Jump to content

Steel Beasts: Content Wish List


Azure Lion
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not sure if this has been requested before but, from the Mission Editor, the ability to limit the number of ICM missions per scenario. It seems unlikely ICM would be "on tap" and, due to its destructive power, having a finite number of missions would cause the commander to prioritise allocation of ICM to the most important missions. Not a biggie but certainly nice to have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if you are only using on map assets you can do that by limiting their ammunition allocation.

Off map represents fire (basically the artillery "effect" if you like) you can access, not a set of specific guns. So missions 1-6 might come from one Bty/Regt , while missions 7-12 might come from a second (as the first displaces, has expended ammunition, etc.).

Yes in real life people further up the artillery chain of command would assess if your particular engagement was important enough to warrant the expenditure of a potentially rare resource.

But then again most mission designers give forces far more artillery than they would usually have access to for a run of a mill mission.

Dedicated access to one battery for a Battalion sized unit (so one fire unit of six tubes) with maybe another two "on call", that is available if they are doing nothing else* is pretty much it.

In many scenarios here its not unusual to see a Company allocated guaranteed fire from three fire units AND unlimited ammunition. :)

* My apologies to the gunners for the gross oversimplification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But then again most mission designers give forces far more artillery than they would usually have access to for a run of a mill mission.

In many scenarios here its not unusual to see a Company allocated guaranteed fire from three fire units AND unlimited ammunition. :)

Agree 100%. This leads to the mindset of: 'Make contact, pop smoke, break contact, artillery the f*** out of the enemy position. Re - advance to contact. Rinse and repeat until opposition destroyed'. Not much fun IMHO.

But, of course, it is up to the mission C.O whether he adopts this tactic or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree 100%. This leads to the mindset of: 'Make contact, pop smoke, break contact, artillery the f*** out of the enemy position. Re - advance to contact. Rinse and repeat until opposition destroyed'. Not much fun IMHO.

But, of course, it is up to the mission C.O whether he adopts this tactic or not.

Soviet style. LoL

It depends on what Army your representing.

Copious amounts of arty were the norm for soviet forces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soviet style? Not really; their doctrine (at least, post-WWII) was to never break forward momentum. They used massive DAGs and artillery parks, but they didn't use them for on-call missions, they practiced to use them for (generally un-observed) pre-planned missions against defensible terrain and likely defensive positions.

What you describe sounds more like US WWII doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soviet style? Not really; their doctrine (at least, post-WWII) was to never break forward momentum. They used massive DAGs and artillery parks, but they didn't use them for on-call missions, they practiced to use them for (generally un-observed) pre-planned missions against defensible terrain and likely defensive positions.

What you describe sounds more like US WWII doctrine.

Unobserved? Not really...you forget the equally strong emphasis on RECON in the WP force concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soviet style. LoL

It depends on what Army your representing.

Copious amounts of arty were the norm for soviet forces.

Well, soviet style is more:

-find them (Recon patrol)

-bind them (combat recon)

-hammer them (arty preparation on fixed enemy)

-smash them...and their reserves (assault forces)

=> where ever this succeeds -throw more forces in

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, soviet style is more:

-find them (Recon patrol)

-bind them (combat recon)

-hammer them (arty preparation on fixed enemy)

-smash them...and their reserves (assault forces)

=> where ever this succeeds -throw more forces in

That's why I like soviet tactics.

Brutal and effective.

I setup SVU to try to replicate there doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unobserved? Not really...you forget the equally strong emphasis on RECON in the WP force concept.

They were pretty big on pre-planned missions. In fact, they still are. If you read "One Soldier's War" (an autobiography of a Russian Army... I believe motorized recon soldier... in the Chechen wars), you'll see that their mortars still operate in company and battalion organizations, and are incapable of ad-hoc missions. They were all pre-planned missions, and took considerable time to set up.

Yes, there'd be forces in "observation" range, but that's not because they were really expected to adjust the fires- the Soviets wanted massed fires with the element of surprise- when firing a DAG mission, it's going to cover such a large area, it'd be hard to even tell where the center of the beaten zone was. The reason they would be "observed" is mostly just because it's a waste to fire suppressive fires when there's no maneuver unit there to take advantage of it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unobserved? Not really...you forget the equally strong emphasis on RECON in the WP force concept.

But the recon elements are there for the same reason that their arty is pretty much just massed pre-planned fires: they wanted nothing slowing down their advance: no waiting for arty, so just fire a crap ton of it at any terrain that looks defensible on the map. They don't want their main force to get pinned down fighting, so they use recon, combat recon, and advance guards to make initial contact so the main body can be routed around strongpoints, and therefore keep moving forward with uninterrupted momentum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't go through all the pages to see if this was on the list,:clin: but I would like to see a "playable" M60A3

seconded - or at least seconded for this particular request number for this vehicle!

same deal though - I searched and I am SURE they are here and they did not show up in my search:

playable T80's and T90's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A better SB.com search engine.

too funny!

but I did really do a search on the thread. I wonder if google might find something where the forum software does not?

ugh, no not really. so either I was the first to post (not very likely at all) or google does not crawl the forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, a playable T-90A or any other modern T-XX type would be epic, but we should not forget the best potential addition of them all, an addition to end all other additions so to speak:

I think the addition of French armour would be great for SB.

The AMX-30B mite be a better option for early cold war scenarios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...