Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[Kev2go]

 

On 7/5/2016 at 2:16 PM, Apocalypse 31 said:

 

Im all about stand-in systems, much like the current, in-game, RWS gun sights if it means that we get more playable equipment. Im also ok with not having a fully modeled vehicle interiors, much like the current, in game Challenger II. Functionality over eye candy.

 

If not, the T-90 fans will never see the interior

 

yea they can.... via images, and Manuals. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 14, 2018 by Kev2go

[Grenny]

The looks are not really the problem (apart from time needed for modelling). The problem is that there is no clue on how the FCS works.

[Vikingo]

 mmm... Better I start adding LOTs of T-XX and BMPs  + Thermals OFF (Blue) 

 

http://imgur.com/x4N9VVF

 

[Maj.Hans]

Personally, of the options I listed on the last page, I prefer the last two.

 

3. Do the best with what we have and what we know.

4. Make an admittedly fictional OPFOR tank solely to provide a challenge.

 

I would gladly take a functional T72M4CZ even if it meant no interior.  It gives us a playable T-Tank that's comparable to modern vehicles, and can let players get into a T-Tank and still be one of the "good guys".  That would be my preference because it does not introduce a fantasy element, yet still provides a modern vehicle which does not look totally out of place when used as a "soviet" tank.

 

Failing that, Esim could borrow a playbook from NATO...

 

I seem to recall that during the cold war, NATO or at least the US would simply call new unidentified vehicles "M19XX".  So a new tank shows up in 1973 and it's called "M1973" until we know more.

 

Make a copy of the T64B, make it playable with a 'best guess' or T72 inspired FCS, give it a very good (like the NVGs) night vision system, and call it "M1983".

Make a copy of the T80U, make it playable as above, give it a crappy thermal system like the M1 (or maybe crappier) and call it "M1993".

Make a copy of the T90, make it playable like before, give it a good thermal system and call it "M2014".

 

In the manual include a section specifically covering the "M1983/93/14" that states that eSim was not satisfied with the available information on the T64B/T80U/T90 and felt that they could not accurately make a proper playable model of those vehicles, so these three vehicles are provided in order to give commercial customers a way to make the red side more competitive in multiplayer without reducing it to a numbers game, while still providing the Blue players the appearance of fighting "Reds".

 

 

For what it's worth, in my future scenarios that feature Red as a playable side, I'll probably start making the lead tank of each 3-4 tank platoon or two tank section a playable late model T-72.  the remaining "wingman" tanks will probably remain as the more capable, missile equipped, T72B/T80/T90 etc or whatever it is that I want Red to have.

 

If I actually intend to have Red be played, and not just offer it as an option, I might even play-balance those player tanks by fitting them with multi-spectral smoke and more modern ammunition.

[dejawolf]

6 hours ago, Grenny said:

The looks are not really the problem (apart from time needed for modelling). The problem is that there is no clue on how the FCS works.

 

there is a clue. 

http://www.kotsch88.de/f_1g46.htm

[Kev2go]

perhaps not the T90

 

But T80u

 

vist Archives for manual or guides, and ask permission by 1 of the users to get a use inside of them. its an old tank, dont see any serets to hide, when its still not even M1a1 level of sophistication with its FCS and other systems.

 

contact some of the many users for permsion

 

AS far as western owners. UK had bought a number of T80u and analysed them back in the early 90s.  US evaluated the  T80UD in aberdeen proving grounds in 2003 supplied by Ukraine. they had 4 of them.  Documentation on this thing is out there.              

 

I dunno just suggestions. if request to get inside the vehicle are denied, okay you attempted. no T80 then for sure.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Kev2go

[Grenny]

31 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

perhaps not the T90

 

But T80u

 

vist Archives for manual or guides, and ask permission by 1 of the users to get a use inside of them. its an old tank, dont see any serets to hide, when its still not even M1a1 level of sophistication with its FCS and other systems.

 

contact some of the many users for permsion

 

AS far as western owners. UK had bought a number of T80u and analysed them back in the early 90s.  US evaluated the  T80UD in aberdeen proving grounds in 2003 supplied by Ukraine. they had 4 of them.  Documentation on this thing is out there.              

 

I dunno just suggestions. if request to get inside the vehicle are denied, okay you attempted. no T80 then for sure.

