Jump to content
Azure Lion

Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Hedgehog said:

"Porting over" the callsign selection menu would be my suggestion

 

Sorry you lost me. How does this (and you can already change call signs via the template - 1-4 Platoons use US callsigns, 5 - 10 use UK, etc.) impact the camouflage pattern used?

 

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ssnake said:

I'll call Rheinmetall on Monday, if they want us as a competitor for all simulators involving vehicles with their Lance turret. I have a good feeling about this.

😃

😂Cool!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As i understand it, for obvious reasons, the game will have more and more new modern equipment. Especially lightly armored vehicles 
And for the armaments of the Cold War of the Arab-Israeli Iran-Iraq wars will be less attention In those days, of course, operations were planned and carried out using large tank units There were many battles tanks against tanks
But if the goal is to create the realities of modern combat, then it is simply necessary to improve the infantry AI, because all these lightly armored are not at all assigned to battle with heavy tanks. Their main opponent is infantry and not in an open field but in shelters, in trenches in buildings.
So I think the main thing is to improve realism in this aspect It would be nice if the infantry ceased to be a group of suicides, knew how to use trench and shelters, and buildings
About the same can be said about helicopters. Their AI also has a tendency to suicide.
Also, the interaction of high-explosive fragmentation shells with soil or with elements of fortification and others buildings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Liudas32 said:

As i understand it, for obvious reasons, the game will have more and more new modern equipment. Especially lightly armored vehicles 
And for the armaments of the Cold War of the Arab-Israeli Iran-Iraq wars will be less attention In those days, of course, operations were planned and carried out using large tank units There were many battles tanks against tanks
But if the goal is to create the realities of modern combat, then it is simply necessary to improve the infantry AI, because all these lightly armored are not at all assigned to battle with heavy tanks. Their main opponent is infantry and not in an open field but in shelters, in trenches in buildings.
So I think the main thing is to improve realism in this aspect It would be nice if the infantry ceased to be a group of suicides, knew how to use trench and shelters, and buildings
About the same can be said about helicopters. Their AI also has a tendency to suicide.
Also, the interaction of high-explosive fragmentation shells with soil or with elements of fortification and others buildings

Infantry?

They do use bunkers and buildings? If the scenario designer puts the infantry in a wrong position, its not the fault of the "AI"...

 

Helicopters?

SB has no real flight model and ECM suits for the Helicopters. That makes them more vulnerable then they would be IRL.

They should be better at picking battle/firing positions. But "suicidal" they are not...only if given stupid commands by players/sce designers.

Edited by Grenny

Share this post


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

 

Sorry you lost me. How does this (and you can already change call signs via the template - 1-4 Platoons use US callsigns, 5 - 10 use UK, etc.) impact the camouflage pattern used?

 

Directly?

It doesn't.

 

Indirectly?

I'm saying why not use the same process used for picking call sign templates, as for selecting "limited issue" camo patterns (the new feature being suggested)

 

The idea being the Call sign and "limited issue camo" share the same dialog box, when defining who uses what call sign template / camo pattern.

 

Hey everyone, go back to the beginning of the thread is a good way of seeing how far SB has progressed 🙂

Edited by Hedgehog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2020 at 7:04 PM, Grenny said:

Infantry?

They do use bunkers and buildings? If the scenario designer puts the infantry in a wrong position, its not the fault of the "AI"...

 

Helicopters?

SB has no real flight model and ECM suits for the Helicopters. That makes them more vulnerable then they would be IRL.

They should be better at picking battle/firing positions. But "suicidal" they are not...only if given stupid commands by players/sce designers.

And what command should be given to the infantry so that the soldiers keep their positions behind the fence and not in front of it? Yes, if the infantry in the mission sits in one place and stupidly holds one point, it’s still somehow possible, but if you try to maneuver to change positions, to put it mildly, it turns out badly
A bunker that does not even protect against a machine gun is not even a bunker at all, but an imitation of a bunker
The same goes for infantry attempts to hold positions in buildings
So here I can’t assume that the creator of scenario is to blame for everything or that he does not know how to give commands correctly
As for helicopters, I don’t think it’s impossible to teach them to use their weapons correctly or to give them an active defense system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Liudas32 said:

