Jump to content

Steel Beasts: Content Wish List


Azure Lion
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Members
You do know you can adjust the "zoom" level of the map?

Zoom in and the contour lines should be further apart (unless its the side of a mountain). :)

No. The contour lines are drawn (for efficiency reasons) on the terrain tiles. So each pixel is 12.5x12.5m² blotch. Zooming in and out doesn't change that. Only reducing the tile size would, but that's not something that the user can do. Or by changing the draw method to vector lines, which unfortunately is more costly with respect to the frame rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I didn't express it correctly.

Yes the contour lines wont be further apart in reality since they join points of same elevation.

But in terms of viewing this first image at 0.5 zoom, I'd suggest, is harder to interpret in terms of contours:

16381534050_37c2dd3503_o.png

Than the same piece of dirt a 3.0 zoom:

15948796283_edfe8cd38b_o.png

Contour interval unchanged in both shots, only zoom level adjusted.

But in any case I'd certainly like the major contours to be enhanced if possible (e.g. most printed maps have say 50m, 100m, 150m, etc a slightly different colour to the ordinary contours in between) but then you run into issues where zooming out (which you can't do with a paper map) might result in those labels overlapping and obscuring the other ones and depending on the interval set (again not possible with a paper map) they may not even be displayed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that I have mentioned this before and please I am very grateful for all the improvements that have been made to the infantry model...but...

Can there be a consideration around the infantry in a location on defend, having time based levels of protection to direct and indirect fire implemented.

This is to represent that a static infantry unit will improve their defence based on the length of time in location.

I know that it is done in RL because I have done it, Ask any infantryman in any army, Mech, Para, light or heavy and I can assure you that the entrenching tool carried on their pack is not just for digging a latrine. They do it for real and this sim is a stickler for getting it right with the vehicles, can we try with the infantry.

I understand that Concealment is dealt with at the moment, so the longer they stay still the harder they are to see, except with TI.

What needs to be resolved is the Cover component.

It annoys me that an infantry platoon can be wailed by a single tank using coax, when in reality it is very hard to hit a competent infantryman in a dug-in position, even if it is a shell scrap.

Anyway, can it please be considered...

Edited by Tac197
Spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that I have mentioned this before and please I am very grateful for all the improvements that have been made to the infantry model...but...

Can there be a consideration around the infantry in a location on defend, having time based levels of protection to direct and indirect fire implemented.

This is to represent that a static infantry unit will improve their defence based on the length of time in location.

I know that it is done in RL because I have done it, Ask any infantryman in any army, Mech, Para, light or heavy and I can assure you that the entrenching tool carried on their pack is not just for digging a latrine. They do it for real and this sim is a stickler for getting it right with the vehicles, can we try with the infantry.

I understand that Concealment is dealt with at the moment, so the longer they stay still the harder they are to see, except with TI.

What needs to be resolved is the Cover component.

It annoys me that an infantry platoon can be wailed by a single tank using coax, when in reality it is very hard to hit a competent infantryman in a dug-in position, even if it is a shell scrap.

Anyway, can it please be considered...

+1. But IMHO, several other infantry related issues should be addressed first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yes, my friend, so true.....but in our army the soldiers are called "Diggers" for a reason.

Mk1 entrenching tool becomes your best friend......:bigsmile:

Thats why you need entrenching tool Mk-2

It has a little button, when you press it, this happens:

(Duke, I needed to borrow you avatar for that one)

Shovel_MK2.png.1c6d95ff9f427f9654ef0c51f

Shovel_MK2.png.1c6d95ff9f427f9654ef0c51f

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having never dug a fox hole.

Realistically how long would it take a company of infantry to dig a foxhole in RL.

With the average SB mission lasting about two hours. (give or take)

Not sure how esim would implement that ability in a accurate way

I too would like to have the ability to dig troops in defensive positions via the mission builder

You can sort of do it now by using tank dug outs as trenches I hide mortar teams and ATGM In them it can be effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if its too sandy you need to revet it so the walls don't collapse.

Its also not like you have nothing else to do.

So on the few times I've done it, it had to fit into the overall defensive priority of works.

- Usually everybody gets to Stage 1 themselves, then you move on to ...

- Site and dig in the MGs and hvy weapons. This means the MG team mans the MG slightly off to a side while other members of the Section dig the MG's pit to Stage 2.

- Develop the obstacle plan (wire, mines, etc.)

