Jump to content

Steel Beasts: Content Wish List


Recommended Posts

On 4/3/2021 at 11:58 AM, Lumituisku said:

I wish that those infantry members bodies on the map that could be necromanced to life to be marked on different clolor..  like perhaps red dots instead of gray

I like this.

 

Different colors for "Dead vs Incapacitated" - much like Combat Mission

 

The only challenge would be that individual medical teams have different skill settings and the ability to revive. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 7.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Well, we don't differentiate between injured and dead; they're all "incapacitated". Aside from this technicality in data structures (which is not entirely trivial to change),

1) You can't diagnose from a distance how bad an injury is. You always need a (para)medic up close.

2) Revival chance depends on the skill set of the medic, both IRL and in Steel Beasts. Where one medic fails, the better one might succeed.

 

So, this is one of the rare cases where I'm skeptical whether this is a brilliant idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

1) You can't diagnose from a distance how bad an injury is. You always need a (para)medic up close.

But a wounded squad-mate or nearby unit could send a MiST* report via the radio? It's no different than a unit identifying the exact dimensions of an in-game minefield. 

 

I could probably point out a dozen abstractions currently in game. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with abstraction, but it's super frustrating when a developer picks and chooses. 

 

* - MIST

M – Mechanism of injury

I – Type of Injury 

S – Signs (pulse, blood pressure, respiratory rate)

T – Treatment provided

Edited by Apocalypse 31
Link to post
Share on other sites

Feature creep: Within three or four posts we're no longer talking about remote-sense necromancy but at least a rudimentary system of injury and treatment simulation.

Be careful what you wish for: That's dangerously close to the whole treatment chain from pinching a severed artery to calling the medic for stabilization, medevac chain, and treatment in a field hospital, then rehab.

At the end of the day this would not bring back a single soldier during a typical game session as treatment would take hours in the most optimistic case, and months in the majority of severe cases. Which brings us back to the original question - why bother with it in the first place, in a simulation like Steel Beasts. The medical treatment chain is an operational and strategic simulation aspect. On the tactical level, it's nothing but a logistical burden (if we ignore the humanitarian and psychological aspects for the moment ... because if not, then we'd also need a non-primitive simulation of human psychology where the will to fight plummets if the player doesn't take care of the wounded.

 

This is a huge can of worms. Be very careful what you wish for. This has the potential to spiral out of control very quickly and absorb a lot of development capacity for very little gain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see... I wonder if there could be possibility for red dods on bodies still moving ( pleading aid) as such would be noticable. Of course. With rare change of even other colored ones to be brought life. I dunno. I have feel that i don't like this can of worms after what SSnake said. 

 

Is there btw diminishing time on change of revival? Or is it reasonable to visit every corpse after hours of gameplay? 

 

I also noticed odd thing that when on first person you didn't see revival process starting. But a sketchy message flashing on text field that is easy to miss.  On F8 i did see animation for   necromancy to start. So... I dunno possible bug there? 

 

anyways. How about... That unknown is gray and bead are black?  Or something like that? And visiting medic would quicker turn dots black or something? I suppose it would need some time for diagnosis too.

 

It's like this. I as player or commander of force want some feedback of where to send my asset ( the medic)

 

Thought.. as SSnake said... This is can of worms. Perhaps this is something we shouldn't wish for. So many... Things to eat future recourses. And as I'm thinking this..  i suppose current system is "good enough" for sim purposes. Though i suppose in this case I'd like to know how I can route my medic over casualty area so that corpses could get necromanced if such is possible so that i as player wouldn't feel need to observe it constantly. That i could trust thing to happen properly? Perhaps that would be another idea for tutorial video at very least? :)

Edited by Lumituisku
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lumituisku said:

Perhaps this is something we shouldn't wish for

I've learned to just not wish anymore. And I'm not sure why I even bother posting here- to include this post. 

 

Every new wish is stifled with ridiculous overcomplicated responses. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to see it negatively, I can't stop you. I could of course follow the default mode of other developers and say "we're on it, 14 days" to any suggestion made. Instead I'm explaining why from our perspective it's not so easy. Feel free to skip my attempts at open, honest, and meaningful responses. I'll keep it that way for everybody else, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lumituisku said:

I see... I wonder if there could be possibility for red dods on bodies still moving ( pleading aid) as such would be noticable.

Like I wrote, due to current data structures that would be "everyone" on the ground. A soldier that has been hit simply has the status "no longer participating in combat" with no statement about the severity of the situation.

Make of that what you will, whether they're all tough cookies that sustain a number of minor injuries until they are so serious that they simply can't anymore, or sniveling whiners that quit on the first opportunity. ;)

5 hours ago, Lumituisku said:

Is there btw diminishing time on change of revival?

No.

