Jump to content
Azure Lion

Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

Recommended Posts

-An additional method of engagement/shell fuze combo ('type of round' in the fire support panel);  HE and DPICM mix, in the same vein as the shake and bake 'HE and Smoke mix' option that's currently present.  

- Basic complement of lines/graphics/TRPs/text that are bound to the "arty overlay" and can therefore be hidden or shown as desired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Breakthrough7 said:

-An additional method of engagement/shell fuze combo ('type of round' in the fire support panel);  HE and DPICM mix, in the same vein as the shake and bake 'HE and Smoke mix' option that's currently present.  
 

Pretty sure that's not feasible in RL on the gun line - one fire unit firing both of those natures. Also I seem to recall (could be wrong) that HE going off in the same place is not the best for the DPICM bomblets.

 

If I'm right (I'll need to check with my Gunner colleagues) then I don't think it should be there - happy to use two fire units though (one firing HE, the other DPICM) to achieve the same result.

 

4 minutes ago, Breakthrough7 said:

- Basic complement of lines/graphics/TRPs/text that are bound to the "arty overlay" and can therefore be hidden or shown as desired.

Can't you already achieve that by the currently classification of that as "information" and just turning that overlay on or off as required?

 

A fourth switch would seem to complicate things (and use up screen real estate)?

Share this post


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

Pretty sure that's not feasible in RL on the gun line - one fire unit firing both of those natures. Also I seem to recall (could be wrong) that HE going off in the same place is not the best for the DPICM bomblets.

 

If I'm right (I'll need to check with my Gunner colleagues) then I don't think it should be there - happy to use two fire units though (one firing HE, the other DPICM) to achieve the same result.

You should definitely check with your gunners, I'd be interested in hearing their excuses about why they might think it's prohibitive.  DPICM has the same ballistic profile as smoke.  For suppression fires DPICM+HE is the most efficient method of engagement, and HE enables better observation of the target area at long range and night.  Re; HE impacts interfering with DPICM functionality,  HE impacting concurrently with DPICM has no more effect on functionality than DPICM impacting concurrently with other DPICM rounds.  

14 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

Can't you already achieve that by the currently classification of that as "information" and just turning that overlay on or off as required?

 

A fourth switch would seem to complicate things (and use up screen real estate)?

You're not tracking me on this.  I'm not suggesting a fourth button.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Breakthrough7 said:

You should definitely check with your gunners, I'd be interested in hearing their excuses about why they might think it's prohibitive.  DPICM has the same ballistic profile as smoke.  For suppression fires DPICM+HE is the most efficient method of engagement, and HE enables better observation of the target area at long range and night.  Re; HE impacts interfering with DPICM functionality,  HE impacting concurrently with DPICM has no more effect on functionality than DPICM impacting concurrently with other DPICM rounds.  

Excuse here(I already asked that question for different reasons): HE and DPICM are different weight class rounds. They need a different firing solution and in extreme cases different charge.

When you want to mix it, best be done by using 2 different firing units and a ToT mission. (that you can do in SB already)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Grenny said:

Excuse here(I already asked that question for different reasons): HE and DPICM are different weight class rounds. They need a different firing solution and in extreme cases different charge.

When you want to mix it, best be done by using 2 different firing units and a ToT mission. (that you can do in SB already)

Ya'll are validating the need for FSOs as FS advisors to maneuver right now.  Requesting a combination of DPICM and HE requires the exact same math/firing solutions as (as I have already mentioned) HE+Smoke.  There is nothing prohibitive about an FO specifying in his Method of Engagement portion of his call for fire a combination of HE and DPICM.  Nothing.  If an individual platoon or section can't service this request, it will be serviced by multiple units and that change will be reflected when the observer receives his MTO.

If this is the Observer's desired shell fuze combo/method of engagement, there is no reason to require the FO to submit two concurrent fire missions in order to satisfy this request.  

Edited by Breakthrough7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Breakthrough7 said:

Ya'll are validating the need for FSOs as FS advisors to maneuver right now.  Requesting a combination of DPICM and HE requires the exact same math/firing solutions as (as I have already mentioned) HE+Smoke.  There is nothing prohibitive about an FO specifying in his Method of Engagement portion of his call for fire a combination of HE and DPICM.  Nothing.  If an individual platoon or section can't service this request, it will be serviced by multiple units and that change will be reflected when the observer receives his MTO.

