Jump to content
Azure Lion

Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

Recommended Posts

Well, theres a few things I'd like to see, assuming there was time.

1. A playable IPM1, even if it re-uses the existing M1 or the M1A1 3D model. I think the only thing thats "wrong" on the M1A1 model is the 120mm gun instead of the thinner 105mm tube. I like the 105mm gunned M1 we already have, I just wish I could get the up-armor model!

2. The ability to load MPAT or M908 OR-T in the 3rd and 4th ammo slots on the Abrams to supplement rather than replace HEAT. I understand that the MPAT was used in addition to the normal HEAT rounds on the Abrams during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and I expect the M908 round would be deployed in a very similar way.

3. Some more (AI) T-Tanks to destroy! I think a T-64A would be a great add on for the pre T-80 era, and maybe also a T-72BV or something similar, but naturally I don't expect you guys would have the time or the resources to make those playable, so I'll settle for blowing them up.

4. The ability to fire a weapon from the mounted squad-leader view for vehicles where it's possible to have the troops fight from a mounted position, perhaps in a similar manner to the way the M2HBs can be fired from the hatch of the HMMWV and M113. I know this is probably not something that would be used as a training aid, but it might make for some good multi-player play.

Similarly, for tanks fitted with a loader's MG, either the ability to order the loader up to engage with his MG, or the ability to man the gun ourselves, but I guess this should probably be very low priority as I imagine actually employing that weapon would be pretty rare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. A playable IPM1, even if it re-uses the existing M1 or the M1A1 3D model. I think the only thing thats "wrong" on the M1A1 model is the 120mm gun instead of the thinner 105mm tube. I like the 105mm gunned M1 we already have, I just wish I could get the up-armor model!

There are more differences.

In fact there are 3 types of turrets used.

Type 1 used on M1, Type 2 used on M1IP that have thicker front armor, but for example blow off panels are same as on M1, and Type 3 used in M1A1 and M1A2 with thicker front armor and different blow off panels.

So I do noth think it is just so easy to add new tank as something fully playable. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I requested it before, but with Ssnake participating in this post a lot lately, I think I can try again.

- Crewable M-60.

Thats it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are more differences.

In fact there are 3 types of turrets used.

Type 1 used on M1, Type 2 used on M1IP that have thicker front armor, but for example blow off panels are same as on M1, and Type 3 used in M1A1 and M1A2 with thicker front armor and different blow off panels.

So I do noth think it is just so easy to add new tank as something fully playable. ;)

Fortunately, as the blow off panels aren't really visible in the game, I don't think it would make too much of a difference.

I'm willing to accept a few "wrong" bits here and there in order to get it in the game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, one more thing, if possible.

I'd like a way to tell the gunner and driver to keep doing their thing when I hop up on the .50 cal in the M1's. I don't always actually intend on engaging something with it. Sometimes I just want to put out some suppressing fire on infantry real quick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, one more thing, if possible.

I'd like a way to tell the gunner and driver to keep doing their thing when I hop up on the .50 cal in the M1's. I don't always actually intend on engaging something with it. Sometimes I just want to put out some suppressing fire on infantry real quick.

Seconded for the Centauro, ASLAV & NZLAV

and maybe a button to stop the gunner from wildly swinging the turret about for a few seconds

(lining up a shot etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seconded for the Centauro, ASLAV & NZLAV

and maybe a button to stop the gunner from wildly swinging the turret about for a few seconds

(lining up a shot etc)

Not qualified to comment about the Centauro but I find the ASLAV main gun an excellent infantry killer when loaded with HEAT. It's possible to get 3 or 4 per shot. And, of course, you can still drive the tank from the gunner's seat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3. Some more (AI) T-Tanks to destroy! I think a T-64A would be a great add on for the pre T-80 era, and maybe also a T-72BV or something similar, but naturally I don't expect you guys would have the time or the resources to make those playable, so I'll settle for blowing them up.

