Jump to content
Azure Lion

Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, EasyE said:

"If you have a playable T-64 and I don't - how does multi-player work?"

 

I suppose I drive it  and you shoot at me.

I doubt it.

 

Your T-64 is responding to your commands because you are driving it.

 

My T-64 is being driven by the AI (because I didn't buy your model).

 

There would need to be a whole bunch of extra processing / network traffic / lag to try and ensure you and I experienced roughly the same thing.

 

It may all be straight forward, easy and cheap - but I suspect not, otherwise it would have happened already. :)

 

Edited by Gibsonm
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, smg13 said:

1. The possibility for the AI to fire by mistake on same-side units. (Maybe this is already possible?). It could be set up in the mission editor with a probability % of happening. This will force player to plan tactics considering the need to minimize the possibility of friendly units crossing the field of fire of other friendly units... I am sure this is very important in RL tactics. Also, there is a bit of a "cheat" where you can wait to get the "identified" call from the gunner to know what you are firing on... maybe add the ability to allow the gunner to proceed firing after a "fire" order from the TC even when he can't identify the target? If the TC is able to order "fire" on unidentified targets it weight heavily on the TC (player) to take responsibility of knowing what he is firing on.

Getting the AI to make mistakes, is going to very difficult. You want it to make "correct" mistakes, or the training value will be small.

You would want false positive and false negative ID. (Mistake an enemy unit as a friendly one , and fire not or too late)

 

A simple random/probability based approach would not do the trick. It will only serve to frustrate players.

Factors:

-traininglevel of crews

-fatigue level of crews

-have they been engaged in that area

-how long since the last contact

-what kind of equipment does own /enemy units have (Luchs es easier to mistake for a BRT-70 then, say a Warrior)

-what is the situation for neighboring units

-visibility levels

-terrain character

 

And all factor, constantly monitored, with different  weights, depending on the situation again.

 

=> Humans are much better at making this mistakes. So if you want them in game, join online sessions!

 

 

Share this post


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

I doubt it.

 

Your T-64 is responding to your commands because you are driving it.

 

My T-64 is being driven by the AI (because I didn't buy your model).

 

There would need to be a whole bunch of extra processing / network traffic / lag to try and ensure you and I experienced roughly the same thing.

 

It may all be straight forward, easy and cheap - but but I suspect not otherwise it would have happened already. :)

 

Perhaps.  There is a limited of time and resources to develop such things.  Perhaps if the player base for SB was much larger it would make more economic sense to take on such things.  I deal with software sales people all the time in my industry and one thing they often do is to offer a full time limited functionality, soon my colleagues and myself end up taking the bait and buying more functionality. 

 

Perhaps SB could offer a free download of limited use, few maps limited editor etc and say T-62 or other vehicle for use in single and multilayer use. It could get many people into the game who normally wouldn't and eventually more paying customers.

 

As you said above, if it was that easy it probably would be done already and there are things don't know or understand.

 

Question for Ssnake. Any particular reason we don't have a T-72m1989 with K5 (or similar) in the game? Seems to be a very common tank in use in Russia and elsewhere.

 

Thanks

Share this post


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

 

=> Humans are much better at making this mistakes. So if you want them in game, join online sessions!

 

 

It's true even with experienced players.... Mentioning no names TankHunter!.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about a more complete driver position? Like the whole startup process, shifting gear, keep the W key pressed to keep moving forward (because pressing W once is boring ;) ), break transmission because of bad driving skills... That would make the driver position more interesting, especially for multicrewed tanks ingame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal preferences aside, this is very unlikely to happen. Adding a detailed driver's place would forces us to add highly individual elements to each vehicle (gear shift ratios, engine torque/RPM characteristics, point of gravity shifts (troops loaded or not? How much ammo? How much fuel?), add to that ancillary functions like differential lock for some vehicles, tire pressure regulation, the vehicle's circuit box, battery simulation, heating, deep-wading valves/seals, ...)

