Tanks...what new feature(s) would you like to see?

[GrendelsDad]

1.  I would think independent track control would be great.  (use 2 joysticks to drive, or the 2 analog sticks on a controller)

2.  Please enable force feedback for all axis in the tank.  Even the turret should cause some feedback when turning and firing.  And of course effects driving about and what not.

3.  Also having the turret controllable by a joystick with FFB would be awesome as well.

 

I would be willing to pay for a tank and vehicles edition of the game that was still played on the maps with the main game. 

 

Lets not let this turn into to a "tanks shouldn't be in the game/resources should'nt be wasted on tanks" discussion.

Lets pretend they hire a new group of people for the tank portion of the sim.

 

That being said I look forward to your ideas. 

Edited July 19, 2016 by 6./ZG1_GrendelsDad

[Cpt_Cool]

Fire the Coax MG independent from the main gun - not as an "ammo type."

[1Sascha]

 

 

Fire the Coax MG independent from the main gun - not as an "ammo type."

 

 

 

3.  Also having the turret controllable by a joystick with FFB would be awesome as well.

 

Those.

 

 

Also: Model a "real" commander-position. Commander should be able to turn independently from turret and should have two fixed zoom modes:

1. Normal view (no zoom) ... err.. cue the MST3K-jokes

2. Binocular view (zoomed in) But take away the bionic eyes ... either he's looking through his binoculars or he isn't.. :D

3. Buttoned up he should be able to use his view-slits or periscope - depending on what was available on the tank.

 

Model hull-gunner (but I could live without him)

 

Model turret's interior and make that the default view for the gunner (when not looking through the gunsight) and for the commander (when buttoned up and not looking through view-slits/periscope).

 

Nice to have: A player controlled gear-box/transmission and the ability to map the throttle.

 

Also add the limitation of only being able to drive/steer when you're actually sitting in the driver's seat. When you switch out of that position, the tank should follow the last control input you gave as the driver.

 

Can tanks currently be  multi-crewed? If not: Make that an option.

 

And of course: More drive-able tanks. Since there doesn't seem to be an object viewer in the game, I'm not even sure what tanks there are. On the German side I think I've seen a Panzer IV F2 or G model (long 75mm gun), that one would be nice to drive. Are there Tigers in the game? Pretty obvious choice for a player-controlled tank if it's in the game. :D KV-1 would also be an obvious choice.

 

 

S.

[GrendelsDad]

I dont think Tigers are in game but I could be wrong.  Yes you can multicrew the tanks...driver/gunner which is pretty cool.

Edited July 19, 2016 by 6./ZG1_GrendelsDad

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

I dont think Tigers are in game but I could be wrong.  Yes you can multicrew the tanks...driver/gunner which is pretty cool.

but not Bow Guns. I hope they figure that part out.

[Mac_Messer]

I don`t use tanks in BoS but maybe deploying smokescreen...?

[[CPT]milopugdog]

but not Bow Guns. I hope they figure that part out.

That would just be another gunner seat, yeah? They'd have to add the MG and interior.

[[APAF]VR_Spartan85]

the ability to call in artillery support while in commander seat if needed/overwhelmed.  dont know if thats a real tactic but it would be neat to have it as a mission type, or as cover when advancing on an enemy position..  yes thats what the planes are for but not everyone covers the tanks on the ground.

[1Sascha]

Almost forgot: The driver view on the Pz III is too restrictive. If you look up and to the right, you'll see the eyepiece for the driver's periscope hanging there. IIRC, you would slide that thing into position in front of you, and close the driver's hatch. Then you'd use the eyepiece to observe your surroundings through the driver periscope.

 

 

 

That would just be another gunner seat, yeah? They'd have to add the MG and interior.

 

Currently, they seem to have 1/4 of the hull compartment modeled (forward, left side or "driver's station"). To add the bow MG they would have to model the forward, right section of the hull compartment and the radio-operator's station (he doubled as the bow gunner in combat).

 

To quote Monty Python: "It's only a model", but it illustrates the Pz III's interior pretty well, IMO:

 

 

 

Driver seat is on the bottom right of the picture. I don't think the game has anything modeled on the other side of the drive-shaft tunnel (in the pic: left of the driver seat/drive-shaft-tunnel).

 

S.

Edited July 20, 2016 by 1Sascha

[wtornado]

Almost forgot: The driver view on the Pz III is too restrictive. If you look up and to the right, you'll see the eyepiece for the driver's periscope hanging there. IIRC, you would slide that thing into position in front of you, and close the driver's hatch. Then you'd use the eyepiece to observe your surroundings through the driver periscope.