I second this. I would love to see some contemporary OPFOR tanks such as late T-72B (with Kontakt-1 or Kontakt-5 ERA) and/or T-90A included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have another request/question, I don't remember if I've mentioned it before, forgive me if I have, but in order to make the variety of wheeled ATGM carriers bigger, and also give them a bigger erhm....punch, would it be possible to add the LAV TUA? There is already quite a variety of LAV hulls in the sim and the launcher is now already modelled on the M-113 ITV, so, at least seen through my layman eyes, this wouldn't pose too big a work load / ressource issue to the next upgrade, would it? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I second this. I would love to see some contemporary OPFOR tanks such as late T-72B (with Kontakt-1 or Kontakt-5 ERA) and/or T-90A included.

I'd love to see T-72B playable or even T-72BM (that one with ERA I think).

Damian90 showed me a picture of the T-72B's 'Doly Parton' composite armor. Looked very tough to defeat. This way if it's made playable it should even out the playing field a little bit more for the Red in MP though I will probably not be playing MP. Kontakt 5 era would be interesting as it seems to help to protect against KE penetrators.

But then again the T-72M4 with upgraded fire control system should be very interesting too if made playable just to get a feel how the T-72 would perform with more sophisticated fore control system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see a T-72M4, if only to have a modernized version of the vehicle to shoot with.

A T-72S might be fun too :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, theres a few things I'd like to see, assuming there was time.

1. A playable IPM1, even if it re-uses the existing M1 or the M1A1 3D model. I think the only thing thats "wrong" on the M1A1 model is the 120mm gun instead of the thinner 105mm tube. I like the 105mm gunned M1 we already have, I just wish I could get the up-armor model!

2. The ability to load MPAT or M908 OR-T in the 3rd and 4th ammo slots on the Abrams to supplement rather than replace HEAT. I understand that the MPAT was used in addition to the normal HEAT rounds on the Abrams during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and I expect the M908 round would be deployed in a very similar way.

3. Some more (AI) T-Tanks to destroy! I think a T-64A would be a great add on for the pre T-80 era, and maybe also a T-72BV or something similar, but naturally I don't expect you guys would have the time or the resources to make those playable, so I'll settle for blowing them up.

4. The ability to fire a weapon from the mounted squad-leader view for vehicles where it's possible to have the troops fight from a mounted position, perhaps in a similar manner to the way the M2HBs can be fired from the hatch of the HMMWV and M113. I know this is probably not something that would be used as a training aid, but it might make for some good multi-player play.

Similarly, for tanks fitted with a loader's MG, either the ability to order the loader up to engage with his MG, or the ability to man the gun ourselves, but I guess this should probably be very low priority as I imagine actually employing that weapon would be pretty rare.

Heh, I remember one of the reasons why we never got a playable T-72M1 in the first place was that people would start asking for more playable T-80's and T-64's. That prediction seems to be coming true.

But not matter what...

Yes a playable IPM1, T-72B, M60 and computer controlled T-64A, T-64B or T-64BV to fill the missing pieces.

I third (or fourth?) this! :)

Oh, one more thing, if possible.

I'd like a way to tell the gunner and driver to keep doing their thing when I hop up on the .50 cal in the M1's. I don't always actually intend on engaging something with it. Sometimes I just want to put out some suppressing fire on infantry real quick.

Same, sometimes the gunner moves around to much.

I presume they have a lot to do currently but hopefully we'll see these things at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heh, I remember one of the reasons why we never got a playable T-72M1 in the first place was that people would start asking for more playable T-80's and T-64's. That prediction seems to be coming true.

But not matter what...

Yes a playable IPM1, T-72B, M60 and computer controlled T-64A, T-64B or T-64BV to fill the missing pieces.

I third (or fourth?) this! :)

Same, sometimes the gunner moves around to much.

I presume they have a lot to do currently but hopefully we'll see these things at some point.

Actually, I'd be more than happy just to have them as AI only units...

I just want them so I can blow them up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As AI unit I'd think T-90 is the most urgent I'd think.

Personally I'd love it if SB Pro PE would include more RED(Russian) tanks. The thing is that would make very interesting online match. The T-72 is lovely and I enjoy playing it very much. There's some sort of beauty in the ugliness of the frugal and spartan T-72...but to make online matches more interesting playable T-80 and or T-90 would be great just to see how they would compare in online player vs player matches. There is no replacement to human opponent.

