Jump to content

[KG]Destaex

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About [KG]Destaex

  • Rank
    Founder

Recent Profile Visitors

248 profile views
  1. [KG]Destaex

    [MOD] Sound Adjust

    This sounds great and may actually allow me to play with tinitus
  2. A great discussion and one that is (especially from Unreasonable) much better at clearly describing what I was getting at in the other thread. Where I apparently came off as a demanding entitled overbearing anti-game jerk for my passionate (maybe too passionate) attempt to convince the devs to do what I wanted to make this game fit my requirements perfectly. I read a great book on the Sherman called "death traps" which is controversial to some who do not believe the authors first hand accounts. But it certainly showed the resilience of the Sherman in terms of getting them back into action fairly quickly and how reliable they were. I also seem to remember that the US had heavy tanks ready to go but did not want to dedicate the cargo space to transport them at the time. They were confident I guess with the Sherman's numbers being useful all over the front against everything rather than focusing on tank vs tank actions that would have occurred much less commonly. Only much later did they deem it prudent for whatever reason (combat testing for post war designs perhaps?) to get some heavies over. The Pershing. Which only served in small numbers in the final months of the war. This tells I think a lot about what the Sherman crews were expected to fight even late in the war. Or was it that they just accepted the casualty rate of Shermans vs the untried green Panther, MKIV and Tiger crews of the late war and the sprinkling of veterans left? I will continue to watch this game with interest. It always excites me when I see videos on it. P.s. Unreasonable. You sound a lot like the Chieftain. Which made me think of this video. At 18:03 the Chieftain explains why the US at least initially wanted tank destroyers to defeat attacking tanks and NOT Tanks to defend against tanks, thus saving the tanks for the attacking role. I know it did not always work out this way but it goes some way to explaining why tanks are not primarily for fighting other tanks and why on the defensive, pushing late war german tanks into the tank destroyer role in acts of desperation was not ideal for the tank. Possibly why counter attacks by German tanks were common in defence as well. The intended role of the Tank unlike infantry is not where possible to waste them taking on other tanks that neutralise your comparative advantage. Most tank missions ideally would simply be in the breakthrough or mobile support capacity with Anti-Tank (unlike modern MBTs) being .
  3. Jason is there no way you guys would do infantry? Did not mean to sound like I was discouraging. I was just stating what my strategy was for buying in the hope feature will be added that are not coming. But I guess it could be construed like that sorry.
  4. I don’t think the price tag fits a rough cut. The price tag fits a fully fleshed out and developed game from scratch. From the ground up. When actually it utilises an existing engine and experienced team with a lot of existing assets. I would not say this is a dip in the water. The devs have a huge head start. Furthermore Inhave purchased games in the hope that they will develop into what I want later. But they never seem too. Or they take a good chunk of your life waiting while features complete. It is better to wait and see before buying if infantry are planned rather than jumping in while the developers comprehensively state their will be no infantry.
  5. Well put CCIP. Combined arms is a reality. Tanks would have seen infantry more than other tanks so not having them in a simulator of this scale is ridiculous..
  6. So you only want to depict the breakout phase? No advancing on well defended enemy lines, no bunker busting, no tactical retreats, no moving into suburban areas or defending suburban areas, no deploying of panzer grenadiers from transport to advance and clear ahead of tanks or with them, no firefighting units coming to infantrys aid? It should also be noted that you include no other nations tank tactics at any other time in ww2 in your videos.
  7. Not this age thing again. It really gets in the way of making a war simulation. Especially when you consider how many other games and war movies there are out there and that show men or soldiers dying in war that are pg. I am not asking for people’s limbs to be ripped off. I am just asking for one of the things that tanks saw on a daily basis. Infantry. If they cannot be in game then how can this even be called a tank crew simulator? It should be called a tank vs cherry picked vehicles simulator. War is hell. I very much doubt many kids under 13 play the flight version of this simulator. What rating does tank crew have currently anyways? I assume gunning down at gun crews is already in? I am not asking for civilians. I am asking for historical combatants in a simulator. A simulator which may well depict crew and pilots as well as gunners and other people right now which can die in game. How can a simulator simulate without simulating. Besides, there are a tonne of games out their with infantry that I do not have bad ratings that are much worse than this would be with infantry. Men of war 2, steel division, company of heroes, combat mission etc
  8. This is steel fury Kharkov and this video illustrates exactly what I want from "tank crew". However steel fury is from 2008 I believe and even has a paid mod called STA which I think is still available to buy. STA is a modular mod apparently that lets you buy tank interiors and things like that.. Check this out. Give me infantry like it's done here and I am bound to be more likely to bite for this game. This looks amazing. Infantry moving beside tanks as they advance. Tank crew with their heads out. This is how I imagined crewing a tank in ww2 would have been.
