Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[Kev2go]

5 hours ago, Ssnake said:

In all the pictures in the Wiki we give the aggregated, effective protection value. So we'll stick to that method.

The purpose of proterction values is to give you an idea at which point you can effectively hurt the crew (and other vital internal components. Whether that protection is created by pure armor plate or as a composite involving fuel tanks is of secondary importance.

 

All that said, do not get obsessed with these figures. Steel Beasts is not a simulation designed for analytical purposes, but for education and training. The model is far better than what's needed for that purpose, but will never be good enough for quantitative statistical analysis. Developing target fixation on armor plate values distracts from the by far more important parts, combined arms combat tactics.

 

 the  T55 & T62  would have a portion of the hull that would still have the ammo exposed aboe the fuel tank.

 

EDIT: my mistake. i didnt see this posted by dejawolf. IF this is updated overview represented in SB then its right on the money. hope to see it on the wiki eventually.

 

 

I know that Sb isnt for statistical analysis but as a sim, i do appreciate ballistics and armor represented as best as it can be within what is within the possibility of the engine ( and what is known from available data), especially when a certain mainstream game, has a full on 3D and internal  Xray  viewable overview of vehicles.

Edited October 9, 2016 by Kev2go

[Grenny]

1 minute ago, ChrisWerb said:

A few suggestions re ATGWs.

 

Spike LR rounds after 2014 had range increased to 5km from 4km.

 

Spike LRs come in CCD, IIR and dual seeker CCD/IIR - it might make things interesting to have all three modelled to impose limitations.

 

Could we please have the Spike LR set up with the option to select fire and forget or fire and update prior to launch? This would increase the system's rate of fire when manually controlled.

 

If you lock out fire and update altogether and tinker with the range, you can easily create the 2.5 km range Spike MR (possibly still used by Finland and now used by Belgium, Netherlands and Israel)

 

If you gave the current (not new lightweight) Javelin CLU a tripod to simulate the British version thereof, that could double as a Spike CLU much more realistically than the Bofors BILL.

 

An MCLOS guidance option for the Sagger would be nice for c. 1973 scenarios with an appropriate version of the missile.

 

 

 

 

The spike system currently works just like( well nearly) as it does in real life...why change it to something else. And how would it increase rate of fire?(after lauch your're supposed to switch BP anyway).

Whats needed(and I havent found a way to do that in SB so far) is just after launch, discard the missle container and get moving, while the missle flies to its tgt.

[ChrisWerb]

44 minutes ago, Grenny said:

The spike system currently works just like( well nearly) as it does in real life...why change it to something else. And how would it increase rate of fire?(after lauch your're supposed to switch BP anyway).

Whats needed(and I havent found a way to do that in SB so far) is just after launch, discard the missle container and get moving, while the missle flies to its tgt.

 

It works how the Spike LR system works except:

 

1. All missiles in SB are the most expensive CCD+IR version - not sure if this was available from service intro or a significantly later development. I suspect the latter. [famous last words]It shouldn't be hard to code missiles limited to one or the other and giving them descriptive names.[/famous last words]

2. There is a fire and forget option on the LR and MR's are limited to fire and forget only. If you were exposed to multiple threats at relatively close (but not suicidal) range, you would not going to want to wait until the first missile impacts to crack on acquiring another target - this was billed as key advantage for Javelin when it was first pitched and is still a selling point.

 

I agree with you about the "detach tube and leg it whilst the missile is in flight"option, but that's fire and forget mode that I asked for. The rate of fire would be increased because, should you choose to do so, you can immediately engage another target. Remember Spike LR has a 5km range - it's going to take time for tanks with early thermals or no thermals at all to find you at half that range - especially if, for example, the system is in a tree line on a hot day and particularly with a soft launch system like Javelin. It could be that you see a tank company crossing open ground at speed at some distance - not having to sit there with your eye pressed against the sight might mean the difference between one kill and three.

 

That said, some of the rates of fires of ATGMs in SB do seem suspiciously high and the MILAN, used at close range, appears to be positively belt-fed. With ATGMs that have the sight on the launcher it probably should not be possible to use the sight effectively whilst reloading simply due to the wobble and change of CofG imparted by the loading process. With ones with separate sights like AT-3 or Cobra that would not matter. Spike reload time is claimed to be 15 seconds, so there should probably be a lock-out on the controls for that period (as if a gun is elevated for loading on a tank with its auxiliary sight slaved to/mounted on it). AT-3, I suspect would have near instantaneous reload as you could just select another launcher if you had more than one slaved to the sight as simulated in the game.

 

How do you actually get the Narrow Field of View on Spike LR in game? I couldn't see it in the wiki entry and it appears not to be "N".

Edited October 12, 2016 by ChrisWerb

[Grenny]

8 hours ago, ChrisWerb said:

 

It works how the Spike LR system works except:

 

1. All missiles in SB are the most expensive CCD+IR version - not sure if this was available from service intro or a significantly later development. I suspect the latter. [famous last words]It shouldn't be hard to code missiles limited to one or the other and giving them descriptive names.[/famous last words]

2. There is a fire and forget option on the LR and MR's are limited to fire and forget only. If you were exposed to multiple threats at relatively close (but not suicidal) range, you would not going to want to wait until the first missile impacts to crack on acquiring another target - this was billed as key advantage for Javelin when it was first pitched and is still a selling point.