Maybe there should. Maybe we should break incapacitation into subcategories like "light, walking", "light, stretcher", "severe, stable", and "severe, diminishing" where the severe cases need treatment within an hour, and only the light cases could be brought back to "combat ready" by medics. But then the immediate next question would be, should these be combat ready in some diminished status (reduced running speed, carry capacity, less accurate in their fire, should there be a flag that they already are wounded so that subsequent injuries count more).

The more pressing question to me is though, what kind of incentive can we create that rewards the player for dividing his attention to the treatment of the cases that can't be brought back to combat status. A pat on the back in the AAR?

From a "gaming efficiency" point of view it's difficult to be both realistic, keeping it simple, and creating a game rules based motivation in the player that it's worth it. If all that you do is to spend effort in saving lives in a highly abstract way, then why bother with it at all? This only makes sense if you fight a years-long war campaign and saving the injured keeps the motivation on your side high (or not, if you fail to do it). Steel Beasts isn't about simulating these aspects.

The current system is primitive, but it also offers an immediate reward if you send the platoon medic to casualties, because there's a chance that you get your men back. That's the incentive for the player to give it a shot. Every grey-red dot is a candidate for revival. If you have an elite medic, half of them can be brought back into the fight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I am trying to instruct a new player with Steelbeast and it isn't as easy as he want's to use x-box controller.

 

And during the struggle he pointed out that it would be very helpful if there would be  filter keyboard commands tab by position   like  gunner / commander / driver / infantry   and I agree with that.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2021 at 5:48 PM, Ssnake said:

I'd need to look it up to be sure, but I think the ammo in the Centauro is not certified for older L7 105mm guns as it uses a higher chamber pressure. That, or something else, but there's definitely a reason why its ammo wasn't made available for other 105mm systems. Whenever possible, my goal is to make the widest range of options available to mission designers.

 

Dare I say it but might we get the full range of 105 ammo available for all of the vehicles fitted with it?  Might help when we're having to use a player tank to substitute for another, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And now for the IL-2: The second new technology is Dynamic Visual Damage (DVD) that visualizes the hit marks from various projectiles on aircraft and tanks. Please note that is a visual tech that is intended to make the battle damage more vivid and interesting. Just like the tactical codes, this new tech already works on all Tank Crew tanks, P-51D-15 and Nieuport 28.C1 planes. Again, we plan to enable it for all other 60+ aircraft this year.

_dvd_01.jpg

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

Dare I say it but might we get the full range of 105 ammo available for all of the vehicles fitted with it?

Sorry, but there simply are different guns out there of same caliber that offer different limits on chamber pressure. This is the case for pretty much all the major tank cannons - not just 105mm, but also 120, 125.

A gun rated for higher pressures hand handle lower performing rounds, but its not interchangeable in the other direction. In the case of APFSDS, the latest Russian ones exceed the maximum tolerable length in earlier Soviet autoloader models, should we ignore that now, too?

 

Heck, why even stop there? The argument "Suppose there was a Technical with a 120mm tank gun, ..." could justify abandoning any connection between vehicle model and ammunition that it can fire. We have to draw the line somewhere.

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

Sorry, but there simply are different guns out there of same caliber that offer different limits on chamber pressure. This is the case for pretty much all the major tank cannons - not just 105mm, but also 120, 125.

A gun rated for higher pressures hand handle lower performing rounds, but its not interchangeable in the other direction. In the case of APFSDS, the latest Russian ones exceed the maximum tolerable length in earlier Soviet autoloader models, should we ignore that now, too?

 

Heck, why even stop there? The argument "Suppose there was a Technical with a 120mm tank gun, ..." could justify abandoning any connection between vehicle model and ammunition that it can fire. We have to draw the line somewhere.

I stick by my request for a wider variety of ammo types in the Sho't Kal.

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

I stick by my request for a wider variety of ammo types in the Sho't Kal.

Understandable, but the gun sight with reticule is giving us headaches. It does not adapt well to other munitions with different trajectories, so we limited it to historical rounds that best represent the capabilities of the vehicle in the 1960s and 1970s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The aiming reticule currently modeled in SB for the Shot Cal might be suitable for a playable Centurion Mk.5/2 of the British army, but I doubt it was present on Israeli L7-gunned Shot tanks, surely not on Shot Cals. The Israeli Shots were fitted with NATO Standard Sights when they were fitted with L7 guns, for standardization with the newly-acquired M48s. That started in the mid-'60s, several years before the Continental engine was first fitted to the Shot in 1970.

The Shot/Shot Cal gunner used a range drum to set the gun elevation after the TC had estimated the range. The range drum had different scale markings (in meters) for each type of round: L-28, L-52, WP, HESH, HEAT, Flechette (following the 1973 war) and coax mg. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dynamic Graphics;

Condition/Event based Graphics and Text that can be set by scenario designer to appear/disappear during the Execution Phase.

This might not be possible within SB at the moment, but i hope it becomes possible at some point with the new GUI etc

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...