As for the fear of us asking for more Russian tanks, well, I'd think it's a matter of selling a product which in this case in the form of upgrades. I'm sure the player base would straight away buy an upgrade that would include Russian playable tank. Even defense agencies would appreciate it too having able to conduct human vs human exercise with SB Pro on a more level playing field(with the introduction of more sophisticated Russian tanks, be it upgraded T-55, upgraded/modernized T-72 or T-90 and T-80).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, on the subject of the Russian tanks, as the T-90 is little more than a re-branded T-72, I'd be perfectly happy to get some more T-72 versions with Kontakt1 and 2 to give us a little variety in the armor we're up against.

As for making them playable, while I'm sure we'd all love to see accurately modeled interriors and FCS, I guess some of that information isn't available.

I will say that, for the purposes of having more OPFOR variety, I'd be perfectly happy to see that the T-72/80/90/64/etc were made playable even with an incorrect interrior or "best guess" optics and fire control.

But still, I'd also be perfectly happy just having more stuff to blow up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_--__[]KITT;218177']Even defense agencies would appreciate it too having able to conduct human vs human exercise with SB Pro on a more level playing field(with the introduction of more sophisticated Russian tanks' date=' be it upgraded T-55, upgraded/modernized T-72 or T-90 and T-80).[/quote']

Sorry to disappoint you but we certainly would not be interested in paying for it.

Our focus is to train our guys on our kit, not a possible OPFOR's.

The time spent getting people up to speed on a different vehicle is time the tax payer would, I'm certain, prefer we spend on gaining an extra per cent of proficiency on our own.

That's on top of what it would cost us to get eSim to model the thing to begin with.

More than happy with AI controlled versions.

Now if you want to pay I don't know $300 per vehicle [to pluck a figure] "add on" kit (so $300 for a T-64, $300 for a T-90, etc.) then that's up to you but I suspect that would be the pricing of such kits without someone's Defence Dept underwriting it.

Its certainly not going to be $9.95 per vehicle. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say that, for the purposes of having more OPFOR variety, I'd be perfectly happy to see that the T-72/80/90/64/etc were made playable even with an incorrect interrior or "best guess" optics and fire control.

Hmm I'd prefer no interior at all than an inaccurate one....

Sorry to disappoint you but we certainly would not be interested in paying for it.

Our focus is to train our guys on our kit, not a possible OPFOR's.

The time spent getting people up to speed on a different vehicle is time the tax payer would, I'm certain, prefer we spend on gaining an extra per cent of proficiency on our own.

That's on top of what it would cost us to get eSim to model the thing to begin with.

More than happy with AI controlled versions.

Now if you want to pay I don't know $300 per vehicle [to pluck a figure] "add on" kit (so $300 for a T-64, $300 for a T-90, etc.) then that's up to you but I suspect that would be the pricing of such kits without someone's Defence Dept underwriting it.

Its certainly not going to be $9.95 per vehicle. :)

Ah I see, I can't see why it would cost so much adding playable....A trip to say Poland to study a modernized T-72 how much would it cost assuming they could get their hands to study the modernized T-72....

Then that cost is going to be divided among the potential buyers. I just can't see how and why a single additional playable tank would cost us PE player 300 bucks...it's not like eSim had to buy the tank :biggrin: an dis the community so small? In comparison if you bought Blackshark Ka-50 study sim with very high fidelity it would only cost more or less a single SB Pro PE upgrade for a high fidelity study sim Ka-50(a single playable)

Additionally what do defense agencies use SB Pro for? and how do they use it? Fully simulated with tank interior and gears or just a control devices plugged into PC monitor. If it is the later I'd think they are using SB Pro to train in tactics and reaction times than mere familiarization. In that sense it would be an immense improvement to have human opponent using [some] Russian tanks which they are widely exported and likely to be met in future battlefield. If you think them as crap just increase their numbers and have all of them manned by people(it doesn't have to real tanker to man them, so no time wasted on useless tank to train in), that should rather substantially increase their threat. Hey the US airforce got their own red team to train with, though they seem to be mainly using US aircraft :)

Sure you can train with(against) other blue tanks too though. Perhaps the Leopard 2A4 would make safe substitute. But would it give a pretty reliable picture of what ifs? Sun Tzu said knowing your enemy is a big part of winning. Knowing what a human manned T-72 can and cannot do could save lives. For example RogueSnake I heard is one hell of T-72 player. You can't get such impression of the same T-72 if it had been an AI.