 

I agree with you about the "detach tube and leg it whilst the missile is in flight"option, but that's fire and forget mode that I asked for. The rate of fire would be increased because, should you choose to do so, you can immediately engage another target. Remember Spike LR has a 5km range - it's going to take time for tanks with early thermals or no thermals at all to find you at half that range - especially if, for example, the system is in a tree line on a hot day and particularly with a soft launch system like Javelin. It could be that you see a tank company crossing open ground at speed at some distance - not having to sit there with your eye pressed against the sight might mean the difference between one kill and three.

 

That said, some of the rates of fires of ATGMs in SB do seem suspiciously high and the MILAN, used at close range, appears to be positively belt-fed. With ATGMs that have the sight on the launcher it probably should not be possible to use the sight effectively whilst reloading simply due to the wobble and change of CofG imparted by the loading process. With ones with separate sights like AT-3 or Cobra that would not matter. Spike reload time is claimed to be 15 seconds, so there should probably be a lock-out on the controls for that period (as if a gun is elevated for loading on a tank with its auxiliary sight slaved to/mounted on it). AT-3, I suspect would have near instantaneous reload as you could just select another launcher if you had more than one slaved to the sight as simulated in the game.

 

How do you actually get the Narrow Field of View on Spike LR in game? I couldn't see it in the wiki entry and it appears not to be "N".

The Spike selects fire&forget modes simply by locking a target before lauch. There is no "extra switch". Try locking a tgt,  lauch...try move the missle team. If it still hit...we already got it. Me just don't have time to play SB in the next weeks...

[Maj.Hans]

11 minutes ago, ChrisWerb said:

I just tested the in game MILAN on a T-72 end on, static, at about 150 metres. I got ten centre mass hits in a timed 60 seconds, twice in a row. That can't be realistic.

 

I then put out two six tank platoons, one of T-55 and one of T-62 around 400 metres away. The AI MILAN team managed 5 missiles a minute at this distance. Still at least twice as many as I'd expect in real life. However, no matter how many times I repeated the test, they missed every shot. They also missed in the same way - correct for azimuth, but too high in elevation. I gave them unlimited missiles and they never, ever hit. This must be a bug.

 

Did you use multiple MILAN teams, or have unlimited ammo turned on?

 

I ask because the MILAN team usually carries 5 or 6 missiles maximum...And you'll find reloads take MUCH MUCH LONGER with unlimited ammo turned off...

Edited October 13, 2016 by Maj.Hans

[ChrisWerb]

Just a small one...

 

The tripod mounted 0.50 M2HB, when used with the ELCAN Specter sight, has the conventional peep sights show up in the Specter's field of view, blocking a big part of it. In reality the Specter would be mounted high enough for the iron sights not to appear in its field of view - if we could have only the Specter reticle showing, that would be great. Thank you.

 

PS: I took a lot of my posts off this thread as they're quoted in Grenny and Hans' replies and I didn't want to clutter this thread up.

 

PPS: Hans, in case you didn't see my earlier reply - yes you are correct and giving the teams limited reloads restored normal/expected behaviour. Thank you both very much!

 

Edited October 13, 2016 by ChrisWerb

[Gibsonm]

Already reported as a bug and being worked on.

[ChrisWerb]

Today I tried out a few ATGMs against helicopters (Mi-24s flying slowly at tree-top height). I found the ones with SACLOS guidance systems and impact fuzed warheads worked surprisingly well vs low and slow rotorcraft. However BILL either had a warhead detonation without harming the helicopter when it overflew or disappeared when it flew into it (when I aimed low). Spike LR and Javelin achieved lock-ons but always crashed harmlessly without hitting. Although not an air defence weapon, Javelin is explicitely stated to be capable against helicopters and doctrine allows for anti-helicopter engagements in self-defence. I don't have access to a Spike manual, but I would think it would also have this capability and that that fire and update mode would enable it to engage attack helicopters in full defilade. Could this capability please be enabled in the game?  The only issue I can see is the manual states Javelin should be used in direct attack mode vs helos as the blades can otherwise cause problems for the missile guidance. [late edit due to correction by Jartsev]DA mode is currently not modelled in SB for Spike LR, but is modelled for Javelin.[/late edit]

 

PS: this is probably going to be another "bug" due to my setting the launchers to "unlimited" reloads for the test. If so, I apologise in advance.

 

PPS: Thank you, GibsonM.

 

 

 

Edited October 13, 2016 by ChrisWerb

[Jartsev]

10 minutes ago, ChrisWerb said:

 DA mode is currently not modelled in SB.

Try  to tap  "Page Up" while  in SEEK mode

[ChrisWerb]

5 minutes ago, Jartsev said:

Try  to tap  "Page Up" while  in SEEK mode

 

Sorry Jartsev - it was Spike that doesn't currently have direct attack mode enabled. Apologies! I incorporated your correction in the post above. Chris.