In essence, it would double the complexity if applied to very vehicle, for rather little gain (unless our customers would adopt Steel Beasts as a driving simulator on motion platforms). Or you would get a more detailed, but inaccurate model because we wouldn't care about individualized parameterization.

Share this post


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

My personal preferences aside, this is very unlikely to happen. Adding a detailed driver's place would forces us to add highly individual elements to each vehicle (gear shift ratios, engine torque/RPM characteristics, point of gravity shifts (troops loaded or not? How much ammo? How much fuel?), add to that ancillary functions like differential lock for some vehicles, tire pressure regulation, the vehicle's circuit box, battery simulation, heating, deep-wating valves/seals, ...)

In essence, it would double the complexity if applied to very vehicle, for rather little gain (unless our customers would adopt Steel Beasts as a driving simulator on motiopn platforms). Or you would get a more detailed, but inaccurate model because we wouldn't care about individualized parameterization.

All of this would have been so awesome, too bad! :'(

 

Well at least what about : keeping the W key pressed to make the vehicule go forward when the player is in the driver seat, just to make that position a (little) more attractive when multicrewing (this is no more arcade than today's press W and wait while moving forward) ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fail to see how keeping a button pressed with your finger (when in reality it's your foot) would make the driver's position more interesting. You can always use a steering wheel with gas pedal and brake, or push your joystick forward.

Share this post


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

Well at least what about : keeping the W key pressed to make the vehicule go forward when the player is in the driver seat, just to make that position a (little) more attractive when multicrewing (this is no more arcade than today's press W and wait while moving forward) ?

Its not just "press W and wait" - there is the little matter of steering / route selection too. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pressing the “w” brown makes sense for the M60 series of tanks.  There is a lever to hold the gas pedal down so the driver doesn’t need to have his foot on the pedal all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, TSe419E said:

Pressing the “w” brown makes sense for the M60 series of tanks.  There is a lever to hold the gas pedal down so the driver doesn’t need to have his foot on the pedal all the time.

Sounds somewhat dangerous!.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, DarkAngel said:

It's true even with experienced players.... Mentioning no names TankHunter!.

 

But you have to admit, it was a damn good shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello you'all,

 

I have no idea how to go about making the AI make the mistake of engaging a friendly. I am not a programmer. But I thought it would be a good addition to  a future version of SB. It would force the player to be more realistic on how to plan and execute his tactics & maneuvers... isn't this one of the cool things about SB, it teaches proper producers? It would probably be a bit frustrating to new players and make the learning curve more steep. But this is a big part of the fun and attraction of SB! 

 

I remember I was soooo frustrated I could not really get myself to survive for long any engagements; until I learned how to move in bounds and use platoon members to cover my unit, and myself cover my wingmen (is this a tanker term: wingmen?). Once you master any of these tactical necessities you feel so proud of yourself... so I can imagine how frustrating it will be if the player is dumb enough to send troops across a line of fire an he gets a friendly fire incident; and how great a feel when a properly planned and executed mission not only results on objectives met but also no friendly blue-on-blue casualties. 

 

How does the AI knows what it is shooting at? Whatever check is going under the hood, can it be deactivated for a split second for a green crew if a % roll is failed? I am not a programmer, so I don't know how easy or difficult something like this would be... just my two cents on a feature I think makes the simulator more challenging and interesting.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wishlist; drivers of vehicles with NVG enabled to have NVG.

Also; the ability to disable the thermal optics for infantry FO's.

Cheers

Edited by Bond_Villian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, smg13 said:

Hello you'all,

 

I have no idea how to go about making the AI make the mistake of engaging a friendly. I am not a programmer. But I thought it would be a good addition to  a future version of SB. It would force the player to be more realistic on how to plan and execute his tactics & maneuvers... isn't this one of the cool things about SB, it teaches proper producers? It would probably be a bit frustrating to new players and make the learning curve more steep. But this is a big part of the fun and attraction of SB! 

