Jump to content

Steel Beasts: Content Wish List


Azure Lion
 Share

Recommended Posts

Boyevaya Mashina Pekhoty 2!!!

Like the suggestion for the export map to file as well.

Option for the Mk 19 on the HMWVV

Stryker variants

Ability to operate the weapons systems inside the attack helos ala infantry missile teams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boyevaya Mashina Pekhoty 2!!!

Like the suggestion for the export map to file as well.

Option for the Mk 19 on the HMWVV

Stryker variants

Ability to operate the weapons systems inside the attack helos ala infantry missile teams

You can operate infantry missile teams already, you can even pick what ATGM to give them In the mission editor.

Plus you can man the Cal fifty and grenade launchers,

All the information you need to operate them is in online manual

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can operate infantry missile teams already, you can even pick what ATGM to give them In the mission editor.

Plus you can man the Cal fifty and grenade launchers,

All the information you need to operate them is in online manual

He was talking about the ability to operate helicopters in the same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modify the Infantry model to include "damage" as opposed to kill (similar to AFV crew model?).

Reduce A Veh ability to instantly detect hidden (in treeline/cover) Inf at range.

Sniper (LR engagement to 1500+).

Dismounted/mounted sensors (seismic and battlefield radars).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modify the Infantry model to include "damage" as opposed to kill (similar to AFV crew model?).

Reduce A Veh ability to instantly detect hidden (in treeline/cover) Inf at range.

Sniper (LR engagement to 1500+).

Dismounted/mounted sensors (seismic and battlefield radars).

Anything that adds some functionality to the infantry is good. BTW good idea re GSR and REMBASS. Adds some RSTA functionality. Be neat to even get to emplace them, I did that for a few years back in the late seventies early eighties. (We had the heaviest rucks!

http://www.generalhieu.com/HQmaydotham-2.htm

Los

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and maybe (?) an abilty to designate HVT (in order of priority)?

Hah. ;)

All the GSR I've seen resemble 1940s Radar and rely on the operator to interpret the noise. Something that is reported as "men in open" by Bloggs resolves on the ground as a mob of kangaroos, etc.

And UGS just went "beep" or lit up when "something" went past.

I doubt you'll get postive IDs let alone direct linkages by the AI to the BMS/map to display HVTs. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modify the Infantry model to include "damage" as opposed to kill (similar to AFV crew model?).

Reduce A Veh ability to instantly detect hidden (in treeline/cover) Inf at range.

Sniper (LR engagement to 1500+).

Dismounted/mounted sensors (seismic and battlefield radars).

Some game mechanism to pick them up, or just let disapear from the 3D world would be great. Right now it's like: ok, we move on, leave Mike and Joe here for the crows.

Edited by Grenny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly :clin:

Looking to add a little more pizzazz to attack helo ops.

My Bad.

I misunderstood what you were saying

I too would like to see some type of playability for the Gunships there not as a potent threat As they should be SB. IMO, But they are getting better with each major update

I believe they have some type of very limited playability in the military version similar to what you suggested or so I have been told.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hah. ;)

And UGS just went "beep" or lit up when "something" went past.

I doubt you'll get postive IDs let alone direct linkages by the AI to the BMS/map to display HVTs. :)

Well I cant speak for the GSRs (They had more value before NVGs IMO) but the UGS were put to good use consistently in training and in real world at least when I was there and I see they are in regular use today 20 years later The RSTA squadron still contains a ground surveillance platoon. A well thought out sensor string includes confirming sensors such as acusids and magids (magnetic and acoustic sensors) to cull out troops from donkeys. It's all down to operator competence and the bn S-2s competence (was he a trained intel guy or an infantry officer with a dim understanding of technical means intel gathering?). We would typically operate in small teams hand emplacing strings right after conducting the jump in. The strings would monitor avenues of approach or NAIs that could not be covered with eyes. After things got settled strings would be located farther afield. In Coin environments Stings would be planted deep afield in critical NAIs. After emplacing strings we would collocated with the bn TOC, near the S-2 and FDC and work hand in hand with them WRT providing targeting information for fires.

I was somewhat surprised to see they are still in use today, (After all you never hear about them and what with all the UAVs) but then again sensor emplacement and use got its birth in COIN (Vietnam). So its another tool in the box.

BTW These UGS are not to be confused with PSIDs or whatever they are called these days which were infantry company/plt issued sensors that you put out at night for perimeter, with much more limited capabilities.

Los

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Understood but the value in these devices was (is?) the interpretation of the data by a trained person.

In Steel Beasts there is no "person".

So do you factor in some sort of X% accuracy so that what is depicted on the map may or may not be correct depending on "difficulty", "realism" or some other variable.

I suspect no one in say multi player is going to volunteer to be the "ISR guy" and spend the mission interpreting the raw data (even if they knoew how) and conveying it to the rest of their side. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I thought about this and btw I could care one way or another re these things in steel beasts but if I was to implement these in SB:

I would simply see them emplaced similar to any obstacle like a minefield or TRP. (forget about planting them yourselves realtime in game as that is usually done well before the battle phase ala mines.) IN the editor you make them available ala a TRP that can be put into position during the planning phase, then you drag the string over to some NAI. SO maybe you want to ensure you have some early warning on some flank. You drag the string and resize it, then there it is. If vehicles or troops pass by that string within X meters, (and believe me there is no getting around missing out on a armored vehicle with a sensor string). Then you simply get on a map a contact that there's vehicles or troops out there, it doesn't tell you if its T72s or BMPs or a rifle squad or a missile team carrying a Javelin. Just vehicles or troops. You do see the direction and speed of movement as well. Also these things are expensive and limited so you don't plant miles of them. (this would need to be limited somehow) On a battalion op you might typically plant two to three strings up to a kilometer each. After all there would be a team of 4-6 guys including security lugging rucks of these ten pound babies around plus relays, and the monitoring device which is about as heavy as a SINGCARS. When I first started doing this I was in the scout platoon so we could occasionally carry more, but we were in jeeps. Eventually these assets were consolidated into the division MI battalion in the ground surveillance company to develop a dedicated body of expertise in them (and now in the RSTA squadron).

Regarding interpretation, I suppose you can put some % to it being picked up, but unless there is profound amount of incompetence, there's not that much guesswork involved in these things. The operators are trained, have even more accurate and up to date equipment now then when I did it, and they do their job. I think this is as abstracted as is artillery calls being simply plopped down on the map and then they show up exactly where you want them later on. The program is assuming the artillery are doing their job from interpreting the correct coordinates, plugging in the correct map, laying in the guns or mortars correctly etc. Assume the sensors are working correctly in conjunction with the S-2-TOC-FCBC etc. The bigger issue is guessing wrong putting the sensor string on a wrong road junction and missing the contact all together (given the limited amount).

And I'll simply add that these were gainfully employed on the dark side of the house as well. Hopefully I've shed a small light on this bit of arcane, little known and basically semi-relevant piece of technology, that has been in use since Vietnam but otherwise remained out of the limelight. Seeing that little note from companyteam brought it all flooding back!

Los

p.s. sorry for derailing the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without going too "technical" on equipment like UGS and other sensors.... a lot these days are set up in conjunction with remote cameras - the sensor detects "something" and an operator is alerted. The operator can then access a feed from a ground emplaced video camera to confirm what the "hit" is. So... it's entirely plausible that a fairly accurate assessment could be made of what's in the NAI.

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...