Jump to content

Steel Beasts: Content Wish List


Azure Lion

Recommended Posts

The ability for infantry or engineers to lay AT mines and set up claymores in game. 

Infantry that duck when shot at, displace when out of sight and pop up somewhere else and generally make realistic use of cover and concealment.

The option of more clutter (when smaller map areas selected) for infantry to hide behind in or under.

Edited by ChrisWerb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When infantry encounter obstacles that they wont move through such as minefields, they just stop, and the route given to them vanishes. Perhaps the route should stay and flash red like it does for other obstructed routes (nice new feature!). As it is currently, the user doesnt get any feedback as to why his units arent moving, or why the route is vanishing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 11/13/2019 at 5:50 AM, Bond_Villian said:

When infantry encounter obstacles that they wont move through such as minefields, they just stop, and the route given to them vanishes. Perhaps the route should stay and flash red like it does for other obstructed routes (nice new feature!). As it is currently, the user doesnt get any feedback as to why his units arent moving, or why the route is vanishing.

Same happens to scout tactics when contact is made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Bond_Villian said:

You can sort of do that with a computer controlled apache gunship flying offmap, if the map size isnt too big

Thats the point of it. Gunships, understandably, are just half simulated and are effectively a fraction as survivable. After all, its a tank sim training tool and not an attack helo flight simulator. To be able to script their actions is a way of simplifying things just like off-map artillery or the already modeled air strike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

3D world mission replays in the AAR debriefing, or at least a way of importing them into Tacview?

I understand the replay filesizes would probably be big but if IL-2 and DCS can do it, why not Steel Beasts?

Edited by 3xLeo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 3xLeo said:

3D world mission replays in the AAR debriefing, or at least a way of importing them into Tacview?

I understand the replay filesizes would probably be big but if IL-2 and DCS can do it, why not Steel Beasts?

You do know there is a 3D world option to look at events?

 

The map view is the default.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 3xLeo said:

3D world mission replays in the AAR debriefing, or at least a way of importing them into Tacview?

I understand the replay filesizes would probably be big but if IL-2 and DCS can do it, why not Steel Beasts?

As Gibson says, there is the option to view 3D world events in the AAR, and its also possible to view the 'non events' also (stuff moving around, reloading etc), but not in realtime like some other games do. I suppose the reasons for this probably related to filesize, and probably also because there isnt a demand for it from military customers/its not necessary. Having realtime 3D AAR would be cool though, you could make some nice videos with it.

Edited by Bond_Villian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some "In an ideal world" wishes:

1. I understand the reason why infantry can only use their 40mm UGLs by direct player control, but I'd like to see an "Enable autonomous use of GLs" option. Furthermore I'd like: 

2. The ability to dictate the scale of issue of GLs per infantry section/squad selectable from 0-3.

3. The ability to choose whether squad GLs are single or six shot or better still the number of each.

4. Ammo selection for GLs to include HEDP

5. Rifle grenades - somewhat more powerful but less accurate and shorter ranged than 40mm, but with more effect - selectable in ratio of HE-FRAG, HEAT and smoke. Numbers to be selectable per rifleman equipped with rifle or carbine capable of launching rifle grenades and not already equipped with a UGL.

6. Ability to have more than one type of AT weapon per section/squad (four if counting 40mm HEDP, HEAT rifle grenade, LAW and MAW).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something we are lacking is western IFVs and APcs with ATGW mounted on them. American and Soviet/Russian vehicles tend to have this. I know a demountable MILAN launcher on the Marder has been asked for a lot and I would love to see that, but I would also like to see RWS that can handle them given the option of Javelin and/or Spike launchers and, for the RWS to be enabled to fit the CV90 series vehicles and perhaps the Ulhan/Pizarro. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who would love to see the Puma modelled as a playable vehicle, but I understand that may not be the highest priority at the moment.

As a PS, I don't think Javelin is currently an option for the MB3000 or Vector and I would really like to see it added. It would also be great to see the option of current upgraded launcher for TOW and JAVELIN that feature position generation capabilities akin to JIM-LR, much better night vision.  In the case of the JAVELIN, range seems to be dependent on the launcher/CLU optics. British trials of vehicle launched Javelin have allegedly attained ranges well in excess of 2.5km and a test at Eglin AFB reached 4.75 Km. According to Fox News(!) the new lightweight CLU destined for LRIP in 2021 will give infantry Javelins a range of 4.5km. It will also have the target locating and network capabilities of the latest, in service, tow ground and vehicle launchers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another tiny change that would make a big difference. Have commanders choose kinetic rather than chemical energy main gun rounds when targeting HAPCs/HIFVs like the BMP-Armata T-15. Effectively classify them as tanks rather than PCs. At the moment they switch from fin to HEAT which is next to useless against the T-15 with centre mass aim. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, ChrisWerb said:

Another tiny change that would make a big difference. Have commanders choose kinetic rather than chemical energy main gun rounds when targeting HAPCs/HIFVs like the BMP-Armata T-15. Effectively classify them as tanks rather than PCs. At the moment they switch from fin to HEAT which is next to useless against the T-15 with centre mass aim. 