  9. Thanks for the link. On this page Jason confirms they do not have the time or resources to make infantry. So unfortunately this tank simulator is rather like a flight simulator with fighters and no bombers. What you essentially have is a fish bowl style simulator. Rather than a combat simulation you literally have the ability to drive around and shoot other vehicles in a vacuum. For $107 Australian I am amazed that they don't have the resources. I think they would get many more people on board if they did have infantry even as an addon. Perhaps we should lobby for an addon product that includes properly modelled infantry? Never going to happen right? Perhaps it would be possible to get canned animations from somewhere so they do not have to do the hard yards? "Tank Crew" apart from the tank interiors, seems to offer the same experience to me as war thunder and post scriptum do. The only differences I can see are a few support vehicles like AT guns and transports and being able to see what is probably a non-animated tank interior? This is even though considering they did a whole flight simulator, at the same price which is a much more complex undertaking. They don't seem to have the "resources" to do this tank simulator if it involves developing new things in the engine??? I don't know. I guess I am just disappointed here that my dreams of a fully priced combat ww2 tank simulator are crushed. No combined arms and no tank crew animation. I doubt the interior is clickable and I don't know if the crew inside the vehicle will be animated as they were in red orchestra 2. It makes me wonder if their new ww1 sim is going to do rising flight's hand signals? Do they have the rising flight source code? It's the same guys right? I will keep following this thread and game though. I am still interested. Just markedly less so. Red Orchestra 2 - Also on a shoestring budget. I think I paid about $20 for it. The tank interiors were amazing for their time. I was blown away. The crew even crawl between positions.
  10. For what tanks were killed by I found this to be very interesting. The video is very recent. You will note that aircraft had very little impact on armour. You will also note that when the German RPG style weapons came into being late war the ratio of kills with them became huge. Something like 25-35% in spring 1945 against the allies? It seems data from the Russian front is much harder to come by at least in English? I am however not worried about the infantry's effectiveness of killing tanks, but rather that without them you change the way tanks were used and protected. In short, tanks are most effective with infantry. This is what I want to see simulated. As a tanker you want to be wishing for your infantry when you do not have them. You want to fear going near towns or in towns where you can be ambushed by infantry. You want to be spraying possible infantry positions with machine guns... but can you spare the rounds? You want to button up close to those possible positions as you will get sniped at and only unbutton at long distances. THe infantry scouting ahead for AT positions etc. You don't just want to bound around bumbling into AT gun ambushes all the time. At the very least you want infantry that can spot and take care of them or tell you where to shoot. That is why infantry had phones on the back of shermans at some point. Sure you could go on the offensive with your tanks and nothing else, you could lose your infantry support in the break out or leave them behind. But then their are only limited things you can do. Which amount to long range raiding. This is all that tank crew will be able to simulate I guess. But not even that without enemy infantry regiments. Maybe just localised skirmishes. Rather than being part of large offensives. I remember reading about Russian infantry using old AT-Rifles in numbers to take out tanks at close range as they rolled over the infantry lines. Not sure how true that was. This begs another question. How many tanks can fight each other at once? I understand. The main point here is "when" a tank faces other tanks. I will be sure to check this out.
  11. The point though in the end is that this game badly needs well modelled infantry. I don’t know how well the tanks will be modelled. But assuming they are modelled to study sim level like steel beasts then we kind of need an equivalent attention to infantry.
  12. I meant when they used tanks on the western front. They did not focus their tanks solely on taking on other tanks. One of their main focuses was infantry support. The Churchill was very good at that as well. On the eastern front you still were very careful if possible to always keep infantry nearby even when taking on other tanks with tanks. I do wonder even on the eastern front though how comparatively rare tank vs tank engagements were given the comparatively small numbers of them. How it may be more common to take on infantry. Even it it is just in the initial breakthrough. We tend to focus on the big tank battles but that are probably relatively few. in any case I would say for a simulator it would be just as common to take on anti tank belts, infantry and terrain problems such as mud, snow and at burns or ditches as well as dug in tanks and hiding your tank in a barn. But Inexpect this game will focus on open flat field tank vs tank duels with little to no elevation or terrain features to test the driver and drive train sprockets. No recovery vehicle calling or formation organic aaa??
  13. I understand that. However if you look at US doctrine especially with their tanks, they understood that 99% of the time tanks were going to face infantry to break through enemy lines. You don't try to go tank v tank. That's just asking for attrition. The Sherman was built to support infantry first and then secondary was to take on tanks. Tank Destroyers and AT guns were to take the tanks on. But of course on the eastern front it was a little different. Some still say part of the allied success on the western front later was that they did not focus on heavy tanks to take on tanks and instead concentrated on mediums in numbers for infantry across the front.
  14. Voidhunger. When you are claiming your game is a simulator nothing is simple. Everything is complex. A tank is much less complex to simulate than an aircraft. So their should be some CPU cycles left for the rest of the things we need for ground combat. It may be a lot of work but it is what it is to make a tank simulator worth its salt. If you just want to do what other tank simulators I mentioned above have done or LESS then I don't know if it is worth it. This simulator is priced at double what those were when they came out except perhaps steel beasts pro PE. Which the military use and certainly has infantry and everything else needed to be in the situations the tankers would be in. I can play war thunder simulator mode for free with tanks only. People buy things to experience what they have NOT experienced before. Not to do the same thing that previous games did with new skins. Unless that is that the previous game had already reached 100% of features possible. I am sure the devs know what they want to do with the simulator and I am sure they are not aiming low. Fingers crossed as you say that they can get some good wave style Russian attacks going and that they do some nice infantry animations. After all. Tanks primary targets are infantry not tanks... but then this is kursk style tank vs tank There were still a lot of infantry at kursk. Kursk
×
×
  • Create New...