Jump to content
Azure Lion

Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

Recommended Posts

Expanding the in-game AMV line to include the 30mm variant with ATGM - some more firepower for our wheeled vehicle collection

8da2db4182cfbbb7e199958ee13da6fd--ambula

 

Or just the AMV ATGM - filling a wheeled ATGM capability for in-game western units

Patria%20-%20ETS2%20II%20(2).jpg

 

 

A light reconnaissance helicopter - would also fill out the in-game US Armored Cavalry Regiment set

300px-OH-58D_1st_Squadron,_17th_Cavalry_

 

A light ground reconnaissance vehicle with some firepower -and another addition to Brit Kit

LAND_MWMIK_Jackal_Afghanistan_lg.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds wishlist

@Volcano

 

LMG Audio: Looped .wav's vs Single-Shot .wav's

M240, MG3, M60, RPK (actually PK):

 

The single-shot, repeated .wav files (i.e - a_M240.wav and x_M240.wav) just don't sound as good [natural] as the looped .wav files - such as extcoaxloop.wav and extcoaxloopend.wav. You can tell its the same sound repeating over and over, whereas in real life the sound would fluctuate, change pitch and volume with natural factors. Wish we had looped .wav's for these weapons in-game so that they would sound more natural. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

* Hit / Ricochet and Penetration decals similar to combat mission series, but they would probably look weird on ERA blocks.

It would give a nice visual indication while in play of where a vehicle was struck, how many rounds hit it, how lucky / unlucky / beat up / damaged etc a vehicle is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the purpose of the AAR and would defeat the purpose of this being a training simulator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TSe419E said:

That is the purpose of the AAR and would defeat the purpose of this being a training simulator.

I dont see how graphical indication of hits defeats the purpose of anything, but it is well captured by the AAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bond_Villian said:

I dont see how graphical indication of hits defeats the purpose of anything, but it is well captured by the AAR

 

The training audience don't using get a big arrow indicating that the enemy is shooting from "here" (in real time).

 

Part of the training is to work out where you are taking fire from and reacting accordingly.

 

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

 

The training audience don't using get a big arrow indicating that the enemy is shooting from "here" (in real time).

 

Part of the training is to work out where you are taking fire from and reacting accordingly.

 

 

Not to mention the fact that it is unrealistic to be able to just look at an enemy vehicle and immediately know that the enemy's engine is damaged, and that the TC and loader are KIA. 

 

I am fully in agreement that the AAR works fine for this purpose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mirzayev said:

 

Not to mention the fact that it is unrealistic to be able to just look at an enemy vehicle and immediately know that the enemy's engine is damaged, and that the TC and loader are KIA. 

 

I am fully in agreement that the AAR works fine for this purpose. 

 

I would be fine with realistic depictions of damage on the exterior of a vehicle.  Marks and blast damage etc from hits, and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maj.Hans said:

 

I would be fine with realistic depictions of damage on the exterior of a vehicle.  Marks and blast damage etc from hits, and so on.

 

Sure, I have no issue with that, and would welcome it. What was proposed was something more along these lines: 

 

mius08.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mirzayev said:

 

Sure, I have no issue with that, and would welcome it. What was proposed was something more along these lines: 

 

mius08.jpg

That would be wonderful.......In the AAR!

 

But not during game play...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys guys guys, you are clearly missunderstanding Jace11 totally. He is asking for HIT DECALS not HIT TEXT. For you who clearly not own or play combat mission I will show some pictures so you can stop trashing the poor fella.

 

HIT DECALS are marks on the tank of the armor getting hit or penetrated that shows up after a vehicle has been hit. on my pic my Churchill took 3 frontal hits who all bounched of. A penetrating hit looks different so you can close up see how hard action they have seen. You must be close to see these, so you as a opponent (In SB that would be) can not cheat and get intel of your hits by zooming onto the vehicle and see what damage you did or where you hit. This you can do in Combat mission though, but at the same time a visible penetration doesnt have to do anything with what happend behind the armor so I never do this as I would just fool myself.

 

HIT TEXT is what you think he is talking about, and that one gives away good amount of info on both friendly and enemy tanks (thats why I normally play with it off in CM). here you get where it hit, if it was partial penetration or full penetration, if the vehicle was destroyed etc etc.

 

So NO to HIT TEXT I agree with you all there, but HIT DECALS could be nice to have, and I understand why he is asking for it because in Combat mission they werent there from the begining and when they where added you sometimes have a "wow" feeling looking over your battered tanks. But I am having problem seeing Esimgames ever invest time in something that is just cosmetic like this.

