Jump to content

Steel Beasts: Content Wish List


Azure Lion
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 5/8/2021 at 6:24 PM, 12Alfa said:

Would you share some documentation/ information on this "NATO Standard Sight".

In my many years using Nato sights, I have never seen , or heard of this nomenclature regarding such equipment.

Nor, can I find anything on the web.

 

I believe (correct, or not) this is a myth, as NATO had many MBTS with different sights offered.

 

Yes, you are correct. The term 'NATO Standard Sight' does not relate to one specific sight reticule, but to any sight that its reticule markings correspond to NATO mils.

 

https://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=NATO_Standard_Sights

 

Quote:

NATO Standard Sights are sights that adhere to a common measurement, in this case mils, and put markings on the sighting reticules which are used to measure distance of targeted objects as well as provide lead where required.

 

 

In the Israeli army, however, the M48's reticule, which was also fitted to the Centurion and to the T-54/55, was related to as 'NATO Cross'. The M60A3's reticule was related to as an 'Improved NATO Cross'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been having a lot of fun with the 155mm intelligent submunition rounds. I can only say that (from open sources at least) their modelling is really great and the end results in using them on different targets in different circumstances are exactly what I (as a layman) would expect. Visually they are wonderfully modelled too. One thing I would like though is the option of fuzing on the HE rounds so that rather than the 50/50 air/groundburst, we could select all air, all ground point detonating or all fractional delay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/18/2021 at 7:38 AM, Lumituisku said:

We have threads for "we love videos" and "photos"

 

I think it would be great idea to have one for Streams as well. We have after all several streamers in our community right? :)

 

 

 

To be fair, that was a preamble to asking for something :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vehicle positions with a bottom that is horizontal regardless of the gradient they are dug on. This could be an option as I know there may be times when you want additional gun depression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 4/22/2021 at 2:44 AM, 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.

 

TBH I think you're looking at this from a totally different perspective than I am.

 

For example, I would like to see the 105mm ammo choices added to the T-62.

Not because the T-62's gun is compatible with that ammo.

Because the Israeli Tiran 5 is a T-62 re-armed with the NATO 105mm gun.  And since I don't have the Tiran 5 available in the scenario editor, putting in a T-62 with an Israeli skin and NATO ammo is the next best thing.

 

Same thing goes for vehicles like the Centauro, M60A3, M1 and M1IP.

We don't have the Striker MGS modeled yet.  But a Centauro loaded up with and firing modern 105mm ammo is good enough for me to say "squint harder" and make a mission.

 

We don't have the South Korean K1A1 or K1A2 tanks.  But an M1IP with the right paint scheme slapped on is "close enough".  And an M1IP with some nice modern sabot ammo and the new APS system slapped on, together with some nice paint, is "close enough".

 

IIRC, there are currently special characters used in the ammo selection to indicate top attack munitions and tandem warhead weapons, isn't that right?  Maybe we could have other ones added to indicate ammo that doesn't actually normally belong to that vehicle.  I will also point out that the AMX-13/75 which we already have can somehow magically squeeze 90mm ammo into it's 75mm gun.....Perhaps because....Squint harder...?

Edited by Maj.Hans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand your point and I'm somewhat sympathetic to your reasons. But we have to draw the line somewhere, and this is where we decided that it would be. Draw the line anywhere else and it becomes arbitrary, at which point it gets difficult to defend against entirely silly suggestions like "what if there was a 120mm recoilless rifle that could fire DM53 and was man portable?", or "what if a CH47 could mount a 120mm mortar, and fire it in mid air?"

You may not advocate for such cases but someone else eventually will. So, we look at what a system is rated for, and then we give it the full range of all ammunition that is certified for its weapons, irrespective of whether these munitions have been procured by the customer or are outdated already or whatever, because it could fire them if they were available.

 

Maybe one day we allow a "kitbash mode" where you could pick components from different tanks and create a custom contraption that you would then send into battle in your scenarios. We'd need a different approach for that, but I wouldn't rule out that we might be doing something like this. I'm not a great fan of the idea because it subverts the fundamental principle that in engineering you can't just willy-nilly pick components and slap them together as if we were in a Transformers movie. There's always trade-offs in reality, and a good simulation should reflect that.