The trick is to have the complete gunners/TC and technical manuals. Even better would be actual vehicle crew that can explain to you how everything works in detail.

Otherwise you will get it horribly wrong...

 

[Kev2go]

10 hours ago, Grenny said:

The trick is to have the complete gunners/TC and technical manuals. Even better would be actual vehicle crew that can explain to you how everything works in detail.

Otherwise you will get it horribly wrong...

 

 

yes hence also at the beginning suggesting looking through archvies, or whlist your contacting one of the users , thyed probably have a manual on hand.

 

anyways as far as  manuals go for older legacy  armor that is mostly retired you can even find these on the internet.

 

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/60881899/Tanks-T-64B-and-T-64B1-Technikal-Manual-and-Description

 

https://www.scribd.com/doc/34579726/T-80-Russian-Main-Battle-Tank-Technical-manual

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 6, 2016 by Kev2go

[desertsaint101]

[Grenny]

58 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

 

yes hence also at the beginning suggesting looking through archvies, or whlist your contacting one of the users , thyed probably have a manual on hand.

 

anyways as far as  manuals go for older legacy  armor that is mostly retired you can even find these on the internet.

 

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/60881899/Tanks-T-64B-and-T-64B1-Technikal-Manual-and-Description

 

https://www.scribd.com/doc/34579726/T-80-Russian-Main-Battle-Tank-Technical-manual

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

 

...now one must find a reliable translator.

[Rotareneg]

I'd be interested to see the Strv 103 in game even if only AI controlled, just to see how practical (or not) it would have been in simulated combat. Having working suspension in SB v4 goes a long way towards making the S-tank possible.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Rotareneg

[Ssnake]

Unfortunately the S-tank is anything but easy to add, and a working suspension model is the least of all worries. The problem lies in the very concept of the S-tank as a turretless vehicle. Nearly none of the behavioral routines that we have created for computer-controlled crews can be directly taken; they are all based on the unspoken assumption that a turret exists that can be moved independently of the hull.

 

This means a significant development effort in the AI area for but a single vehicle that forms a class of its own. While I concede that the S-tank would be a very nice addition simply because of its uniqueness the associated effort is terribly disproportional. Which is, I guess, part of the price of being different from all the other kids.

[Marko]

2 hours ago, Rotareneg said:

I'd be interested to see the Strv 103 in game even if only AI controlled, just to see how practical (or not) it would have been in simulated combat. Having working suspension in SB v4 goes a long way towards making the S-tank possible.

Big fan of the S-tank as well, have sat in one for a few minutes on a visit to bovington.

From what I have read It caused quite a stir when it first appeared many nations were very interested in it.

But in trials by said nations the lack of a rotating turret showed the tanks limitations.

 But it really was a masterpiece of engineering.

I could be wrong on this

But I seem to remember reading if needs must it could be operated by just one person.

Form a game point of view could you imagine trying to score a hit in a dug in s-tank in a T-tank

 

Edited July 6, 2016 by Marko

[Rotareneg]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

Unfortunately the S-tank is anything but easy to add, and a working suspension model is the least of all worries. The problem lies in the very concept of the S-tank as a turretless vehicle. Nearly none of the behavioral routines that we have created for computer-controlled crews can be directly taken; they are all based on the unspoken assumption that a turret exists that can be moved independently of the hull.

 

This means a significant development effort in the AI area for but a single vehicle that forms a class of its own. While I concede that the S-tank would be a very nice addition simply because of its uniqueness the associated effort is terribly disproportional. Which is, I guess, part of the price of being different from all the other kids.

 

Ok, just give us a crewable version with no AI.

[Azure Lion]

2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Unfortunately the S-tank is anything but easy to add, and a working suspension model is the least of all worries. The problem lies in the very concept of the S-tank as a turretless vehicle. Nearly none of the behavioral routines that we have created for computer-controlled crews can be directly taken; they are all based on the unspoken assumption that a turret exists that can be moved independently of the hull.

 

This means a significant development effort in the AI area for but a single vehicle that forms a class of its own. While I concede that the S-tank would be a very nice addition simply because of its uniqueness the associated effort is terribly disproportional. Which is, I guess, part of the price of being different from all the other kids.

 

Hmm, this is a shot at the darkness... with magic missile, but would tying in battle position/engage with the AI functions be applicable in any way?