Edited October 13, 2016 by ChrisWerb

[Ssnake]

Generally speaking our underlying model for HE and fragmentation ... leaves much to be desired. Your findings reflect that. In our defense, it has always been like this and not much opposition was voiced on the topic, including the .mil users. Anyway, we're currently investing a considerable sum into replacing the current model with one that is actually being developed while adhering to basic engineering principles (the current one was a "seat of the pants" type of hack that was written ca. 1998 or so).

Now, since the code that's supposed to be replaced is very old and extends tendrils into pretty much all parts of the code that somehow deal with explosions it will still take a while to complete that work. Until then you'll have to live with somewhat inconsistent results.

[Panzer_Leader]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

Anyway, we're currently investing a considerable sum into replacing the current model with one that is actually being developed while adhering to basic engineering principles (the current one was a "seat of the pants" type of hack that was written ca. 1998 or so).

Now, since the code that's supposed to be replaced is very old and extends tendrils into pretty much all parts of the code that somehow deal with explosions it will still take a while to complete that work. Until then you'll have to live with somewhat inconsistent results.

 

Thanks for the update Ssnake.  Do you expect the new explosion and fragmentation model to make it into PE in, say, a 2017 update?  Not trying to pin you and the team to a date but is it something we can look forward to in 12-18 months, or longer do you think? 

[Ssnake]

It doesn't seem to be advisable to make any statement at this point. It'll be ready when it's ready, and depending on how much of a change it is and how long it'll be to the next major update we may release it independently, or roll it up into the next major release. If we're using the "18 months" target as a time frame between major updates, end of 2017 might already bring us one.

 

While each beta test phase is a serious drain on the team's total development capacity, drawn-out test phases tend to exhaust the beta test team. In conclusion we would rather release such upgrades more often - possibly at a lower price - simply because fewer bugs accumulate in the code over time.

[dpabrams]

2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

. In conclusion we would rather release such upgrades more often - possibly at a lower price - simply because fewer bugs accumulate in the code over time.

I am down with that. It keeps me more active in the sim the more frequent the releases. This 18 month cycle usually means I shelve it for longer periods. Hop is that M2/3A1 looking?

[Chaosduck7]

Is there a reason you cant drag and drop a bunch of your units and give them all the same waypoint? Like have them hold the formation they are currently in but just move together? 

 

That would be a nice quality of life feature to have

Edited October 15, 2016 by Chaosduck7

[Grenny]

18 minutes ago, Chaosduck7 said:

Is there a reason you cant drag and drop a bunch of your units and give them all the same waypoint? Like have them hold the formation they are currently in but just move together? 

 

That would be a nice quality of life feature to have

A good way to do that(more the 1 platoon formations) is to copy and paste paths and path chains to the other units. if you give several units the same waypoint...they would bunch together in that point.

[mpow66m]

lasso function 

[Gibsonm]

27 minutes ago, Chaosduck7 said:

Is there a reason you cant drag and drop a bunch of your units and give them all the same waypoint? Like have them hold the formation they are currently in but just move together? 

 

That would be a nice quality of life feature to have

 

In the planning phase at least you can copy and paste routes/route chains from one unit to another and they will do the same thing and retain their relative distance.

 

Giving them all the "same waypoint" will result in them converging and creating a big traffic jam.

[Rotareneg]

In the map view, edit menu, Configure preset unit groups. Pick a group and add the vehicles you want to the group and hit OK. Select one member of the group and you'll see a New group route option. Set a group route and they'll all get set to stay orders so you can ensure they're in formation and ready to move. Then select one member of the group and hit Proceed (group) and they'll all move out on the routes.

Edited October 15, 2016 by Rotareneg

[Gibsonm]

Ah yes I'd forgotten about that new feature.

[ChrisWerb]

2 hours ago, Rotareneg said:

In the map view, edit menu, Configure preset unit groups. Pick a group and add the vehicles you want to the group and hit OK. Select one member of the group and you'll see a New group route option. Set a group route and they'll all get set to stay orders so you can ensure they're in formation and ready to move. Then select one member of the group and hit Proceed (group) and they'll all move out on the routes.

 

How do you split them back into separate groups again at the final waypoint?

[Rotareneg]

They stay separate, it just allows you to give multiple units the same route at the same time.

[ChrisWerb]

8 minutes ago, Rotareneg said:

They stay separate, it just allows you to give multiple units the same route at the same time.

 

Thank you Rotareneg - I could have used that functionality in a Finnish/Russian convoy ambush scenario I was playing around with tonight. Very useful!

[Gibsonm]

36 minutes ago, ChrisWerb said:

 

Thank you Rotareneg - I could have used that functionality in a Finnish/Russian convoy ambush scenario I was playing around with tonight. Very useful!

 

Well I'm pretty sure its documented in the 4.xxx Release Notes.

 

Edited October 16, 2016 by Gibsonm

[thewood]

I think there was a whole discussion about how to use it one of the threads right after release.