Jump to content
Azure Lion

Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

+1 for this.

 

It would make a good "What if the cold war went hot and we had to slap on the ERA and go" vehicle, a good "This is a Magach, squint harder" tanks, as well as a "This an a USMC M60A1 RISE Passive...Squint harder!" tank.

 

 

 

Additional request:

 

Allow the Marder 1A3 to be loaded with 100% of it's ammo in the AP or HE ammo selection,

OR add all ammo types to both feeds --->> Can simulate Marder1A0 with single feed gun.

on your additional request, the first one, if I am reading it correctly, couldn't this be done just by simply setting one ammo type to zero and max loading the other  ammo type  ie set he to zero and max out the ap?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2016 at 2:57 PM, 12Alfa said:

 

Well this is the first on the menu screens 9_9, so your alone on this one, never been distracted by the load screen :), thats a new one also, feel free to fix on your own and post here, and hey! thanks.

What an odd response; "feel free to fix on your own.".  This is a wish list thread is it not?  And you didn't tell the guy that wants to the M-60 AVLB to go build it now did you?

 

Looks ARE important and the menu is the 2nd screen a player - first time or otherwise - sees.  Shame to see an opportunity - and a cheap fix - wasted.  I speak from experience here as I started my biz career in advertising and I can tell you that a slick presentation pulls the customer in.  Now, if that’s all there is – just sizzle, no steak – then that slick presentation won’t keep ‘em coming.  But SB doesn’t have that issue. SB is like a Filet Mignon and it’s a shame to see it wrapped in yesterday’s newspaper.

 

That stated, I'll take your challenge and gin something up this weekend.  I'm no graphics designer but what the heck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think the menu layout makes sense. You have mission and editing options offset from other miscellaneous options and each other because they're, well...different kinds of tasks. And as for the load screen, I have to agree with 12Alfa: I've never found it to detract from the sim (or distract me) in the least. Especially since I'm not trying to accomplish anything else with the menu after I've made a selection. I think it's a good visual indicator that no further selections can be (or need to be) made.

 

Since this is the way the sim was intentionally designed (and is not some sort of bug), and since I've never heard anyone complain about it ever before, I doubt eSim would ever consider "fixing" it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Barkhorn1x said:

 

That stated, I'll take your challenge and gin something up this weekend.  I'm no graphics designer but what the heck.

 

Thats all we ask, any effort is better than just posting here, don't ya think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RENEGADE-623 said:

on your additional request, the first one, if I am reading it correctly, couldn't this be done just by simply setting one ammo type to zero and max loading the other  ammo type  ie set he to zero and max out the ap?

 

 

Sort of, but i think the single feed gun had the same capacity as the double, just one ammo type

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Barkhorn1x said:

Looks ARE important and the menu is the 2nd screen a player - first time or otherwise - sees.  Shame to see an opportunity - and a cheap fix - wasted.  I speak from experience here as I started my biz career in advertising and I can tell you that a slick presentation pulls the customer in.  Now, if that’s all there is – just sizzle, no steak – then that slick presentation won’t keep ‘em coming.  But SB doesn’t have that issue. SB is like a Filet Mignon and it’s a shame to see it wrapped in yesterday’s newspaper.

 

That stated, I'll take your challenge and gin something up this weekend.  I'm no graphics designer but what the heck.

 

Are you referring to the layout or the background?

 

There are several mods / ways to change the background, e.g.:

 

SS_09_52_07.png

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think he's referring to the layout, which could indeed be a bit better.

Actually, looking forward for what you have in mind, Barkhorn1X, TIA !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Koen said:

Wishlist:

Possibility to save Groups that one presets.

Agreed. RTS style groups are good, ie; select/paint the desired units and click (for example);  

Ctrl+1 gives you group 1, which can be 'called' by hitting 1.

 Just a thought, there have been some other good ideas mentioned here, and many examples of this 'group' system and functionality exist.

 

                                                                                                                                     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be nice to see the T-72B3 and T-72B3M as fully playable for the Red Side and the Stryker family of vehicles for Blue Side!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since crewed weapons teams can't use bunkers, I'd like to see sandbag emplacements, half circle wall of sandbags, for crew served weapons (MMG, HMG, GMG, missile teams). That way they have some protection instead of sitting out in the open and they could used/positioned the same way as vehicle emplacements, where you place them in the mission editor or at the start of a mission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, OrangeFr3ak said:

Would be nice to see the T-72B3 and T-72B3M as fully playable for the Red Side

Holy simplicity. Who will wraps off and publish documents to the newest machines...

Edited by Varjag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the T-72B3 and B3M, and T-72s in general...

 

A T-72B1 M1985 should be an easy addition to the game.  Essentially it would be the existing B1 M1984 plus ERA, which I think will be more useful than the existing M1984.

 

The T-72B M1989, essentially the existing T-72B M1985 with Kontakt-5 instead of Kontakt-1, would be a good late cold-war boost to the Red forces.  If we could tolerate a hypothetical T-72B1 M1989, which it has been pointed out to me was never made and would be so horribly unrealistic that it would make the game just so horribly ruined that it couldn't be played, we could get a playable tank put in for Red that actually had some decent armor for modern scenarios.