But I have accepted certain design decisions in the past that didn't fully align with my vision because I try not to be a dictator within eSim Games, as tempting as it sometimes may be. Also, not all of these decisions turned out to be entirely bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

I understand your point and I'm somewhat sympathetic to your reasons. But we have to draw the line somewhere, and this is where we decided that it would be. Draw the line anywhere else and it becomes arbitrary, at which point it gets difficult to defend against entirely silly suggestions like "what if there was a 120mm recoilless rifle that could fire DM53 and was man portable?", or "what if a CH47 could mount a 120mm mortar, and fire it in mid air?"

You may not advocate for such cases but someone else eventually will. So, we look at what a system is rated for, and then we give it the full range of all ammunition that is certified for its weapons, irrespective of whether these munitions have been procured by the customer or are outdated already or whatever, because it could fire them if they were available.

 

Maybe one day we allow a "kitbash mode" where you could pick components from different tanks and create a custom contraption that you would then send into battle in your scenarios. We'd need a different approach for that, but I wouldn't rule out that we might be doing something like this. I'm not a great fan of the idea because it subverts the fundamental principle that in engineering you can't just willy-nilly pick components and slap them together as if we were in a Transformers movie. There's always trade-offs in reality, and a good simulation should reflect that.

But I have accepted certain design decisions in the past that didn't fully align with my vision because I try not to be a dictator within eSim Games, as tempting as it sometimes may be. Also, not all of these decisions turned out to be entirely bad.

 

Could you not put these special cases in the "Prototypes" category?

And if we start doing silly things...."Prototype"

I mean we have the TTB....... who has ever used that, out side of demonstration purposes.

I guess it could be a 120mm AT gun, but they are heavy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ssnake said:

I understand your point and I'm somewhat sympathetic to your reasons. But we have to draw the line somewhere...

 

Maybe one day we allow a "kitbash mode" where you could pick components from different tanks and create a custom contraption that you would then send into battle in your scenarios.

 

I mean, right there seems like a good spot to draw the line if you ask me.  I don't really feel the need to create completely new vehicles, especially when we have other options already that help us do some of that.  For example, the new add-on AVEPS system has been great for this.  I understand that at some point the Soviets started fitting the T-72B with Kontakt-5 ERA.  We don't have a T-72 with Kontakt 5 on it in the game.  But I can take the T-72B1 m.1985 and slap the AVEPS system on it and say "Squint harder!".  Actually works quite well.  I would still love to see more modern playable OPFOR tanks, but in the meantime the existing playable vehicles fitted with modern APFSDS and the Aveps system work quite well IMHO.

 

Another example: we already have the Leopard AS1 in game as a playable vehicle.

We already KNOW that it gets used as an Ersatz Leopard 1A3/1A4.

eSim has gone so far as to provide it WITH Ersatz Leopard 1A3/1A4 skins by default.

 

I happen to enjoy some of these cold war scenarios.  So, rather than asking you guys for a whole freaking new Leopard 1A3/1A4, what I would like to see is the PZB200 night sight system modeled in some way on this tank.  I don't even care if it isn't implemented 100% accurately, I just want to be able to push the "+" key and get some night vision in the gunner's sights, just like we already have on the Warrior IFV.  That could be done through the "Optional Weapon" dialog so that users who don't want fictional night vision on the AS1 simply don't receive it in their scenarios unless they put it on.

 

As another example, alternatively, maybe we could get some kind of option to select a vehicle with thermal optics, and degrade them down into the NVG views?  Nothing about the fire control system needs to change, just that when the player looks into the thermal views they should see the regular "NVG" style night vision, and the AI should behave accordingly.

 

If you do that, I can take the existing Leopard 1A5DK or 1A5GE, degrade the thermal sights, and say "Squint harder, that's a Leo 1A3A1, and that's a Leo 1A2A1!". 
 

I can go over to the M60A3 TTS, do the same thing, and tell players "Squint harder, those are USMC M60A1 RISE Passive tanks."
 