Moreover I seem to be convinced eSim got all their data from openly available sources so there's no need to pay access to secret stuffs if you could pay for them.

In the end I'm just posting a personal opinion on the matter, just in case anyone didn't realize it as an opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_--__[]KITT;218180']Ah I see' date=' I can't see why it would cost so much adding playable....A trip to say Poland to study a modernized T-72 how much would it cost assuming they could get their hands to study the modernized T-72....

Then that cost is going to be divided among the potential buyers. I just can't see how and why a single additional playable tank would cost us PE player 300 bucks...it's not like eSim had to buy the tank :biggrin: an dis the community so small?.[/quote']

Well it costs us LOTS ($XXX,XXX.XX +) to get say an ASLAV done.

$XXX,XXX.XX divided by maybe 200 people who want to buy the "add on" (not everyone will) works out at what per person?

_--__[]KITT;218180']Additionally what do defense agencies use SB Pro for? and how do they use it? Fully simulated with tank interior and gears or just a control devices plugged into PC monitor. If it is the later I'd think they are using SB Pro to train in tactics and reaction times. In that sense it would be an immense improvement to have human opponent using [some] Russian tanks which they are widely exported and likely to be met in future battlefield. If you think them as crap just increase their numbers and have all of them manned by people(it doesn't have to real tanker to man them' date=' so no time wasted on useless tank to train in), that should rather substantially increase their threat.[/quote']

All sorts of stuff. A search will help you here.

So now you don't want to convert someone who knows a bit but start from scratch with a civilian to man this vehicle. How does that make it:

1. Cheaper

2. More realistic / challenging.

_--__[]KITT;218180']Moreover I seem to be convinced eSim got all their data from openly available sources so there's no need to pay access to secret stuffs if you could pay for them.

Um sorry but normally you don't get access to "SECRET" data by paying for it - that's called spying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well it costs us LOTS ($XXX,XXX.XX +) to get say an ASLAV done.

$XXX,XXX.XX divided by maybe 200 people who want to buy the "add on" (not everyone will) works out at what per person?

Ah that's a lot of money.....for a single playable....I guess SB Pro isn't really catering to the casual and developing cost has little to do with the tag(I'm assuming). Who paid for the T-72M in the game? I don't think it was released on a loss was it?

All sorts of stuff. A search will help you here.

So now you don't want to convert someone who knows a bit but start from scratch with a civilian to man this vehicle. How does that make it:

1. Cheaper

2. More realistic / challenging.

Hmm I don't think using civilian trained in Red doctrine and how to operate the T-72 in game would be such a complicated matter, I mean we all can jump into T-72, us civilians. But yeah probably have to pay them :biggrin: unless they are forced prison labor from China :biggrin:

Would it be such a time waster to know what the opponent tank could and couldn't do(capabilities) if not a 2 hour session with some manning the Russian tanks by rotation shouldn't be such a time waster.

But I guess with no foreseen large tank Vs tank battle in the near future and the West's confidence that their tanks are superior to that of any potential enemy, both in quality and even numbers, there's little reason to change from fighting against AI

Um sorry but normally you don't get access to "SECRET" data by paying for it - that's called spying.

Hehehe I know just saying Esim didn't need a privilege access in making a playable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_--__[]KITT;218183']But I guess with no foreseen large tank Vs tank battle in the near future and the West's confidence that their tanks are superior to that of any potential enemy' date=' both in quality and even numbers, there's little reason to change from fighting against AI.[/quote']

Well at the important level (unit and above) those individual skills balance out.

That's why when we use SB to train commanders, the AI controls both sides and the leaders are tested on their plans (not so much their individual crew skills).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well at the important level (unit and above) those individual skills balance out.

That's why when we use SB to train commanders, the AI controls both sides and the leaders are tested on their plans (not so much their individual crew skills).

Hehehe yeah I suspected that too, to train Commanders. But I thought the tanks would be manned. I guess using AI for both teams is more objective and more practical than using all human crewed vehicles for both teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it just means that to assess 1 x Major I don't need 120+ other people in the room at the same time.

They can be off doing their own training.

Having said they we will often run a virtual exercise where the soldiers fill their real roles at computers but without going off the base.

A M1 tank costs about $1,000 per Km to run so its doesn't take long to recoup those costs in terms of PCs, etc.

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...