Jump to content

Steel Beasts: Content Wish List


Azure Lion
 Share

Recommended Posts

Will we be getting the M-48A3's??? Vietnam style...I am a Viet Nam vet and I would love to take my Big Boy out once more for some jungle fun...If you do put it in could you make it look like the photo...VN Vets are some real nit picky tankers...Make sure we can drive gun and T.C. it...

27987458331_a806d34641_b.jpg

Edited by delta6
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) A crewable Leclerc (Serie 1, Serie 2,etc.)! 

 

2) A crewable Merkava and/or just another Merkava (e.g: Merkava III, IIID)

 

3) Adjustment of the KE protection levels of various tanks to realistic KE protection levels. Im looking at Leopard 2A5 type vehicles and Challenger 2 in particular. Given the recent revelations some of the KE values seem to be off by literally 100% For instance, Challenger 2 turret cheeks are around 600-650 mm RHAe  KE if we follow recently declassified British government documents. In Steel Beasts it is around 1250 mm RHAe against KE threats. The Leopard 2A5S turret cheeks were given a KE resistance of 750-850 mm RHAe during the Swedish tank trials vs. 1380 mm KE given in SB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Can you point me to those sources?

Obviously, we'd rather fix our models than to offload that responsibility to our customers.

Have to say that I would be somewhat surprised if the armour capabilities have been released...

 

I would also not mind seeing the links to see where they have come from and whether they are any good - i hope not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, lavictoireestlavie said:

1) A crewable Leclerc (Serie 1, Serie 2,etc.)! 

 

2) A crewable Merkava and/or just another Merkava (e.g: Merkava III, IIID)

 

3) Adjustment of the KE protection levels of various tanks to realistic KE protection levels. Im looking at Leopard 2A5 type vehicles and Challenger 2 in particular. Given the recent revelations some of the KE values seem to be off by literally 100% For instance, Challenger 2 turret cheeks are around 600-650 mm RHAe  KE if we follow recently declassified British government documents. In Steel Beasts it is around 1250 mm RHAe against KE threats. The Leopard 2A5S turret cheeks were given a KE resistance of 750-850 mm RHAe during the Swedish tank trials vs. 1380 mm KE given in SB.

One should not confuse most of the files and graphics floating around the internet a 100% credible sources ;-)

 

Given what I see in the SB "game" values: -are each of them correct? No...

                                                             -do they produce correct (or rather ´...sensable) results? yes

I'm happy with SB's armour/weapon/damage model in 9 out of 10 cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Can you point me to those sources?

Obviously, we'd rather fix our models than to offload that responsibility to our customers.

 

I think they are from War Thunder / World of Tanks forums and other "authoritative" sources. ;)

 

33 minutes ago, CharlieB said:

Have to say that I would be somewhat surprised if the armour capabilities have been released...

 

I would also not mind seeing the links to see where they have come from and whether they are any good - i hope not.

 

I caused a bit of stink when I said if they were authentic, I was reporting them as a security breach (esp. as some of the files had "Secret" happily written on them).

 

The agency I sent the report to didn't get back to me as to whether they were authentic or not (but then again I never expected they would).

 

Edited by Gibsonm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Can you point me to those sources?

Obviously, we'd rather fix our models than to offload that responsibility to our customers.

I will create a separate thread on this in the tactics forum so I do not clutter or sidetrack this thread.  There are many private SB customers that like to research these kind of topics on their own and do not see a burden in that. I myself am glad to maybe help imrove Steel Beasts.

14 hours ago, Grenny said:

One should not confuse most of the files and graphics floating around the internet a 100% credible sources ;-)

 

Given what I see in the SB "game" values: -are each of them correct? No...

                                                             -do they produce correct (or rather ´...sensable) results? yes

I'm happy with SB's armour/weapon/damage model in 9 out of 10 cases.

If there are multiple independent and verifiable sources that point in a different direction, i will most certainly take a second look at my original data if there is a discrepancy.

14 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

 

I think they are from War Thunder / World of Tanks forums and other "authoritative" sources. ;)

 

 

I caused a bit of stink when I said if they were authentic, I was reporting them as a security breach (esp. as some of the files had "Secret" happily written on them).

 

The agency I sent the report to didn't get back to me as to whether they were authentic or not (but then again I never expected they would).

 

Just because the information is posted in other forums does not make the information any less valid if the information is properly sourced. I am also trying to be objective with the information i collect,prepare and present without going into the "muh game/tank/style/opinion/preferences/whatever is/are better than yours" arguments. 

 

Also, the information is over 25 years old, some of which was recently declassified or at least partially declassified. I will not make a big fuss out of any "secret" document unless lives and limbs directly depend on it. It is save to assume that the 'Russians' (or insert any country) are more  or less aware of the range of realistic protection levels of the tanks of other nations.  

Edited by lavictoireestlavie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, lavictoireestlavie said:

If there are multiple independent and verifiable sources that point in a different direction, i will most certainly take a second look at my original data if there is a discrepancy.

I know these sources that are floating around.  None of them are verifiable in a way that they count primary sources.

On the few point where I have access to said primary sources, they are wrong. So maybe there is some truth in some of them...esp. of most german gear and ammo, they are just of the mark.

 

So again, the values SB gives/uses are not "true" in a way to satify the crowd fighting over vehicle stat-cards and "balance"(or other rivet counters). But they produce what IMO is sensable results.

