Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[iamfritz]

6 hours ago, ben said:

Let’s get this added to SB as a high priority 🤡🔥👍🏻

I just want one.

[iamfritz]

Ugh. The more I read up on the M-1A2 v4 and M-2A4 the more I want them.

 

So I go back and curl up with my Cold War era books or Microprose Tank Platoon manual and try to cope...

[Hedgehog]

On 8/2/2023 at 2:17 AM, ben said:

Let’s get this added to SB as a high priority 🤡🔥👍🏻

Ken Wallis vibes

[Abraxas]

It would be nice if an ARV had an area of effect (like a medic) in which some repairs would occur: some by default like repairing damaged tracks, some at will. Since there is always qualified maintenance personnel there, e.g. changing engines or repairing damaged turrets etc..

[mpow66m]

Please make non combat vechicles try to engage combat vechs.

[Grenny]

7 minutes ago, mpow66m said:

Please make non combat vechicles try to engage combat vechs.

What?

[mpow66m]

Sometimes a noncombat vech will behave as if tho it wants to engage a combat vech by taking a hull up or down position or moving towards the agressor it has no chance of defeating if left unattended.Yes i know you can set conditions.Make sense?Its as best as I canbexplain it.

[Hedgehog]

9 hours ago, mpow66m said:

Sometimes a noncombat vech will behave as if tho it wants to engage a combat vech by taking a hull up or down position or moving towards the agressor it has no chance of defeating if left unattended.Yes i know you can set conditions.Make sense?Its as best as I canbexplain it.

Make them blind?

[mpow66m]

Unrealistic.I was thinking a different behavioral model.A LAV w a GPMG should not be moving foward to engage a MBT,it should be backing up to the nearest cover and concealment.Make sense?  

[Gibsonm]

2 hours ago, mpow66m said:

Unrealistic.I was thinking a different behavioral model.A LAV w a GPMG should not be moving foward to engage a MBT,it should be backing up to the nearest cover and concealment.Make sense?  

 

Well that's pretty much the player's decision, based on the route and waypoint tactics they choose.

 

I'm not sure why you'd want to automate these behaviours, since they may be exactly what the player wants, based on the circumstances.

 

Unless you just want to see two AI controlled sides engage each other.

[Ssnake]

The problem I'm having is that the lighter and "less tanky" a vehicle gets, the doctrinal role gets fuzzier (or "more versatile" if you wanted to give it a positive spin); therefore, between scenarios, the eras in which they are set, and from one light vehicle to the next whatever one might considered "adequate behavior" will vary, and that's not even taking into account different national concepts of the army (e.g. USMC, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia all have or had at some point a LAV with 25mm autocannon; their doctrinal use will be/was different in each case).

That being said, I'm hopeful that we'll allow for different AI concepts in version 5 that might also result in a step towards more flexible responses depending on what type of equipment a vehicle might carry.

[Gibsonm]

I think I've asked about this before and if its "on the List" already please ignore.

 

The ability for dismounted Engineers to detect / neutralise IEDs.

 

Currently if Engineers breach a minefield we see nice red markings for detected / disarmed mines.

 

However those very same Engineers will happily walk over a buried IED without pausing or reaching for their stencil paint.

 

Request the ability for dismounted Engineers on a breach route (I don't want to open the whole can of worms about vehicles with EW kit, etc.) be able to detect and neutralise an IED.

 

This could be as simple as removing it, or alternatively marking it with the stencil paint.

 

IEDs placed under bridges, etc. are a whole extra dimension (since they are often in the bridge structure, not the road surface that the Engineers by default clear), but if that could be added too with a suitable delay before declaring the bridge "clear" that would be great.

 

I suspect clearing IEDs from buildings is a 3rd level of difficulty.

 

Update: Found the earlier item:
 

 

Edited August 13 by Gibsonm

[mpow66m]

5 hours ago, Ssnake said:

The problem I'm having is that the lighter and "less tanky" a vehicle gets, the doctrinal role gets fuzzier (or "more versatile" if you wanted to give it a positive spin); therefore, between scenarios, the eras in which they are set, and from one light vehicle to the next whatever one might considered "adequate behavior" will vary, and that's not even taking into account different national concepts of the army (e.g. USMC, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia all have or had at some point a LAV with 25mm autocannon; their doctrinal use will be/was different in each case).

That being said, I'm hopeful that we'll allow for different AI concepts in version 5 that might also result in a step towards more flexible responses depending on what type of equipment a vehicle might carry.

Thnx,sounds good.Just what I wanted to hear👍

[Ssnake]

12 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

The ability for dismounted Engineers to detect / neutralise IEDs.

Bug 9989 ("Engineers: Defusing IEDs does not yield feedback") suggests that engineers can already neutralize IEDs, you as the user just wouldn't know. Which sorta-kinda amounts to the same problem, I suppose. I just want to say with this that, "in principle", the required functionality is implemented and it's now a matter of user interface refinement.