 

/KT

hit decal.jpg

hit text.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The above picture from Mirzayev is a misrepresentation (deliberate or not) of what I was suggesting. Nor did I mention anything about enemy vehicles. In fact, I thought it might be more useful as an indicator as to nearby friendlies that are hit or knocked out, giving the player a visual clue of the direction of threat prior to the AAR. On enemy vehicles, they wouldn't be visible at the ranges you usually engage them. They would be tiny textures, with normal maps stuck over the tank texture much like the current decals. The game records where these would go already.

 

It was just a suggestion.

hitdecals.png

Edited by Jace11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2017 at 11:37 PM, Jace11 said:

It was just a suggestion.

hitdecals.png

 

Please provide an example in the future, such as the photo above. It helps to minimize the level of misunderstanding. :)

Edited by Mirzayev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

external stowage/equipment to vehicles as an option in the mission editor; external fuel drums on russian vehicles, camo nets, tree branches and things like this all removable or added as options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically you can already simulate this with a small DPICM strike, but I guess it would make for an interesting alternative air strike package.

Edited by MAJ_Fubar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, MAJ_Fubar said:

Technically you can already simulate this with a small DPICM strike, but I guess it would make for and interesting alternative air strike package.

 

Exactly.

 

Clusterbombs have been abolished by many nations. Except for ALL the nations that actually matter with regards to their manufacture, deployment, sale and use.

 

The ban against clusterbombs - or rather Convention on Cluster Munitions, does for instance NOT include the CBU-105 as USA have not signed nor ratified it. And neither have Russia, China, Brazil and Argentina, India, Pakistan, Israel and Iran to name just a few. Also many signed but did NOT ratify it.

 

Be aware that on top of that, then some nation who actually HAVE signed and ratified this joke and/or travesty of a convention, specifically does not include weapons that make the submunitions inert, thus excluding them by interpretation from the convention

 

And hence these would be MOST relevant to have modelled in SB. .

 

But from a techincal side then most seem to miss, and a lot by a wide margin? 

Do we have valid data on the actual effectiveness on the different subsystems?

Edited by Nike-Ajax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎28‎-‎07‎-‎2017 at 1:04 AM, Mirzayev said:

 

Please provide an example in the future, such as the photo above. It helps to minimize the level of understanding:)

 

Eh ... Job done -  I dont understand ... O.o:D xD

 

 

I know I know ... I couldnt help myself ... Sorry Mirzayew....

 

Edited by Nike-Ajax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, MAJ_Fubar said:

Technically you can already simulate this with a small DPICM strike, but I guess it would make for and interesting alternative air strike package.

I'd rather artillery rounds like bonus or SMArt in Steelbeasts. 

 

As for that ban... cluster ammo is frowned uppon for its high dud rates. These can leave the ground covered with dangerous UXO. New ammo with better fuse system could fix that... an therefor be "legal" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Grenny said:

I'd rather artillery rounds like bonus or SMArt in Steelbeasts. 

 

As for that ban... cluster ammo is frowned uppon for its high dud rates. These can leave the ground covered with dangerous UXO. New ammo with better fuse system could fix that... an therefor be "legal" 

 

Already invented 

 

Like the swedish Bombkapsel 90/DWS 39 Mjölner OR the MAT-120.

Also the BONUS and SMART 155 mm grenades are actually technically also cluster weapons, they just have 2 submunitions each...

And specifically designed to bypass the ridiculous convention per my post above.

 

But I need valid concrete data on the effectiveness against personnel, soft skinned vehicles and armored vehicles. I have tried but all I get is either hysterical and pseudo-scientific anti-cluster munitions propaganda.

Or sales material which I doubt the validity of.

Edited by Nike-Ajax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SFW is banned under the (idiotic) Olso declaration to signatories thereof because it violates at least one of the clauses - it has more than 9 submunitions (40 IIRC). The prohibitions are as follows (this is not a direct quote) :

 

  • Must contain no more than nine submunitions,
  • No submunition may weigh less than 4 kilograms (8.8 lb).
  • Each submunition must have the capability to detect and engage a single target object and contain electronic self-destruct and self-deactivation devices.
  • Weapons containing submunitions which each weigh at least 20 kg (44 lb) are also excluded.

Sadly, Textron have ceased making the SFW altogether because they had issues getting export sign off for a new batch to Saudi Arabia and decided that ceasing selling cluster munitions would positively affect their share price.

 

I have been using the small DPICM strike workaround for some time, which is actually pretty OK.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Networked" ATGMs like the latest Spike upgrade and MMP. This would take the form of being able to launch a missile at a designated point on the map - have it fly out at medium altitude to a point suitably distant from the designated target to allow sufficient time for it to be acquired and locked onto or manually flown into. Apologies if this facility already exists.

Edited by ChrisWerb

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...