From 3km away, in poor weather, using only early gen TIS, I guess itd be quite difficult to ID and classify a HIFV from an IFV, or even an APC from a house.

Check footages from the Gulf War, where apache gunners were having a hard time figuring the example above!

 

I think first we should wish for a more in-depth simulation of thermal imaging systems.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stormrider_sp said:

From 3km away, in poor weather, using only early gen TIS, I guess itd be quite difficult to ID and classify a HIFV from an IFV, or even an APC from a house.

Check footages from the Gulf War, where apache gunners were having a hard time figuring the example above!

 

I think first we should wish for a more in-depth simulation of thermal imaging systems.

 

I'd argue that the T-15 is a highly distinctive looking vehicle and that most times you open fire at way less than 3km with an MBT main gun.  It is also entering service long after many western vehicles upgraded from 1st Gen or they entered service after later TI generations became standard. I do take your point about IDing vehicles though I think you can at least tell if something is "tank derived" reasonably reliably if in the open at a fair distance from most angles.

Edited by ChrisWerb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ChrisWerb said:

I'd argue that the T-15 is a highly distinctive looking vehicle and that most times you open fire at way less than 3km with an MBT main gun.  It is also entering service long after many western vehicles upgraded from 1st Gen or they entered service after later TI generations became standard. I do take your point about IDing vehicles though I think you can at least tell if something is "tank derived" reasonably reliably if in the open at a fair distance from most angles.

I'd argue that statistically, most times modern MBTs engaged each other were in open desert spaces at distances between 2 and 3.5km.

Edited by stormrider_sp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

How likely is it to encounter a BMP T-15 in an open desert environment?

 

Not saying that it's inconceivable, just that your statistics may not apply. In fact, the more high-res terrain databases we'll have in SB Pro over time, I suspect that the average engagement ranges may decrease significantly. If you remember the first video of the high-res terrain engine that we published in 2016, if you use the same terrain with a 12.5m grid rather than 78cm, engagement ranges can drop from 1500...2200m (depending on the location) to - on average! - under 500m. Micro variations in the terrain (such as sand dunes) will play a big role in some cases (not so much in others). It appears to me that this effect is somewhat underestimated/overlooked simply because for a good while the necessary data and the technology to utilize them for quantitative statistical analysis simply wasn't available. Now that it is, we'll discover new things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ssnake said:

How likely is it to encounter a BMP T-15 in an open desert environment?

 

Not saying that it's inconceivable, just that your statistics may not apply. In fact, the more high-res terrain databases we'll have in SB Pro over time, I suspect that the average engagement ranges may decrease significantly. If you remember the first video of the high-res terrain engine that we published in 2016, if you use the same terrain with a 12.5m grid rather than 78cm, engagement ranges can drop from 1500...2200m (depending on the location) to - on average! - under 500m. Micro variations in the terrain (such as sand dunes) will play a big role in some cases (not so much in others). It appears to me that this effect is somewhat underestimated/overlooked simply because for a good while the necessary data and the technology to utilize them for quantitative statistical analysis simply wasn't available. Now that it is, we'll discover new things.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. I meant that statistically (in the real world), most modern MBTs engagements happened in open desert and/or large distances: Gulf War (largest american tank battles in history: Medina Ridge, 73 Easting, Battle of Norfolk...), Yom Kippur War (Sinai and even Golan); as compared to the short ranges of the european cold war that never went hot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/21/2019 at 8:05 AM, ChrisWerb said:

I know a demountable MILAN launcher on the Marder has been asked for a lot and I would love to see that

I would be QUITE happy if we were given the choice in the scenario builder to pick between "Marder 1A3" and "Marder 1A3 Milan" and it was simply thrown in as a separate vehicle.  It would be NICE to be able to mount and dismount the Milan but more often than not I find myself wishing it was mounted, or cursing up and down that my infantry have, once again, set my launcher up inside a shrubbery.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...