Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[TSe419E]

3 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

 

I actually like that idea, and I've suggested something similar before.

 

First would be some NATO tanks with the older image intensifying night sights.  Since the M60A3 is going to be included, perhaps there could be a scenario editor option that would change it's thermal sights to use the NVG night vision like on the British Warrior IFV.  Then I think it would be an acceptable stand-in for the M60A1 RISE PASSIVE from the late 1970s, even if the FCS works completely different in the A3 model, the player experience would be enhanced by lacking thermals for earlier scenarios.

 

Switch thermal to passive and get rid of the predictive lead and you would be just like an 'A1 Rise/Passive.  Lasing is possibly quicker than the a coincidence range finder but the effect is the same.  Also, 'A1s were in some units until replaced in the mid '80s.

[Rad]

 

[Maj.Hans]

On 6/18/2016 at 0:56 AM, TSe419E said:

 

Switch thermal to passive and get rid of the predictive lead and you would be just like an 'A1 Rise/Passive.  Lasing is possibly quicker than the a coincidence range finder but the effect is the same.  Also, 'A1s were in some units until replaced in the mid '80s.

 

That's kinda what I was hoping, that the new A3/TTS could be given a "quick and dirty" modification to make it work like a Rise/Passive, and it sounds like it's doable.  Would the optical range finder be as accurate as the LRF?  If the effect is the same perhaps there could be a delay added between "lasing" and getting a range.

 

I hope that a similar simple modification could be done to get a Leopard1A3/1A4 equivalent as well.

 

For me, at least, it's nice to have some tanks that are modeled realistically "to the switch".  Hopping into a T72M and blasting away at modern NATO tanks when you essentially have a WW2 fire control system with a laser range finder ducktaped on is an interesting challenge.  Part of the fun can be learning the equipment and it's intricate inner workings.

 

Other times it's nice to be told up front "Hey look, this isn't really how it actually works exactly, but this is a good approximation, and gives you the proper experience until we come up with something better".

 

There's more to realism than just accurate models and interiors and perfectly modeled fire control systems.  Take, for example, Panzer Elite.  The interiors are very basic, and in many ways although the armor, guns, and performance of vehicles and various ammunition is accurately modeled, the interaction of the player with the tank is very simplified and hardly more realistic than World of Tanks.  However it never felt like an arcade game to me.  Your platoon of vehicles moves together with you and works cooperatively, other units make recon probes and attacks in concert with you, it's a very good simulator for experiencing what a WW2 tank battle is like even if your own vehicle isn't modeled "to the switch".

 

Pro PE, IMHO, has always done an excellent job of modeling the vehicles and the player's interaction with the vehicle quite well.  At this point I'm eager enough to get the experience of a 1960s/1970s era cold war tank fight that I'm willing to overlook some inaccuracies to get that.

[Maj.Hans]

This is actually more of a question for Ssnake...

 

I think in the past we had a discussion about engine replacements, etc.  It was brought up that in ProPE if an engine is damaged it's toast for the remainder of the scenario, although some real vehicles can get a complete engine swap in as little as 15 minutes.

 

Someone brought up that the 15 minute engine swap assumes that the engine has arrived, and that actually getting it may take hours or days.

 

So, in the future might it be possible to specify that certain recovery, supply, repair, or other transport vehicles actually have an engine of a specific type avalable to them?  For example you might start the mission with a Bergepanzer that has a Leopard 2 engine enabling a single Leo2 engine swap, but not a Leo1 engine swap?

[Ssnake]

No, we aren't yet ready to chase down into that specific rabbit hole. You'd have different times for every single vehicle (plus possible modifiers depending on the type of previous failure; a simple engine malfunction may be dealt with by simple engine swap. An extensive engine fire, damage from a blast mine, or some deep penetration by some ammunition would probably require additional repairs with a profound impact on the actual repair times.)

 

So, my advice to mission designers is to specify repair zones in their missions, and to the actual players to tow immobilized vehicles into those repair zones. This is even more practical with version 4.0 because from now on every vehicle can tow any other vehicle of the same or lighter weight class.