- Patrolling

- Develop the track plan.

- Lay comms cord.

- Then in your spare time work on your own pit and develop it from Stage 1 to 2.

- Then if you are staying longer, its back to the MG to develop it to stage 3.

- Then some more patrolling, ambushing, etc.

- Then in your spare time work on your own pit and develop it from Stage 2 to 3.

So while it might only take you a couple of hours to dig a hole roughly 2m x 1.5m x 0.5m if you have nothing else to do (assuming the ground is suitable), it takes a while when you have numerous other chores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Related videos:

I can't believe someone wasn't chewing the guys in the first one a new fundamental orifice!

Shirts off,

Guys lounging around

No security (I can't even see a weapon let alone someone protecting the guys digging).

Digging with your back to the enemy

...

Also FWIW, if that's the "right" way for the US to do it, its different to us.

Each person here digs a shellscrape (individual ditch) facing the enemy (stage 1)

Then you join those two with a fighting bay (stage 2)

Then you dig it all deeper and put a roof over it (stage 3)

The initial fighting pits in stage 1 become the sleeping bays for stage 3.

The overall thing looks like a "U" with the flat part of the "U" facing the enemy (sometimes the other way round - depends on the ground, etc.)

From our POV those guys appeared to be just digging the fighting bay.

Edited by Gibsonm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some new OPFOR tanks would be nice...

On the realistic side, how about a T-72M1 and/or T-72M1V. I understand those to be basically T-72M with thicker armor and in the case of the V, era blocks...Easily made crewable with existing resources?

Also, perhaps a dedicated "OPFOR T-Tank" could be created for pro PE?

I understand that there is an entire VU dedicated to fighting with soviet equipment and recreating Soviet tactics, but that the only crewable Soviet vehicle they have is the existing T-72/T-72M...

Could eSim create something that is not necessarily a realistic vehicle but represents a more modern Soviet/Russian tank design? Take the existing T-80U exterior, use the existing T-72M interiors and turret roof, sights, fire control, etc, and then give options in the mission editor to add a TIS or CITV function to the existing GPS and commander's sights?

It's not realistic, but might make some late cold war or post cold war scenarios more interesting to play as Red without just saying F-it and putting in Leopards...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the realistic side, how about a T-72M1 and/or T-72M1V. I understand those to be basically T-72M with thicker armor and in the case of the V, era blocks...Easily made crewable with existing resources?

T-72M1 is crewable.

I understand that there is an entire VU dedicated to fighting with soviet equipment and recreating Soviet tactics, but that the only crewable Soviet vehicle they have is the existing T-72/T-72M...

Well there's T-62, T-72M1, BTR-50, BTR-80, BRDM-2 and MTU-55.

Not saying that's exhaustive but its more than just the baseline T-72.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T-72M1 is crewable.

Derp, for some reason I thought we had the plain T-72 and T-72M.

So change that request to a crewable M1V with reactive armor then.

Well there's T-62, T-72M1, BTR-50, BTR-80, BRDM-2 and MTU-55.

Not saying that's exhaustive but its more than just the baseline T-72.

This is true, i should have said that we lacked more modern vehicles rather than only had the T-72.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Could eSim create something that is not necessarily a realistic vehicle...

And we all know Ssnake's answer to that one.

I mean, they sometimes have to take shortcuts and do not get everything right (look at the M1A2 and parts of the CR2 FCS or the Leo1A5-cast turret for example) and they get a good amount of flak for that.

Just imagine the mockery esim would get if they include an outright "made-up" vehicle. :-P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Also FWIT if that's the "right" way for the US to do it, its different to us.

Each person here digs a shellscrape (individual ditch) facing the enemy (stage 1)

Then you join those two with a fighting bay (stage 2)

Then you dig it all deeper and put a roof over it (stage 3)

The initial fighting pits in stage 1 become the sleeping bays for stage 3.

The overall thing looks like a "U" with the flat part of the "U" facing the enemy (sometimes the other way round - depends on the ground, etc.)

From our POV those guys appeared to be just digging the fighting bay.

Your stage one translates to what we call(or called?) "Deckung für den Kopf"?

...an individial scrapeout where have some more cover on prone position.

Stage 2 could be the simple "Kampfstand": hole for 2 soldiers and their weapons (modified for heavy weapons/AT-weapons)

"2a"...then comes the "Kampfstand mit Überdeckung"=> overhead cover, highly recomended when fighting in wooded terrain.