And what command should be given to the infantry so that the soldiers keep their positions behind the fence and not in front of it? Yes, if the infantry in the mission sits in one place and stupidly holds one point, it’s still somehow possible, but if you try to maneuver to change positions, to put it mildly, it turns out badly
A bunker that does not even protect against a machine gun is not even a bunker at all, but an imitation of a bunker
The same goes for infantry attempts to hold positions in buildings
So here I can’t assume that the creator of scenario is to blame for everything or that he does not know how to give commands correctly
As for helicopters, I don’t think it’s impossible to teach them to use their weapons correctly or to give them an active defense system

Move the into the right point, give  a "Stay" order...job jobbed

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Liudas32 said:

And what command should be given to the infantry so that the soldiers keep their positions behind the fence and not in front of it? Yes, if the infantry in the mission sits in one place and stupidly holds one point, it’s still somehow possible, but if you try to maneuver to change positions, to put it mildly, it turns out badly
A bunker that does not even protect against a machine gun is not even a bunker at all, but an imitation of a bunker
The same goes for infantry attempts to hold positions in buildings
So here I can’t assume that the creator of scenario is to blame for everything or that he does not know how to give commands correctly
As for helicopters, I don’t think it’s impossible to teach them to use their weapons correctly or to give them an active defense system

Infantry are ridiculously difficult to dislodge in Steel Beasts scenarios, due to their occupation of buildings and bunkers. They automatically go into any building or bunker nearby if certain tactics are used, such as "defend." The entirety of this is detailed in the Steel Beasts 4.163 Manual. 

 

So yes, if infantry aren't doing this, it is definitely the fault of the scenario designer for not giving them the proper command. Again, all of this is in the manual. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the attempts to point out things that work, but I can't say that I'm entirely satisfied with the infantry behavior in Steel Beasts myself. Now, being dissatisfied is easy, fixing it is an entirely different matter. Still, I suppose we can all agree then there's always something that can be improved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wish: A map pointer tool. A small blip on the map, something to draw people's attention to parts of the map so that you can brief easier - but not only limited to briefings. 

 

The ArmA ACE mod uses this feature and it's a very helpful tool. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

Wish: A map pointer tool. A small blip on the map, something to draw people's attention to parts of the map so that you can brief easier - but not only limited to briefings. 

 

The ArmA ACE mod uses this feature and it's a very helpful tool. 

Agreed. Would definitely be useful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/19/2020 at 3:36 PM, Apocalypse 31 said:

Wish: A map pointer tool. A small blip on the map, something to draw people's attention to parts of the map so that you can brief easier - but not only limited to briefings. 

 

The ArmA ACE mod uses this feature and it's a very helpful tool. 

A pointing stick.

The tool of officers since time immemorial!

 

For the best effect I recommend Goldfinger's pool cue.

 

board+1.jpg

(Brings a bit of polish to the scene)

🙂

Edited by Hedgehog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2020 at 8:07 PM, Grenny said:

This one!....and playable please 🙂

 

 

Don't forget the Gazelle too

Share this post


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

Don't forget the Gazelle too

You're forgetting the mi 2 & 4... these ugly bastards would fit right in here :)

 

Mil_mi-2(modified).jpg

1280px-Mi-4-JH01_(remix).jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2020 at 4:36 PM, Apocalypse 31 said:

Wish: A map pointer tool. A small blip on the map, something to draw people's attention to parts of the map so that you can brief easier - but not only limited to briefings. 

 

The ArmA ACE mod uses this feature and it's a very helpful tool. 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Wish: OPFOR Infantry model used the AK-74M instead of the SCAR. I understand the purpose for having a 'more modern' weapon for OPFOR, but the SCAR is just out of place. 

 

AKR_74M_ERG_001_1400x.jpg?v=1571439653

Edited by Apocalypse 31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is precisely why I didn't want to have hand weapon artwork in the first place. They are all Boom Sticks. Aside from the ammunition caliber and the associated max range, these are nothing but window dressing. There is no functional difference worth discussing in the context of Steel Beasts Pro and this simulation's focus.

 

Squint.

 

Harder.

Share this post


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

This is precisely why I didn't want to have hand weapon artwork in the first place

...you would prefer infantry models dont show weapons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was happy with the generic assault rifle in 3.0 and earlier. "Let's add two or three rifles", they said, "just the M16 and AKM", they said. "It'll make the infantry guys happy".

 

Result: Countless hours expended on redundant rifle artwork that doesn't contribute anything but to make small arms weapon fetishists unhappy, who now demand more and more and more and more redundant rifle artwork. You will never be happy. There will always the "the one rifle that doesn't fit"

 

 

Yeah. Deal with it.

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...