Tanks....

[Beazil]

Yeah, because this has certainly never been tried in an IL-2 game before.

 

Things like this cause a loss of focus and priority... BOS FM's waylaid for BOM FM development... Aircraft refinements waylaid for tank development... For the sake of the project - one thing at a time here...   

 

 

No one has said this is the direction they are going.  No need to get bent out of shape about it.  Naturally the focus is on producing the best world war 2 simulation of the battle of Moscow/Stalingrad that the developer can.  I'm not sure I read such a thing from the developer as they are going the direction of a combined arms sim - probably someone had a bit of free time while other members of the team address the issues you mention above.

Edited October 16, 2015 by Beazil

[Finkeren]

Continual FM revisions are a money pit that will still never end the constant complaining over them. If they satisfy one person then another will start complaining. It's a no win situation. I think they learned that with RoF.

Yet they still found time to get around to the Albatros D.Va eventually.

 

I think we might see some revision of older FMs along the way, eventually. But it's gonna come when the devs find time for it, not because of the complaining.

 

Right now I'm just excited for all the new stuff FMs aren't all perfect, but they're going to do fine for the time being.

[71st_AH_Hooves]

With the constant chatter of short-handedness on the development team, I hope this doesn't take away from the flight sim in our flight sim.

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/17095-future-il2-bos/page-3

 

On the posts #81 and #101 Jason already stated that the technology has always been there and "it didn't affect our work on airplanes or other development goals".  So based on this the tanks really are just extra for the game, not making a difference in the development schedule at all, so I wouldn't worry about that.

So much for reading the thread eh?

[BraveSirRobin]

I think we might see some revision of older FMs along the way, eventually. 

 

No, Jason has announced that they are done with FM updates/revisions.

[SharpeXB]

Yet they still found time to get around to the Albatros D.Va eventually.

Not really. Since they couldn't make a new FM for it they found balance by just nerfing down some other planes. It wasn't a perfect solution. That's one view of it anyways. There's a few hundred pages of arguing about it over there.

It didn't stop the complaining that's for sure.

[Finkeren]

No, Jason has announced that they are done with FM updates/revisions.

He did that in RoF days as well. I just take that to mean "for now". Either way it's fine. The only big complaint I have with FM is the Yak-1 flaps down issue, and contrary to the Luftwhiners I don't think it breaks the game.

[indiaciki]

What's the stall speed for a t-34? I can't wait for the FM dicussion threads :D

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I heard the T-34 has a terrible climb rate... just slightly above the P-40

[AbortedMan]

To try to satisfy the people who are never going to be happy?

This. I'm seeing the usual suspects as the naysayers in all the tank threads.

 

Yeah, because this has certainly never been tried in an IL-2 game before.

 

Things like this cause a loss of focus and priority... BOS FM's waylaid for BOM FM development... Aircraft refinements waylaid for tank development... For the sake of the project - one thing at a time here...   

You have absolutely no idea what resources were allocated to create this part of the game. Don't pretend like you know. They could have had people sitting around twiddling their thumbs or brought on new personnel after reaching financial goals from BoS/BoM that could have been working on this.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

It's been stated time and again (and again, and again, and again) that playable - I nearly wrote flyable here out of habit - tanks have been a part of Il-2:BoS's internal builds since the dawn of time. They are just showcasing the autumn map with the T-34 they had ready, while also hinting that players might get to use this soon.

 

In no way this means they are diverging from planes or burning resources that could be used otherwise. What is the problem after all?

[AbortedMan]

It's been stated time and again (and again, and again, and again) that playable - I nearly wrote flyable here out of habit - tanks have been a part of Il-2:BoS's internal builds since the dawn of time. They are just showcasing the autumn map with the T-34 they had ready, while also hinting that players might get to use this soon.

 

In no way this means they are diverging from planes or burning resources that could be used otherwise. What is the problem after all?

To piggy back on this statement...there was a reveal teaser for player driven tanks being in the game in one of the first developer diaries (The video of the M1 Abrams in the forest driving around and firing) before BoS was even out. Rumor has it was a side-project of one of the devs that seemed feasible enough to add to the game.

