring to the GLA as the Grenade Launcher Attachment. If so, then I hope you know that we can already fire them in game. They don't have a quick-key (I have no idea why) but you can manually fire them through the 3d game menu on the bottom right. 

 

I also disagree on not being able to manually fire Rifles, but that conversation has been beaten to death. 

[Gibsonm]

26 minutes ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

I also disagree on not being able to manually fire Rifles, but that conversation has been beaten to death. 

 

Yes I understand your POV.

 

I'm just suggesting that if we reduce the issue to "bite sized" chunks, RPG type weapons now, GLA later, rifles some time after that, you'll achieve your desired end state just not as soon as you may have liked.

 

Addititionally if eSim say "RPGs yes but no to rifles", then at least you have achieved something rather than failing with the all or nothing approach.

[Apocalypse 31]

1 hour ago, Gibsonm said:

Maybe an interim step could be the ability to manually fire the "RPG" as a key weapon, a bit like the MG?

Sure, great suggestion.

 

But it doesn't get at the root problem displayed in the video.

 

Infantry engagements are horrible. 

 

 

[Rad]

 

[Japo32]

15 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

Sure, great suggestion.

 

But it doesn't get at the root problem displayed in the video.

 

Infantry engagements are horrible. 

 

 

 

hahahah.. the blind against the deaf

[Captain_Colossus]

i rationalize these situations as acceptable in the sense that in virtually all simulations, the attrition rate is generally too high- for probably similar reasons, flight simmers are all tripple ace medal of honor candidates in every mission and what have you. sure.

 

there is always something missing in computer simulations (never enough ground cover, concealment, lack of proper emotional responses such as fear, and lack of contextual awareness for computer units- computer units operate in a near vacuum compared to human opponents, unaware of some situation developing nearby that a human would take into consideration and move or act accordingly).

 

i'm all for having first person sights, but it's probably reasonable to assume at the same time simulation results will be skewed again, human players will conceivably rack up rambo tallies under select conditions; perhaps crosswind or other variables will need to be taken into account (especially for the case of rpg rockets) so that players don't fire off their weapons with too much accuracy.

[Apocalypse 31]

8 hours ago, Captain_Colossus said:

human players will conceivably rack up rambo tallies under select conditions

 

This concern inevitably arises whenever the discussion of playable riflemen is raised. Some people fear that SB will immediately turn into Counterstrike or Battlefield. 

 

I just don't see it happening:

1. We already have crewable LMGs in game and yet we do not see this type of behavior. This is mostly likely because....

2. The realistic nature of SB doesn't lend itself to rambo tactics - you will most likely be killed the second you rush at a tank or infantry squad. 

3. I don't think this is something we'd see from the SB community - at least I've never seen it in the 10 years of play, among various MP groups. This goes back to #2, and the fact that this isn't the type of game. 

 

8 hours ago, Captain_Colossus said:

so that players don't fire off their weapons with too much accuracy.

 

I've seen plenty of players miss their target using an ATGM....a guided rocket. I think human nature would factor in, in some cases. 

[Captain_Colossus]

i find the light machine guns a bit difficult to use- but only because grasses and things like this tends to block the entire field of view (one of my wish lists items is to either correct the perspective so that the sights are higher than the grass, or somehow move the grass aside a little so we can actually see). in some cases however i can work magic with it and kill quite a bit; it is fun to use, don't get me wrong. but i think what's going to happen is that you'll see players using the first person sights on average getting much higher kills than the a computer in the same situation- just the fact that you want it because the computer seems inaccurate would imply that to be the case, that would suggest that you believe that you the human player would get the kill the computer should have got. Then again, we don't have hand grenades modeled for these situations to clear areas so you don't have to rush in with rifles, or to break those stalemates when the computer continues firing but can't seem to hit.

 

i still tend to think that human players tend to act like computer opponents on the virtual battlefield, that is, take more risks, that is, more heroics and things like this. but i still would never argue against having first person sights but to say that there is always a drawback either way.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Captain_Colossus

[Grenny]

Hey, you're not up to date man ?