[delta6]

On ‎6‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 8:17 AM, 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.

The rice propelled idiots in Vietnam used to over run our tanks..Only happened a few times,all we did was button up and use the coax to scratch our backs..But you could usually kiss the soda/BEER cooler off as KIA when we did that..

[Azure Lion]

I think that's grounds to have the gunner ride outside the tank next time while the new cooler took his spot. 

[Kingtiger]

9 hours ago, Marko said:

I could be wrong on this

But I seem to remember reading if needs must it could be operated by just one person.

Correct. Driver is the Gunner at the same time and its automatic loaded so one man could crew it in an emergency.

[Kev2go]

oh yea this one totally slipped my mind:

 

crewing the loader position. ))))

[dejawolf]

one problem with the T-90 is that there's only 190 thermal equipped ones in service. the other 200 or so are T-90 with TPN-4 IR sight and modified T-72B turret.

by comparison there's currently 2284 T-72B in service. 

as of 2016, around 630 or so of these are T-72B3 with a thermal imager and K5 ERA. 

 

so in total, russian army today have around 820 thermal equipped tanks, the majority of which are actually upgraded T-72B.

 

[Maj.Hans]

1 hour ago, dejawolf said:

one problem with the T-90 is that there's only 190 thermal equipped ones in service. the other 200 or so are T-90 with TPN-4 IR sight and modified T-72B turret.

by comparison there's currently 2284 T-72B in service. 

as of 2016, around 630 or so of these are T-72B3 with a thermal imager and K5 ERA. 

 

so in total, russian army today have around 820 thermal equipped tanks, the majority of which are actually upgraded T-72B.

 

 

[Kev2go]

2 hours ago, dejawolf said:

one problem with the T-90 is that there's only 190 thermal equipped ones in service. the other 200 or so are T-90 with TPN-4 IR sight and modified T-72B turret.

by comparison there's currently 2284 T-72B in service. 

as of 2016, around 630 or so of these are T-72B3 with a thermal imager and K5 ERA. 

 

so in total, russian army today have around 820 thermal equipped tanks, the majority of which are actually upgraded T-72B.

 

 

 we talking about base model T90 here,  right? Not the T90A ( or export variant S?)

 

Also Russia isnt the only t90 user. How about the Indians? theyve got more t90s than the Russian Army

 

Edited July 8, 2016 by Kev2go

[dejawolf]

1 hour ago, Kev2go said:

 

 we talking about base model T90 here,  right? Not the T90A ( or export variant S?)

 

Also Russia isnt the only t90 user. How about the Indians? theyve got more t90s than the Russian Army

 

 

the 190 with thermals are nearly all T-90A. 

but there's also about 30 T-90A without thermal. 

[Kev2go]

2 hours ago, dejawolf said:

 

the 190 with thermals are nearly all T-90A. 

but there's also about 30 T-90A without thermal. 

 

source?

 

so that means the rest of the 360 T90's in Russian service are base model T90s then? not the A model?  Theres also the T90AM.

 

 

Edited July 8, 2016 by Kev2go

[Jartsev]

2 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

source?

 

so that means the rest of the 360 T90's in Russian service are base model T90s then? not the A model?  Theres also the T90AM.

 

 

Some basic production  numbers and procurement timeline:

1)Total production run for basic T-90 model 1992- 120 MBTs including experimental  vehicles.

2)Production run for  T-90A:

2004- 15 tanks

2005- 17 tanks

2006- initially planned 62, but quantity was reduced to 31

2007- planned 62, delivered 31

2008- planned 62, delivered 52(62 as planned according to some sources)

2009- initially planned 62, later plan was increased to 100.  Actual delivery-  85 MBTs

2010- claimed order of 3 battalion kits, reported delivery of 63 tanks. Additionally,  russian army got tanks not delivered in 2008 and 2009

2011- no production plans, procurement canceled by  russian MoD

 

All  T-90 model 1992 and presumably T-90A/AK build in 2004-2005 do not have thermals; 2 T-90AK from 2004-2005 delivery were build with  cast turrets(special request from the MoD)

 

As for T-90AM... No such thing exists. There is T-90MS, which also can be called as non-existent vehicle because there only a pair of prototypes were build to this date.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Jartsev