[Jason_Williams]

This. I'm seeing the usual suspects as the naysayers in all the tank threads.

 

You have absolutely no idea what resources were allocated to create this part of the game. Don't pretend like you know. They could have had people sitting around twiddling their thumbs or brought on new personnel after reaching financial goals from BoS/BoM that could have been working on this.

 

Aborted is essentially correct. Not sure why people are ignoring what I have said many times. We've had this sitting on as shelf for a long time (I showed driveable tanks to Hooves and Luke over 2 years ago). They have not interfered with airplane development or other game development and it has been pretty much ready to go. The new maps seemed an appropriate time to unveil. It's just a fun added feature that some may find entertaining. It will always be up to the server owner and mission builder to have humans driving tanks or not. Personally I welcome the new wrinkle to gameplay.

 

Jason

 

Jason

[kestrel79]

Love it! More gameplay variety the better!

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

This. I'm seeing the usual suspects as the naysayers in all the tank threads.

 

You have absolutely no idea what resources were allocated to create this part of the game. Don't pretend like you know. They could have had people sitting around twiddling their thumbs or brought on new personnel after reaching financial goals from BoS/BoM that could have been working on this.

 

I'm not "pretending" to know anything. Don't get your knickers in a twist. 

[indiaciki]

Aborted is essentially correct. Not sure why people are ignoring what I have said many times. We've had this sitting on as shelf for a long time (I showed driveable tanks to Hooves and Luke over 2 years ago). They have not interfered with airplane development or other game development and it has been pretty much ready to go. The new maps seemed an appropriate time to unveil. It's just a fun added feature that some may find entertaining. It will always be up to the server owner and mission builder to have humans driving tanks or not. Personally I welcome the new wrinkle to gameplay.

 

Jason

 

Jason

 

I love it, Jason. It'll be fun just driving around this beautiful map for leisure !

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

Han posted it on russian forum

 

 

I thought it was going to look bad when on ground but after this shot I'm convinced that it might be pretty fun.

 

It looks great!

 

Ofc a Ju-52 would be better....

Edited October 16, 2015 by McKvack

[Finkeren]

Aborted is essentially correct. Not sure why people are ignoring what I have said many times. We've had this sitting on as shelf for a long time (I showed driveable tanks to Hooves and Luke over 2 years ago). They have not interfered with airplane development or other game development and it has been pretty much ready to go. The new maps seemed an appropriate time to unveil. It's just a fun added feature that some may find entertaining. It will always be up to the server owner and mission builder to have humans driving tanks or not. Personally I welcome the new wrinkle to gameplay.

 

Jason

 

Glad to hear you call it a "wrinkle to gameplay". That tells me, you've not lost focus and taken the game in an entirely new direction. If this is just a bit of flavor to the existing flight sim that might help flesh out especially MP in new and interesting ways as well as draw in new clientel, then I'm all for it and look very much forward to, what you're gonna do with this.

 

And I won't say that it comes as a surprise per se, but the timing to show it off right here in the middle of BoM development as well as just before the release of the new maps was a bit surprising in itself, because we'd all expect that you'd be buried in work with no time to develop other things (Not that I'm criticizing the fact that you do have time, that's just not how I imagined it)

 

Anyway. I was instantly reluctantly positive, but now that I've been reassured, that this is still primarilly a flight sim, I'm glad we're gonna have this addition eventually.

 

Oh, and 1.104 looks to be another masterpiece of a great update. I simply cannot wait, even with PWCG(beta) to play with 

[FuriousMeow]

Yet they still found time to get around to the Albatros D.Va eventually.

 

 

They didn't get around to it. They just dumped a slightly faster DVa (and DIII) while neutering some other planes to quiet down some very vocal whiners - starts with a g and ends with a rhyme to "Why" are you still here? One day it was because of engine compression, next it was prop pitch maybe not modeled to the correct specs, or it was because the top of the line Mercedes engine wasn't used and instead it was the more numerous one. Even Richtofen wanted nothing of the DV series, he was happy with the Dr1 until the frailties of its upper wing came about, and he still flew it over the later Albatros,  and was willing to take the BMW powered Fokker DVII instead of a new Albatros. The way that happened was simply to get rid of the incessant whining by a particular group, led by one particular individual that constantly grasped at straws to get the Albatros to be as fast as his one source. And the Camel on the deck now goes 103MPH, when it should be doing that at 15,000ft. The Albatros turns better than the Pfalz, when it should be the other way around. Politics kept the Albatros in service, not because it was the penultimate scout.