Shooting DM33 at a T80 front should be a frustrating experience...and in SB it is ;-)

Edited by Grenny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Grenny said:

I know these sources that are floating around.  None of them are verifiable in a way that they count primary sources.

On the few point where I have access to said primary sources, they are wrong. So maybe there is some truth in some of them...esp. of most german gear and ammo, they are just of the mark.

 

So again, the values SB gives/uses are not "true" in a way to satify the crowd fighting over vehicle stat-cards and "balance"(or other rivet counters). But they produce what IMO is sensable results.

Shooting DM33 at a T80 front should be a frustrating experience...and in SB it is ;-)

Official documents from national archives will not get much more primary when it comes to sourcing.  As i said earlier, i am looking at the protection schemes of a couple of vehicles that seem to be a bit off if we follow recently revealed sources. I want to address those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some way of reducing the performance hit from smoke and fire effects. Perhaps simply limiting the duration of smoke columns from burning buildings and vehicles (say 10 minutes of full intensity smoke that reduces to a smaller amount, or have the burning building collapse after a short time).

 I know that any wish based on performance is a subjective one, but this is a common issue for many players, and some form of optimisation or workaround would be great.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 18/12/2018 at 12:31 PM, lavictoireestlavie said:

Also, the information is over 25 years old, some of which was recently declassified or at least partially declassified. I will not make a big fuss out of any "secret" document unless lives and limbs directly depend on it. It is save to assume that the 'Russians' (or insert any country) are more  or less aware of the range of realistic protection levels of the tanks of other nations.  

Could relate to the Challenger 1, maybe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/18/2018 at 5:55 PM, lavictoireestlavie said:

Official documents from national archives will not get much more primary when it comes to sourcing.  As i said earlier, i am looking at the protection schemes of a couple of vehicles that seem to be a bit off if we follow recently revealed sources. I want to address those.

 

ikr the M1 Vanilla especially. 

 

Whilst its turret KE protection would be pretty close to those declassified CIA docs ;  only 20-28mm better , its heat protection is around 122-28mm  superior

 

what is certainly very  questionable high . like really, as good as the turret? or better from left and right sides ( 600mm?) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm. This is hypothetical but

 

It would be really nice if in mission editor there would be possibility to use unit type identity that units would know what type they are.  And those could be assigned to choose a route based on what kind of type and or role those are..  like for example ammo, fuel repair, engineer or medic. Or Antitank, Anti-aircraft, FO, Artillery, recon

 

And so when condition on area is true, it could make its way to way-point where it is sort of drained to and then later to next area where its services are necessary. So in a sense medic would know that it is medic and  that would kind of make scenario designer opportunity to make this unit ability to find its way to area where it is needed to based on its type /role. 

 

Quite much similar way as we currently have "low on ammo" " Executing fire mission"  "Carrying bridge / troops"  etc.  

 

It could make possibility to create somewhat smart AI  opponent that would not only engage,  but as well maintain it's forces.  At least in theory that I'm currently visioning and hoping to create

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably not doable/justifiable or it would already have been done, but, along with wrecked versions of vehicles (just a skin showing the vehicle is burned out would be fine), I'd like to see marks on the ground indicating where HE, DPICM etc. have hit, vehicles have burned out etc. I'd also like some wildlife/farm animals and ambient sound like bird, frog and insect calls, where appropriate. I know these are just gilding the lily and have probably been asked for before. Happy New Year, in advance, everyone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

Well you can do this already - just use the Medic's callsign and "embark if the callsign = the medic's one?

That is specific units call sign. only that specific unit would be able to respond to need, and it might not be one closest or available and neither would it make every unit of that type / role to react to that way-point / route condition. Also using call signs makes sense on only very small and object oriented missions. Anything else and there is just too much scripting to do and possibility of error gets ever more likely.

 

With Steelbeast mission editor there is possibility to write very nice and intelligent behavior to units or rather TANKs as it is currently. - Would that be improved so that all units on mission scrip would be able to use same routes for transitions and deviate from "tank" route to location that fits purpose of each different type of unit / role of unit. It would make writing mission far more easy, and more likely error free, and more, better missions could be created for everyone to enjoy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lumituisku said:

That is specific units call sign. only that specific unit would be able to respond to need, and it might not be one closest or available and neither would it make every unit of that type / role to react to that way-point / route condition. Also using call signs makes sense on only very small and object oriented missions. Anything else and there is just too much scripting to do and possibility of error gets ever more likely.

 

With Steelbeast mission editor there is possibility to write very nice and intelligent behavior to units or rather TANKs as it is currently. - Would that be improved so that all units on mission scrip would be able to use same routes for transitions and deviate from "tank" route to location that fits purpose of each different type of unit / role of unit. It would make writing mission far more easy, and more likely error free, and more, better missions could be created for everyone to enjoy.  

Well I tried to keep it simple.

 

If for some reason you have say 5 medic vehicles (I guess "reasons") you can build that into the scripting too.

 

The scripting is not limited to TANKS only - as you imply.

 

If individual callsigns are too restrictive you can also discriminate by vehicle type too.

 

This sort of thing from 5 years ago maybe of help:

 

 

And the resulting file:

 

 

Edited by Gibsonm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It may be useful to define global (nameable) conditions first with which you identify forces (if you have multiple callsigns to work with; remember that you can build cascades of such global conditions), and then reference that top level global condition in the corresponding paths. Not saying that it addresses all your desired changes, but sometimes people forget about this option so it's worth mentioning it here. 

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...