[Gibsonm]

48 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Bug 9989 ("Engineers: Defusing IEDs does not yield feedback") suggests that engineers can already neutralize IEDs, you as the user just wouldn't know. Which sorta-kinda amounts to the same problem, I suppose. I just want to say with this that, "in principle", the required functionality is implemented and it's now a matter of user interface refinement.

 

Ah OK.

 

I'll do a sandbox experiment and push an Engineer team over an IED and then follow up with a vehicle (with the IED configured to detonate if a vehicle enters the zone) and see what happens.

 

I suspect the IED issue we encountered on the weekend was that the IED was "beneath" a bridge and I suspect that means in the river bed. This presumably is not checked by the Engineers that breach the roadway.

 

Edited August 13 by Gibsonm

[Gibsonm]

  

2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Bug 9989 ("Engineers: Defusing IEDs does not yield feedback") suggests that engineers can already neutralize IEDs, you as the user just wouldn't know. Which sorta-kinda amounts to the same problem, I suppose. I just want to say with this that, "in principle", the required functionality is implemented and it's now a matter of user interface refinement.

 

I have an update:

 

It looks like Engineers do neutralise IEDs when they breach. Unfortunately you as the Blue player just aren't told.
This lack of feedback was the reason for my earlier post in 2021.

Test scenario and AAR attached.
1. In the South the Engineers conduct a breach over a bridge and once clear a Leo 2 crosses the bridge - no boom.
2. In the North the Engineers conduct a breach over a known IED and once clear (no red marking paint though) a Leo 2 crosses the region - no boom.

No idea what happened during yesterday's play through - Engineers not ordered to breach maybe, or perhaps they missed the exact IED location?

I've also posted screenshots where you can see the Engineer breach lanes cover the ground under the bridge, so the idea that they cleared the bridge, but not the riverbed is disproved.

Also if the IED is between lanes (the tip of the triangle), its still "live" (screenshot). You almost need the breaching squads to overlap (refer screenshot).

 

 

230814 Engr breaching IEDs 4_379.sce 230814 Engr breaching IEDs 4_379_3760_081423MARKS_PC_2021030.aar

Edited August 14 by Gibsonm

[MTLB-CMDR_Finn]

Adding to wishlist:

 

-Soviet/Russian AT-guns, namely 100mm MT-12 "Rapira". They are part of modern russian doctorine and are in use right now, so they would be accurate. They would be empoyed as heavy MGs or AT missiles in mission editor.

[iamfritz]

Kind of along this same thread, can we make the destruction of medical APCs a No-no? Like they make negative points against your scoring, or penalize you somehow? And make AI recognize the big red cross or crescent?

[TSe419E]

AI does recognize them.  People, however, very often do not.

[Apocalypse 31]

3d infantry model updates to equip all modern countries/camo with body armor.

[Captain_Colossus]

road intersection tool in the map editor - user can quickly add a + x or T type junction which can be rotated - and a tool which aligns nearby connecting roads that the user selects or defines

[Ssnake]

3 hours ago, iamfritz said:

Kind of along this same thread, can we make the destruction of medical APCs a No-no? Like they make negative points against your scoring, or penalize you somehow?

There's a scoring formula for that.

 

AI will generally not shoot them. Some players predictably try to exploit that, using them as reconnaissance assets.

Other players, knowing this, respond by shooting them. Which is precisely the kind of escalation spiral that sane people try to avoid by not exploiting these "loopholes"; the small gains now aren't worth the long-term price. That's why we have these pesky Geneva and Hague conventions in the first place.

 

I'm glad that the mechanisms we put in place in Steel Beasts triggered this exchange. That's why we introduced them.

[Apocalypse 31]

8 hours ago, Captain_Colossus said:

road intersection tool in the map editor - user can quickly add a + x or T type junction which can be rotated - and a tool which aligns nearby connecting roads that the user selects or defines

This is already possible with the snip and merge features.

[Legodude9]

I bring a new feature requests to the Wishlist!

-Unsighted Cupola traverse bindings. (T-72 style cupola buttoned up, M113 Cupola buttoned and unbuttoned are the best examples)
-Also BMP-1 with the pain's that come with the AT-3 Sagger/Malyutka.
-T-55AM, AM1 is non ATGM in GDR/DDR (I don't know how the Soviets marked/numbered their versions) service AM2 has the Bastion ATGM for the gun barrel, a really cool upgrade to the vehicle in my opinion, a cool modernisation just like the T-62M (Soviet designation, unsure if there were others).

Edit: BTR-90 would be cool too, always loved the look and probable ease of manufacture over the BTR-80A

Edited August 17 by Legodude9

[Leon Portier]

My addition for the whishlist:

 

Holding down the hand crank keys (arrow keys) for continous cranking or turrets.

Like on the M60's commander cupola or Fennek turret it takes right now more than 180 key presses of the arrow keys to turn the cupolas and turrets 180 degrees. Holding down the key would make things much easier.

Edit: that would help a lot to get new players in

Edited August 17 by Leon Portier