 

I still play RoF, but that wasn't a fix that was tested, validated, and verified - it was just to shut up the whining.

 

As far as the tanks, I figured they were going to happen eventually. It'll probably bring in some more players as well, which is always a plus. Not like it really detracts from the product, even when another product totally lost vision and focus we still have people claiming it to be the BEST WWII air combat sim in for ever and until the end of time! (haha)

Edited October 16, 2015 by FuriousMeow

[LLv24_Zami]

Well, if the drivable tanks were already there it would be foolish not to use that capacity. When it doesn`t affect the airplane development like Jason stated there, it is just a positive thing to get those tanks in game. If the tanks bring new players with only a little effort from devs it is a win-win situation for all of us.

Edited October 16, 2015 by Zami

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

It already stroke people who never even heard about Il-2, I mean those who focused on War Thunder tanks and so on. This small but extremely surprising tank trailer caused a massive reactions, it surly may bring more life to the game servers. 

[Leaf]

Not a huge fan of tank myself personally, but if it doesn't interfere with regular proceedings then it's obviously a good thing.

To be fair it does look quite fun and will not just draw more players into the game, but also encourage more people to go for ground objectives.

[SuperCossack]

Oh God not this topic again. Leave tanks to WT.

agree

 

Watch the video.  They're adding tanks  Hopefully it means more people playing the game.

It will mean more people playing tanks. This flight simulator filled with tankers raging every time they get bombed.

[viktorkm89]

I must say this is pretty amazing.

WT have talked about combining there Tank and Airplane maps during a long time but have failed to deliver on that promise.
Now put in some trucks, and supply that needs to be moved to the airfields for the airplane to have any fuel and ammunition, then we really start to have some interesting line of supply breaking objectives! =)

Also ground captures for tanks.

Edited October 17, 2015 by viktorkm89

[BraveSirRobin]

 This flight simulator filled with tankers raging every time they get bombed.

 

That sounds even better than I hoped for...  

[Libel]

As the main objective of aerial supremacy is to provide close air support, the idea of an engaging land war to shape the air war makes perfect sense to me.

Come on, how many times did airfields change hands by someone in a medium bomber landing there? More likely than not, landing at an airfield that isn't 'yours' is a bad idea for pilots.

[avlSteve]

I laughed out loud at the video.  In a good way.  Hurry up with the tanks, already!

[ShamrockOneFive]

I think it's a great little fun feature and it seems like it was particularly well implemented at least from an authenticity perspective.

 

Embrace a little quirky variety. We have no evidence to suggest that this is slowing down development on BoM in any way as we've hit every milestone they have announced to date.

[FuriousMeow]

agree

 

It will mean more people playing tanks. This flight simulator filled with tankers raging every time they get bombed.

 

There's a MMO game called Aces High. They introduced tanks/ground vehicles. Guess what? It turned out amazing.

 

You seriously think there's going to be half a server, or even more than 5 people, in tanks? Sure, if the server is ONLY tanks. You are delusional if you think anyone is going to buy BoS/BoM for tanks, they are going to buy it for the aircraft. Some may play with the tanks, but once they get blown up a few times after spending 30 minutes driving somewhere by a Stuka or Il-2, there won't be that many in tanks.

 

Now, there will be some. And it will be very cool to have Il-2s and Stukas coordinating attacks against opposing tanks as the tank lines advance on each other. It would be a great value added to online wars as well.

 

The tanks are nothing but good, if anyone thinks the tanks are going to destroy the quality or detract or anything of that nature, there's plenty of evidence already in play that is opposite that. Aces High II, WWIIOl, DCS Combined Arms. It brings more in, and that will absolutely be great.

 

Some of you are like Smeagol "IT'S MY PRESCIOUSSSS!"