[Ssnake]

10 hours ago, Rad said:

 

 

Sigh... Christopher Foss - I liked his paintings of space ships for science fiction novels. But I suppose you don't make much money with that.

[TSe419E]

5 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

 

Would the optical range finder be as accurate as the LRF?  If the effect is the same perhaps there could be a delay added between "lasing" and getting a range.

 

 

 

It depends on the operator.  Some were faster, some were slower, some more precise, others less so.  I don't think that there was a significant enough difference for there to be a time delay built into SB, but I could be wrong.  Most TCs I worked with kept the the range finder at sabot battle sight range (1600m in an M60A1, 1100m for HEAT) so most close range actions wouldn't even require the range finder to be used.  As for accuracy a coincidence range finder is an extremely accurate instrument.  The range scale may only have marks of tens (or ones, I can't remember) but the range finder is making adjustments to the super elevation on much smaller units of measurements than the scale uses.

[Ssnake]

The accuracy depends on the optical base of the range finder, which is effectively limited by the width of the turret. In practice ranges above 2000m are increasingly error prone.

 

The problem is compounded by the fact that in the age of stereoscopic rangefinders thermal sleeves for gun barrels were not yet introduced for the most part, which resulted in constant thermal bending of the barrel, depending on the weather. This, and the time of flight of HEAT and HESH rounds, made engagements beyond 2500m, particularly on moving targets, largely a waste of ammunition.

[Swordsmandk]

11 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

This is actually more of a question for Ssnake...

 

I think in the past we had a discussion about engine replacements, etc.  It was brought up that in ProPE if an engine is damaged it's toast for the remainder of the scenario, although some real vehicles can get a complete engine swap in as little as 15 minutes.

 

Someone brought up that the 15 minute engine swap assumes that the engine has arrived, and that actually getting it may take hours or days.

 

So, in the future might it be possible to specify that certain recovery, supply, repair, or other transport vehicles actually have an engine of a specific type avalable to them?  For example you might start the mission with a Bergepanzer that has a Leopard 2 engine enabling a single Leo2 engine swap, but not a Leo1 engine swap?

You can setup what is able to be repaired on each individual vehicle with the use of zone and scenario editor. You can even have more zones that if the mech apc, berger and damaged vehicles are all in there you can set time until completed. 

 

Same go for medic and crew replacement.

 

Any questions about this feel free to pm me.  

[Stormin Norman]

Would be kind of interesting if the human loaders had variable loading times and gun arming. Instead of 4 seconds every time make it's 4 - 7.

[Apocalypse 31]

A simple wish to manually engage from dismounted infantry. Revisited because iron sights on M16's are soooooooooo 3.028. 

 

Now that our infantry have M68 red dot sights, we need some nifty optics to go with them. 

[TankHunter]

I believe there is a game for that. I think its called ArmA.

[Grenny]

2 minutes ago, TankHunter said:

I believe there is a game for that. I think its called ArmA.

But ArmA sux at simulating Mechnized/armoured combat. (frankly, otherwise there would be no niche for SB)

I don't think they should make a priority of it, but if esim see's a change to make the infantry more playable they should take it. Sights and triggers...hell yeah

[Gibsonm]

1 hour ago, Grenny said:

But ArmA sux at simulating Mechnized/armoured combat. (frankly, otherwise there would be no niche for SB)

I don't think they should make a priority of it, but if esim see's a change to make the infantry more playable they should take it. Sights and triggers...hell yeah

 

How about you get 4.x to work first ?!

[Apocalypse 31]

1 hour ago, Grenny said:

But ArmA sux at simulating Mechnized/armoured combat. (frankly, otherwise there would be no niche for SB)

 

This

 

I have 550 hours in ArmA 3. It is a fun game, and I play it because it the best thing out there for a combined arms experience in  1st and 3rd person. It does infantry well - but thats about it. Everything else is mediocre and highly abstract.  

 

I won't beat a dead horse with the issues that we have with Steel Beast infantry. I've been playing SB since 2007, and I will always be an advocate of allowing players to control riflemen in the first person. It just removes the issues with the AI...it works well for HMGs and ATGMs. 