 

The T-72B3 and B3M/B4 would be great for modern scenarios, but without docs we probably wouldn't get them playable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, here is what I came up with.  I used PowerPoint as I don't have Photoshop.  Took me about 30 mins and a real graphics designer could do a much better job in as little time.  IMO, this solves the menu non-intuitive issues and is clean, simple design.

 

RyanMenu.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thb, I fail to see whats better in this menue setup. Renaming "session" to "mission"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, can see why you would arrange them like that, but see no benefit vs the time cost for the devs to do it.  I am not a hardcore player, yet still see minimal issues with the menus.

 

I would rather see the effort put into making information on units a little easier to get at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Grenny said:

thb, I fail to see whats better in this menue setup. Renaming "session" to "mission"?

 

2 hours ago, thewood said:

OK, can see why you would arrange them like that, but see no benefit vs the time cost for the devs to do it.  I am not a hardcore player, yet still see minimal issues with the menus.

 

I would rather see the effort put into making information on units a little easier to get at.

Sigh.  Well, you can't say I didn't try.  It is indeed a small thing so let's just agree to disagree here.  And as e-Sim hasn't bothered to make the really minuscule time/$$ to change it in over 10+ years I doubt they are going to bother to do it now anyway so time to move on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Barkhorn1x said:

hasn't bothered to make the really minuscule time/$$ to change it in over 10+ years.

 

A bit of a tone there.

 

Perhaps they were busy working on things they deemed more important?

 

I think this is the first time in 177 pages that this has been mentioned so its not like 90% of the community was clamouring for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2016 at 3:16 PM, Apocalypse 31 said:

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. 

InfRedDot.jpg

 

we still need this.

infantry still shooting at the dirt at 5m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

As for the T-72B3 and B3M, and T-72s in general...

 

A T-72B1 M1985 should be an easy addition to the game.  Essentially it would be the existing B1 M1984 plus ERA, which I think will be more useful than the existing M1984.

 

The T-72B M1989, essentially the existing T-72B M1985 with Kontakt-5 instead of Kontakt-1, would be a good late cold-war boost to the Red forces.  If we could tolerate a hypothetical T-72B1 M1989, which it has been pointed out to me was never made and would be so horribly unrealistic that it would make the game just so horribly ruined that it couldn't be played, we could get a playable tank put in for Red that actually had some decent armor for modern scenarios.

 

The T-72B3 and B3M/B4 would be great for modern scenarios, but without docs we probably wouldn't get them playable.

 

id like to think that T64B, and even up to the T80U should be doable, because even the latter of which is a really old tank now. similar service date to the non HA M1A1. already a 30-31 year old tank :/

 

thouggh tbh as for as more realistic and easier to implement content i am personally more interested in seeing fully modeled T62 mod 1972, at the very least a simple interior model like the T55A mod 1970 we have, as well as seeing the addition of a M60A1 RISE/ Passive. Id love to play a tank that was still around in the late cold war period but had older  tech such as mechanical computing and coincidence rangefinding, but still have stabilized gun, and passive night sights.  After all such old  ( but still Iconic)  retired tanks can be found in museums so getting necessary info on them as well as inside them should be easier than modern tanks that are still in front line service in 1st rate militaries.

 

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ability to cue up a .wav file during the briefing, not just during a mission!

 

We could start off a scenario with an audio briefing file for each side to accompany the text explanation, and introduction explaining the purpose of a training or tutorial mission, or take the player back to the 1980's with a little music from the time period if we wanted to.

 

"Right, so it's 1983, and the Russians are trying to kill everyone for real this time..."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

The ability to cue up a .wav file during the briefing, not just during a mission!

 

I haven't tried this, but all random numbers are evaluated before the planning phase starts. So, an Event based on "0 < X42 < 100", which would always be true, would already be true at the beginning of the planning phase. I'm just not sure if just random CONDITIONS are being evaluated (100% certain), or ALSO the EVENTS, and even if so, if the sound file would be played only after mission start. But that should be easy enough for you to find out. Let us know. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

 

I haven't tried this, but all random numbers are evaluated before the planning phase starts. So, an Event based on "0 < X42 < 100", which would always be true, would already be true at the beginning of the planning phase. I'm just not sure if just random CONDITIONS are being evaluated (100% certain), or ALSO the EVENTS, and even if so, if the sound file would be played only after mission start. But that should be easy enough for you to find out. Let us know. :)

 

Nah, just makes the file play immediately after you start the mission.  Still useful, but perhaps not quite in the same way.

 

It IS possible to play sounds during the mission loading or briefing, somehow, just not at our discretion right now.  Go to the tank range and pick BRDM2, you'll hear the commander close his hatch during the loading sequence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the biggest gripes I still have with artillery and hopefully it will be solved one day: "fire at my command"

When sending "FFE", there still is a 30+ seconds delay before the first round flies.

 

When using "fire at my command" I expect the gunners to be ready, rounds in the breach and lanyard in hand. The very moment I press the send button ( or maybe 5 seconds later to simulate the FO making a countdown) I want the guns to go BOOM.

Share this post


Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...