 

I remember I was soooo frustrated I could not really get myself to survive for long any engagements; until I learned how to move in bounds and use platoon members to cover my unit, and myself cover my wingmen (is this a tanker term: wingmen?). Once you master any of these tactical necessities you feel so proud of yourself... so I can imagine how frustrating it will be if the player is dumb enough to send troops across a line of fire an he gets a friendly fire incident; and how great a feel when a properly planned and executed mission not only results on objectives met but also no friendly blue-on-blue casualties. 

 

How does the AI knows what it is shooting at? Whatever check is going under the hood, can it be deactivated for a split second for a green crew if a % roll is failed? I am not a programmer, so I don't know how easy or difficult something like this would be... just my two cents on a feature I think makes the simulator more challenging and interesting.

 

 

1st, I think noone disagrees with you that it would be a good idea to have that in game.

 

But as I said, a simple dice roll will not be sufficient. There are very many (too much)variables to make this work in a way to have a learning curve at all...and not only added frustration.

Steelbeasts has no "AI" by definition. Its just a simple software and not selflearning.

 

To achieve the desired goal, it is still necessary to train and play with other humans...you should try it ;-)

 

Edited by Grenny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct Grenny... I should train and play with humans... I never tried multi-coop with humans. You are probably right, "die-roll mechanics" might not be the best way to implement friendly fire. Might end up being arbitrary and artificial.

 

I have 4 new items for the wish list:

1. the TUSK addition to the M1A2

2. With the idea of multiplayer on my mind and TUSK... a back-of-the-tank infantry telephone, so a player using infantry/dismounts needs to approach other player's tank with the TUSK and use the back telephone to communicate and coordinate when in close proximity (BTW, how does infantry communicate with tanks, if at all, in the modern battlefield when coordinating tactics?)

3. the Stryker family of vehicles 

4. French tanks for the player

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#2: Well for starters everyone goes to the same Orders so both Inf and Tks know what is meant to happen. Then after that, Radio and if you have one the Infantry / Tank telephone. Worst case a lot of waving to get the Crew Commander's attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still hoping for untowed non Technical mounted/non SPA, Artillery and AAA guns!

 

Any scenario involving N Korea would have to include a couple million of these... LOL!

Edited by Kilo60

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2018 at 1:57 AM, EasyE said:

Perhaps.  There is a limited of time and resources to develop such things.  Perhaps if the player base for SB was much larger it would make more economic sense to take on such things.  I deal with software sales people all the time in my industry and one thing they often do is to offer a full time limited functionality, soon my colleagues and myself end up taking the bait and buying more functionality. 

 

Perhaps SB could offer a free download of limited use, few maps limited editor etc and say T-62 or other vehicle for use in single and multilayer use. It could get many people into the game who normally wouldn't and eventually more paying customers.

 

As you said above, if it was that easy it probably would be done already and there are things don't know or understand.

 

Question for Ssnake. Any particular reason we don't have a T-72m1989 with K5 (or similar) in the game? Seems to be a very common tank in use in Russia and elsewhere.

 

Thanks

 

good suggestion. Would love to see a  T72B with with Kontact 5. Would be the same FCS  for respective tanks just kontact 5 layer on the exterior.  Sounds like Good way to expand protection of a Redforce vehicles thats also common. It just requires the Kontact 5 layering. FCS could be directly ported  to save development time and im sure the devs have estimates since they do have other Ai vehicles with Kontact 5 like the T80U and the T90S.

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2018 at 5:57 PM, EasyE said:

Perhaps SB could offer a free download of limited use, few maps limited editor etc and say T-62 or other vehicle for use in single and multilayer use. It could get many people into the game who normally wouldn't and eventually more paying customers.

 

Well this was tried and the end result was:

 

1. Lots of work of the volunteers who offered a Loan / Trial license.

 

2. Abuse of the offer by various people who would sign up under numerous aliases in an attempt to get a "continuous demo".

 

3. The introduction of the time based license option.

 

US$10 for a month of access to the full product "fixed" the points above and gave people a window to try the full version, without eSim having to maintain and support a cut down / limited demo version as well as the full one

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...