2b...then "Kampfstand mit versteck"=>like 2a, but with a kind of "cave attached where you can find additional protection in case of arty on your position, also for resting etc etc

Then it get to the next stage (squad/plt size dugouts):

The "type 2 positions" connected by running trenches and additional alternative positions for the heavy weapons

Next stage: these running trenches covered, so that they provide more protection and make it less easy for the enemy to enter.

Then of course there is the whole worlds of fortifying urban terreain, where you have different types of "Kampfstand" for Houses, Basement, sewrs, rooftops.

Or fighting in mountains, where the mountain infantry have their special type of HESCO to fill with rock and gravel...and and and, the opartinities are endless :-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some new OPFOR tanks would be nice...

Indeed, I think we have 90% of the common OPFOR tanks

(Though you have the various flavours.)

The only one missing really is the T-34.

And maybe the indigenous T-72/T-90 and T-80 developments.

Also, perhaps a dedicated "OPFOR T-Tank" could be created for pro PE?

Could eSim create something that is not necessarily a realistic vehicle but represents a more modern Soviet/Russian tank design? Take the existing T-80U exterior, use the existing T-72M interiors and turret roof, sights, fire control, etc, and then give options in the mission editor to add a TIS or CITV function to the existing GPS and commander's sights?

It's not realistic, but might make some late cold war or post cold war scenarios more interesting to play as Red without just saying F-it and putting in Leopards...

This fundamentally compromises eSim's mission statement.

I understand that there is an entire VU dedicated to fighting with soviet equipment and recreating Soviet tactics, but that the only crewable Soviet vehicle they have is the existing T-72/T-72M...

There was, internal politics finished it though.

Marko is doing some sort of Insurgent VU an IVU if you like, haven't heard anything recently though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some new OPFOR tanks would be nice...

On the realistic side, how about a T-72M1 and/or T-72M1V. I understand those to be basically T-72M with thicker armor and in the case of the V, era blocks...Easily made crewable with existing resources?

Also, perhaps a dedicated "OPFOR T-Tank" could be created for pro PE?

I understand that there is an entire VU dedicated to fighting with soviet equipment and recreating Soviet tactics, but that the only crewable Soviet vehicle they have is the existing T-72/T-72M...

Could eSim create something that is not necessarily a realistic vehicle but represents a more modern Soviet/Russian tank design? Take the existing T-80U exterior, use the existing T-72M interiors and turret roof, sights, fire control, etc, and then give options in the mission editor to add a TIS or CITV function to the existing GPS and commander's sights?

It's not realistic, but might make some late cold war or post cold war scenarios more interesting to play as Red without just saying F-it and putting in Leopards...

I thought Ssanke already stated the next big update will focus on making what we have Better. But some PLA armour would make a great addition.

Most of there older equipment can be vis modded by soviet stuff but the addition of some of There newer AFV's like the type 99 would make for a excellent Opfor for the modern western Tanks or maybe a playable T-72m4 CZ with its modern fire control would also make for a Descent Opfor opponent .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look at it as a case of need versus want. In the case of Chinese vehicles, the Type 96 would probably be a better option as it is more representative of the overall Chinese armoured force. Include the Type 90 and WZ 551 APCs and perhaps the 105mm armed Type 80II and you'd have a pretty good mix.

For the Russians, if we had the T-64BV we wouldn't really need the T-80B, as the only real differences relate to moderately better FCS, speed, and hull armour for the T-80. Throw in the afore mentioned T-72M1V, BREM-1, UR-77, Mi-8/17, and maybe the MTU-72 (because let's face it, the MT-55 can't span much more than a muddy ditch) and we'd be doing just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look at it as a case of need versus want. In the case of Chinese vehicles, the Type 96 would probably be a better option as it is more representative of the overall Chinese armoured force. Include the Type 90 and WZ 551 APCs and perhaps the 105mm armed Type 80II and you'd have a pretty good mix.

For the Russians, if we had the T-64BV we wouldn't really need the T-80B, as the only real differences relate to moderately better FCS, speed, and hull armour for the T-80. Throw in the afore mentioned T-72M1V, BREM-1, UR-77, Mi-8/17, and maybe the MTU-72 (because let's face it, the MT-55 can't span much more than a muddy ditch) and we'd be doing just fine.

I agree there's probably not enough available info on the type 99 to make a accurate model Anyway. the 96 would be a better option.

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...