Edited October 17, 2015 by FuriousMeow

[Finkeren]

I just hope that they'll let the WoT crowd buy into the sim at a reduced price where they only get the tanks. We'd get a community of enthusiastic tankers and a larger one of enthusiastic pilots.

[SCG_Neun]

This is just me here....not speaking for anyone else...but I like the tank idea.  It might bring some additional players into the online arena as well....which it would appear is something CFS could use across the board.  As far as taking anything away from the simulation...from what I can see this game is progressing very well and having some poor sucker hunkered down in his T-34 might even make me grab a Stuka.  More incentives for people to target ground targets.....makes a more historical simulation.....it means...air cover to protect ground forces.  Air cover and ground pounders...with armor on the ground.....represents the combat more accurately on the Eastern Front, especially with the limited numbers we have in the arenas....  

Edited October 17, 2015 by 4./JG52_Neun

[DB605]

Big "thumbs up" for tanks from me! I didn't had plans to buy BOM (at least anytime soon) but this may well be the reason to think about it again...

Edited October 17, 2015 by DB605

[Brano]

Han posted it on russian forum

 

 

 

Looks like Pzkpfw III with KwK 50/L60.Very nice 

[BlitzPig_EL]

I think it's a very positive thing.

 

You want to talk about realism and immersion?

 

How about being in comms with your flight of IL2s (or Stukas) and getting TS calls for help from your squadmates on the ground in tanks, needing air support.

 

That's what a combat simulation is all about, not endless furballing or circling around in low earth orbit pretending to be Hartmann.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

That's what a combat simulation is all about, not endless furballing or circling around in low earth orbit pretending to be Hartmann.

 

Actually, it's approximately what you make of it... 

[MilAvHistory]

Going to be interesting to see this develop. Will keep my eyes open, fingers crossed and wish you guys all the best.

[johncage]

I think it's a very positive thing.

 

You want to talk about realism and immersion?

 

How about being in comms with your flight of IL2s (or Stukas) and getting TS calls for help from your squadmates on the ground in tanks, needing air support.

 

That's what a combat simulation is all about, not endless furballing or circling around in low earth orbit pretending to be Hartmann.

 

so now you can pretend to be both hartmann and rommel. way to argue against yourself.

 

also, all of that can be achieved with better mission design, a more robust campaign system, improved ai, etc. no need for any immersion breaking "TS calls".

 

controllable ground vehicles seem extremely superfluous. what next, controllable infantry? why dilute the experience?

 

but i guess if they can sell these vehicle dlcs and fund development of the game proper, i can live with it.

Edited October 17, 2015 by johncage

[Brano]

I think it's a very positive thing.

 

You want to talk about realism and immersion?

 

How about being in comms with your flight of IL2s (or Stukas) and getting TS calls for help from your squadmates on the ground in tanks, needing air support.

 

That's what a combat simulation is all about, not endless furballing or circling around in low earth orbit pretending to be Hartmann.

I hope STAVKA will assign T-34 with radio transmitter,not receiver-only, to me And i hope for some BT-7s and BA-10/64 for crazy offroad rides.We could organize a rally thru the streets of Stalingrad! 

so now you can pretend to be both hartmann and rommel. way to argue against yourself.

Rommel,nope.I highly doubt he knew how to drive a tank.Michael Wittmans are comming to this boards 

[URUAker]

I´m all in for tanks. Great idea.

And we knew this was coming sooner or later.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Love the idea of tanks but don't think they will be very practical on main stream servers such as WOL. This imo is due to player number or more specifically pilots being displaced. We have all been waiting for more than 64 now we get 84 and say give 10 tank slots per side we are back to 64 again.

 

I think tanks could be used very well in a organised weekly mission. We sign up 10-15 tanks per side starting at relatively close distance, have 10 attack planes and 2 fighters. Then all duke it out=happy times

[Saurer]

Love the idea of tanks but don't think they will be very practical on main stream servers such as WOL. This imo is due to player number or more specifically pilots being displaced. We have all been waiting for more than 64 now we get 84 and say give 10 tank slots per side we are back to 64 again.

 

That propably will be the case, but I think they will work great on coconut's server for example.

Edited October 17, 2015 by Saurer