Esim did a workaround by making groundclutter transparent for the infantry team...so lmg is much more useable nowadays

[Bond_Villian]

4 hours ago, Captain_Colossus said:

but i think what's going to happen is that you'll see players using the first person sights on average getting much higher kills than the a computer in the same situation

 This is very much the case with the vehicle crew AI anyway. I think Ironsights for rifles and RPG's could be introduced in a suitable way, without breaking the game (and it would be shitloads of fun in multiplayer games). Maybe one day...until then its 40mm Grenades akimbo

 

[Apocalypse 31]

1 hour ago, Bond_Villian said:

until then its 40mm Grenades akimbo

Oh yeah, this is toooooooooootally not more gamey than rifle sights. 

[Grenny]

Rifle sights Rifle sights....you guys have the wrong priorities.

1st we need a better model for mounted weapons: MILAN on the Marder, M113 and Fuchs...Dragon on the M113.

That'd be cool ?

[Captain_Colossus]

9 hours ago, Bond_Villian said:

 This is very much the case with the vehicle crew AI anyway. I think Ironsights for rifles and RPG's could be introduced in a suitable way, without breaking the game (and it would be shitloads of fun in multiplayer games). Maybe one day...until then its 40mm Grenades akimbo

 

 

i wouldn't deny this- which is why i make the point to say expect units to get destroyed even more efficiently, which goes both for and against you when your human opponents have the capability to do the same thing. i don't do mp, really what happens online with the community is a mystery to me, and if you enjoy it, all the better. to say it again: i'm not against it, i know i would use it. insofar as breaking game balance, i suppose if something like that ever became a feature, an option to turn it off in the mission editor if there was ever issue with it could solve that. but it goes without saying: it's esim's call, and only they know how much of that would require backtracking, re-working code to fit in, adjusting computer behavior in reaction, and so on. after all, it may not be long before players start making more add on requests for the computer ai to improve because it's not much of a match, or more animations and postures programmed so that human players can take cover and move with more degrees of freedom and this sort of thing. i can think of one area that would probably need major work- combat inside buildings, which is a bit abstract and simplified, now you'll probably need content inside buildings, stairs, furnishings and this kind of thing, and moreover computer units which know how to move around them or use them for concealment, and so on. so you see, it can really entail a lot more work to get it going in the first place.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Captain_Colossus

[speckfire]

Working Speedo for the LAV

 

[DK-DDAM]

uhh i see a missing face on that picture.. nice pointed out there speckie

[Japo32]

posibility of making selection groups in the map. So we can press shift+number to assign units selected to a group and then just quick selection just pressing that number (or something similar).

And... Visual representation in the map about the last unit that reported something in the radio. That way, instead of looking the msg and trying to find the unit in the map, if we have a flashing unit visual representation on the map, we quickly know what is the unit involved in combat, visual of enemy, etc...

 

All of these specially for single player guys where we have to deal with big number of units.

[Gibsonm]

FWIW, Shift + F11 (assuming you haven't changed the default key layout) takes you to the unit that was engaged.

[Japo32]

Ah! That is good. But only engaged enemies, or any kind that made report?

Make groups possibilities in future?

Edited May 12, 2017 by Japo32

[Gibsonm]

31 minutes ago, Japo32 said:

Ah! That is good. But only engaged enemies, or any kind that made report?

 

Well you could run a scenario and have a look?

 

31 minutes ago, Japo32 said:

Make groups possibilities in future?

 

No idea, sorry.

 

[DarkAngel]

You can make groups. Look in the SB menu for configure preset groups.

[Grenny]

56 minutes ago, DarkAngel said:

You can make groups. Look in the SB menu for configure preset groups.

Really? I think thats only for setting up unit ORBAT "templates" in the mission editor. I understand Japos request as similar to games like the total war series....you klick in a couple of units and assign a key to them...whenever you press that key...these unit get selected and order can be given to all of em at the same time.

IMHO this does not make much sense...but everyone plays SB differently and as he likes...i guess