If this is the Observer's desired shell fuze combo/method of engagement, there is no reason to require the FO to submit two concurrent fire missions in order to satisfy this request.  

True and needed if you really want to model artillery working.

As of now SB's arty menue is a kind of mix between what a combat unit leader and an FO would send as order/request.

Ideal would be :

- grids

-type of target

- target size

- desired effect

...then SB's "AI" would pick the best rounds and fire modes to get the job done...or would tell me to f*ck off when requesting "supress for 15" (I know, wishful thinking)

Or, if you have an FO...you should be able to set all the variables as in your request.

Edited by Grenny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Breakthrough7 said:

You're not tracking me on this.  I'm not suggesting a fourth button.

 

I'm sorry but how else do you achieve:

1 hour ago, Breakthrough7 said:

- Basic complement of lines/graphics/TRPs/text that are bound to the "arty overlay" and can therefore be hidden or shown as desired.

 

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Gibsonm  Right now the only graphics bound to the Arty Overlay are the boxes that represent Fire Missions.  So when you flip that overlay off, the only thing you're turning off are the red fire mission boxes.  I'm suggesting that an additional category of Fire Support graphic (lines/text/TRPs) be created here:
FSOVERLAY.jpg.6a3bad498c1232c77c2c4c821ca38a98.jpg

And exist subordinate to the Arty Overlay, in order that extensive and cumbersome fire support plans can be made, and displayed, as the student/player/teacher requires, without clogging up the maneuver overlay.  A commander, or FSO may want to see the full gambit of graphics representing FSCMs, fire missions, trigger points, etc, but this information may be irrelevant and even interfere with others' map reading.

Edited by Breakthrough7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Crew-able Chieftain and Scorpion tanks would open up some nice British cold war scenario possibilities... and i suppose the older British infantry models/uniforms would be cool too, while youre at it ;)

Edited by Bond_Villian

Share this post


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

and i suppose the older British infantry models/uniforms would be cool too, while youre at it ;)

 

Well you can fit them out with SLRs and DPM now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in my office at work I have the misfortune to work with x 3 Ex SMIGs (Sergeant Major Instructor Gunnery) from the British Army. One of the main limitations of using bomblet is if your friendly forces are intending on occupying there ground where the Fire Mission landed. Although the bomblet is designed to self detonate after a specific time there is a very high % failure in this and can therefore pose a significant danger to your own Troops. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, IrishHussar said:

So in my office at work I "am blessed to be graced by the inspiring presence of three former Disciples of Death" (Sergeant Major Instructor Gunnery) from the British Army. One of the main limitations of using bomblet is if your friendly forces are intending on occupying there ground where the Fire Mission landed. Although the bomblet is designed to self detonate after a specific time there is a very high % failure in this and can therefore pose a significant danger to your own Troops. 

They're correct.  DPICM submunitions have a 15 percent dud rate and are therefore banned by most civilized countries and signatories to the 2008 convention on cluster munitions.  It has the potential to create a low density minefield wherever it's used.  We didn't sign up to the treaty in the US, but we did, under Bush implement policy that, for a decade, sought to essentially ban it's use, but more accurately aimed to reduce our 1.5 million round stockpile, while seeking replacement warheads that could achieve a less than 1 percent sub-munition dud rate.  That policy has, for better or worse, since been softened, by our current administration, in response to a changing geo-political landscape and our failure to find suitable substitutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

Well you can fit them out with SLRs and DPM now.

Not really, unless you mean i can choose IL or some african nation camo scheme that carries the SLR? Then the vehicles have IL or some african nation paintjobs... and the dudes dont look like this;

image.thumb.png.4903fa5d93340f8c7c398d8a707b2ded.png

Edited by Bond_Villian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Wishlist; the option to select a nation code in the 'set look of carried troops' panel (shown here) would be very handy for scenario designers. Ie; someone wishing represent UK troops with an infantry model that carries an SLR could select the UK camouflage scheme (determining the vehicle appearance), then modify the (mounted only) troops appearance to that of a nation that carries the SLR (such as ZA, also shown here) and with some skin mods and the requisite amount of squinting, pass this guy off as an early cold-war UK rifleman.