 

 

 

 

[Iarmor]

Even while keeping vehicle-centric, a TC should also be able to use his personal weapon (be it an assault rifle, a submachine gun or a handgun) and to throw hand grenades.

[Maj.Hans]

13 hours ago, Iarmor said:

Even while keeping vehicle-centric, a TC should also be able to use his personal weapon (be it an assault rifle, a submachine gun or a handgun) and to throw hand grenades.

 

Would be nice for some of the more urban type scenarios, IE Iraq and stuff.

Perhaps a 'Personal weapon' key to allow the TC to deploy his M4/G36/whatever and engage targets with a representation of the weapons sights on screen.

 

A similar mechanism would go a long way toward making infantry combat more fun for those who want to try it, and toward making infantry more deadly.

 

 

I do have a quick request for the list...

 

TPz 1A6 Fuchs

Optional Weapon ---> 12.7mm NSV or even 12.7mm M2HB

= Finn Army Sisu XA180 / Patria Pasi

Edited June 27, 2016 by Maj.Hans

[BigBadVuk]

There is a scenario called "Government Action" with small government forces storming village with mixed civilian population and insurgents inside. I used it to practice my commanding skills and there were dozen of situations where i wanted just to pop up the hatch and throw a few frags on some infantry running around tank. So yeah, it would be cool to gave something for "Throw out frag" similar to pop up smoke command only it should work only with open hatch.

Some tanks can load frags instead of smoke on turret launchers but they are not covering so close quarters ( under 10m around tanks).

 

Big yes from me for the suggestion.

[Lumituisku]

How about...  

 

instead... close hatch, for own safety. Back or drive some distance away, with your superior mobility, and then engage them or call support. Other AFVs or friendly infantry to help you by using radio.

[Lumituisku]

9 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

I do have a quick request for the list...

 

TPz 1A6 Fuchs

Optional Weapon ---> 12.7mm NSV or even 12.7mm M2HB

= Finn Army Sisu XA180 / Patria Pasi

 

+1

[Iarmor]

2 hours ago, Lumituisku said:

How about...  

 

instead... close hatch, for own safety. Back or drive some distance away, with your superior mobility, and then engage them or call support. Other AFVs or friendly infantry to help you by using radio.

 

The tank might get hit by RPG while retreating. If they are close enough, the enemy infantry might even climb on the tank and insert a grenade through the hatch.

 

When a tank encounters enemy infantry at very close range, it should engage them (with both main gun and small arms) and simultaneously run over them (where possible).

 

A close encounter with enemy infantry might take place in open terrain as well, when the tanks are attacking infantry dug in foxholes for example.

[Maj.Hans]

9 hours ago, Iarmor said:

 

The tank might get hit by RPG while retreating. If they are close enough, the enemy infantry might even climb on the tank and insert a grenade through the hatch.

 

When a tank encounters enemy infantry at very close range, it should engage them (with both main gun and small arms) and simultaneously run over them (where possible).

 

A close encounter with enemy infantry might take place in open terrain as well, when the tanks are attacking infantry dug in foxholes for example.

 

Don't know how it would be in a modern large scale tank battle, but in the 40's it seems that crews did use hand grenades and personal weapons somewhat frequently against infantry.

 

 

[Ssnake]

Yes. Then RPGs were developed, and then ATGMs after that, so infantry got increasingly more lethal in their means of anti-tank capability. It's a somewhat problematic tactic these days.

 

Also, please don't forget that the video above is based on film material that is half propaganda, half training video (hard to separate with Wehrmacht material, generally). 

[Marko]

Some suggestions for the version after 4.0

Give the crew the ability to bail out if the tank is on fire.

Its been suggest before but if the TC could Unload /load like the infantry does from there PC's

This could be good for recce. in dire situations

Not sure if TC's still do this but in WW2 there were some notable instances of TC's conducting a recce on foot.

[Gibsonm]

42 minutes ago, Marko said:

Not sure if TC's still do this but in WW2 there were some notable instances of TC's conducting a recce on foot.

 

Well I don't know about US "TC's".

 

But Aust Crew Commanders (generic term so you don't need TCs and BCs, etc.) regularly dismount to conduct Recce (be they Cav, Tk or Mech Inf).