The existing Leo2A4 and Marder1A3 could be turned into initial production Leo2A0 and Marder 1A0 that didn't have thermals, etc.

 

That's the kind of stuff I would like to see.  We already talk about how to model vehicles that we don't have by using the damage components option to create something similar, and I am PERFECTLY FINE with this, I just wish we had more flexibility in a similar way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second Maj Hans points

 

Also can we get ammo trucks to replenish to what amount the mission designer specifies rather than what REMF oik says we need?

Not that I'm complaining about 90 rounds of ammo on the Sho't Kal but the loader is finding it hard to do his job with all those extra rounds squished in.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2021 at 10:55 PM, Ssnake said:

Maybe one day we allow a "kitbash mode" where you could pick components from different tanks and create a custom contraption that you would then send into battle in your scenarios. We'd need a different approach for that, but I wouldn't rule out that we might be doing something like this. I'm not a great fan of the idea because it subverts the fundamental principle that in engineering you can't just willy-nilly pick components and slap them together as if we were in a Transformers movie. There's always trade-offs in reality, and a good simulation should reflect that.

 

'Kitbash Mode' in customer hands might result in unrealistic combinations being created, but in eSim hands it may be utilized to quickly model many different vehicle variants that exist in reality. Almost every vehicle had several variants, modifications and upgrades along the years, relating to the main gun, machine guns, tracks, roadwheels, engine deck, air cleaner, fenders, lights, add-on armor, turret basket, thermal sleeve, smoke grenade discharges, etc.

 

On 5/23/2021 at 7:23 PM, Maj.Hans said:

For example, I would like to see the 105mm ammo choices added to the T-62.

Not because the T-62's gun is compatible with that ammo.

Because the Israeli Tiran 5 is a T-62 re-armed with the NATO 105mm gun.  And since I don't have the Tiran 5 available in the scenario editor, putting in a T-62 with an Israeli skin and NATO ammo is the next best thing.

 

The T-62 in Israeli service was named Tiran 6 and it retained the original Soviet 115 mm gun. AFAIK there was just one prototype re-armed with a 105 mm gun.

Tiran 4 and Tiran 5 were the names given to the T-54 and the T-55 respectively. These were indeed re-armed with 105 mm guns. AFAIK a few are still in service with the army of Uruguay.

T-54/55 MBTs were re-armed with 105 mm guns also in China, India, Egypt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

could we have a link to the map package in the start menu or have the map package be not hidden

 

As i tend to use a lot of time advising new guys how and where it is and how to copy new maps into it.

It would really be a great help for everybody new and old

MD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Major duck said:

could we have a link to the map package in the start menu

 

I have this link in my install. It takes me directly to the maps folder (default place on my install), of which the "packages" folder is a subfolder. Is this what you mean?

It works even when the Program Data folder is hidden.

 

Clipboard01.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Year i thought so too but in both of my installations it links to the legacy old maps structure 
image.png.3915275640f68d83e653970772b3dc8f.png

 

Not the new map packages so either thats a bug or a feature 😉

MD

Edited by Major duck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Interesting. I guess upon install it links to the default Program Data location. (My own "packages" folder is in the same place with "height" "terrain" and "themes" that you picture.) C:\ProgramData\eSim Games\Steel Beasts\maps

But I believe you could change the target of the Start Menu link under its Windows properties to direct it to wherever you have placed your map packages.

 

Of course, none of that makes it easier to explain to anyone who doesn't know where they put their map packages in the first place.

Edited by Splash
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Splash said:

Interesting. I guess upon install it links to the default Program Data location. (My own "packages" folder is in the same place with "height" "terrain" and "themes" that you picture.)

But I believe you could change the target of the Start Menu link under its Windows properties to direct it to wherever you have placed your map packages.

 

Of course, none of that makes it easier to explain to anyone who doesn't know where they put their map packages in the first place.

Yep that's why i always when i repair or make a new install via Teamviewer always leave a link to the package folder on their desktop
They have even saved that path in registry
Computer\HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\eSim Games\Configuration\4.1 there is a data entry there with the Mappackaged path so its a pretty easy fix

 

MD
 

Edited by Major duck
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...