OR

The addition of 70's UK infantry models and skins, akin to the USSR and 70's US options currently in the game.

 

SS_14_41_01.thumb.jpg.33e12956d275fba69f08d98b60fa377a.jpgSS_14_46_10.thumb.jpg.3f476ea9979acddb751d219d37b51796.jpg

Edited by Bond_Villian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Map Editor

  1. Overlay Management. Would like to make maps as realistic as possible, in some cases. (I'm not interested in 3rd party software)
  2. Copy/Paste Assets. Let me copy and paste the structures that I place. This would save so much time, and allow uses to create templates for towns/cities/villages, etc
  3. More Expansive 3d Models. Generally, more models would be great, but what I'd love to see is the need to place every individual building replaced with larger consolidated 3d models. Using the image below as an example: This would be one 3d model that could be placed in the editor, rather than having to place 8 single buildings. There can be more detail added, in terms of art. Infantry would still occupy certain positions. It would also significantly reduce the need to hand-place walls, tree's, phone lines,  and other small decor items.

city_block_tbn_04.pngde792ca8-3ff1-4313-

 

Or imagine this?

city-town-kc10-3d-model-low-poly-max-obj

 

Or this

desert-town-3d-model-obj-mtl.jpg

Edited by Apocalypse 31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a row of workplan items going in that direction. It's just, whatever cool idea we have, it's wading through molasses to get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ssnake said:

There's a row of workplan items going in that direction

3d blocks?

 

1 minute ago, Ssnake said:

It's just, whatever cool idea we have

The best projects come to fruition when people are allowed to wander. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You still need someone to set the general direction in which to wander. Most successful game designs come from dictators wearing soft gloves. Also, working from a clean slate is infinitely easier than being burdened with a legacy of 20 years and the promise of backwards-compatibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another thing is the insensitivity or over sensitivity when placing and orienting the direction of objects- often the system won't detect the user is trying to grab one type of object placed next to another- e.g., if a wall is placed closed to building, the map editor seems to give priority to the building to grab rather than the wall to select and change shape, manipulate, re-arrange and so forth. on the other hand, when doing something like manipulating a wall- say moving it a few meters, sometimes the system 'reads' a different intent into and will collapse or expand or spin the wall or do something other than what the user is attempting- a lot of time can be spent when trying to refine the placement shape or movement of objects because the user is fighting the interface, or at least that is what i've experienced.

 

the map editor generally is still similar to the steel beasts ver. 1.xx era when there were only two building types, two or three tree types, a bush, one road, one water and a handful of terrain tile types. map creation was relatively fast at the time for that reason- it is because some many more objects have been added to the editor where the possible options to create much more detailed maps has exceeded the tool. i agree that this is an area that could use a more sophisticated approach to facilitate the user's intentions for the main reason that one of the biggest points about steel beasts is its open sandbox style of scenario and map generation at its core. i don't know if this means some of more powerful CAD like creation tools, but this area if improved would be a great boon for the consumer market (i have no idea what the mil customers are up to and what their priorities are though)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had several attempts to improve the Map Editor, trying to outsource the work to third party tools. The idea was sound as we were short on manpower and it seemed to pay off at moments, but for a variety of reasons it didn't work out in the end, which of course set us back with the Editor by several years. So, yes, we're aware of the need to do something about it. It's just, fate doesn't seem to be done with testing our resolve yet. :o

Share this post


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

It's just, fate doesn't seem to be done with testing our resolve yet.

I hope you guys get a chance to re-prioritize the Map Editor. It is an incredibly powerful tool that helps generate new community content, which creates more mission content, which generates more buzz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The IT-1 

The T-62 based Missile Tank.

(You did open the door with the "T-14 Armata" / M1 TTB)

Share this post


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

The IT-1 

The T-62 based Missile Tank.

(You did open the door with the "T-14 Armata" / M1 TTB)

 

Crew-able M1TTB, even if using an "ersatz" interior or no interior at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Maj.Hans said:

an "ersatz" interior or no interior at all.

I'm probably one of the few who doesn't care about interiors. I never spend any time looking at anything inside anyway.

 

I'd gladly take the generic, ingame RWS reticle sight as a filler for our non crewable equipment, especially helicopters.

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...