 

 

 

 

Currently, they seem to have 1/4 of the hull compartment modeled (forward, left side or "driver's station"). To add the bow MG they would have to model the forward, right section of the hull compartment and the radio-operator's station (he doubled as the bow gunner in combat).

 

To quote Monty Python: "It's only a model", but it illustrates the Pz III's interior pretty well, IMO:

 

 

 

Driver seat is on the bottom right of the picture. I don't think the game has anything modeled on the other side of the drive-shaft tunnel (in the pic: left of the driver seat/drive-shaft-tunnel).

 

S.

What no interiour toilet and shower in the PZ III?

 

Send it back to the production lines I want mine equipped like a RV.

[GrendelsDad]

Great ideas so far guys...most seem possible with the game engine as it is I would think.  I know so little about tanks from this era, thanks for the education as well.

[1Sascha]

I just some quick reading up on the Tiger's operational history and it seems that there actually may not have been any Tigers present at Stalingrad. Even though the tank fits the time-line, with the first getting captured in the East as early as Leningrad:

 

 

 

The first time Tiger saw action was on August 29th of 1942 and September 21st/22nd at Mga, southeast of Leningrad with 1st company of sPzAbt 502. The unsuccessful engagements ended in the new Tiger being captured by the Soviets, who then examined it and exhibited during the captured equipment exhibition in Moscow’s Gorky Park in 1943. The failure of Tigers was attributed to mechanical problems as well as poor terrain conditions, totally unsuitable for heavy tanks. In December of 1942, Tigers from sPzAbt 501, saw action near Tunis in North Africa.

 

(from achtungpanzer.com)

 

From what I could find, there was a company of Tigers that were meant to take part in "Wintergewitter", but they didn't arrive in time (or got bogged down?) so they didn't take part in the fighting.

 

Oh well ... if the 190 made it into the game, why not the Tiger?

 

S.

[216th_Jordan]

because 190 has shown that this kind of legendary objects gets wehraboos going mad about their fantasy object of desire not matching reality. (No FM discussion intended here) No seriously: Adding objects that don't belong to the frame is generally a bad idea for simulations while I would surely like such tanks and stuff to be in the sim.

Edited July 20, 2016 by 216th_Jordan

[GrendelsDad]

I would settle for a drive-able Stug and a Panzer 4

[1Sascha]

 

 

No seriously: Adding objects that don't belong to the frame is generally a bad idea for simulations while I would surely like such tanks and stuff to be in the sim.

 

Meh... considering the fact that the Tiger does fit the time-line and that the game might get new maps in the future (Leningrad? Kursk? E-Germany/outskirts of Berlin for a late war scenario?), I don't see a big problem here. Yes: probably don't offer it as a standard option on the Stalingrad map, but even then, at least *make* it an option. The tanks were *intended* to go there and were in the general area ... so they would've fought, had it not been for some sort of mishap.

 

After all: We're not talking about including, say, a Spit XIV, P-51D or 109 K-4 into a BoB-scenario here.

 

 

 

I would settle for a drive-able Stug and a Panzer 4

 

Ideally, all the tanks that are in-game should be driveable at some point - even if that means that not all of them can get highly realistic interiors. I'd settle for some sort of "game-y" compromise when it comes to interior looks if that means making more tanks player-controlled objects.

 

StuGs would be great to have, yes .. and a quick glance at the mission builder shows that we already have an early StuG in (B model? D? not sure ... short barrelled 75mm/L24 cannon) and a later model StuG III F or G with the longer /L48 75mm gun. Both of which have the advantage that they're based on the Pz III chassis, so some parts of the interior 3D-model can probably be re-used from the Panzer. Gun-wise it would need some special treatment though. Especially the really early StuGs which had to open a pretty large plate in the superstructure's front armor in order to employ their gunsight - later models had a tiny periscope sticking out vertically through a small "port" in the roof. And the early StuG's commander didn't have a cupola, either - just a large "hatch" in the roof of the vehicle for the commander to stick his head out of.

 

StuGs would also almost certainly scream for a less "convenient" means of steering the tank. If you're able to precisely steer the vehicle while manning the gun, the real-life drawback that these things had (very limited gun traverse) wouldn't be as large of a drawback as it should be.

 

S.

[69th_chuter]

Basic physics.  (Again with the physics, that's just my OCD at work ... again - lol) 

 

A Russian 76mm F34 armor piercing round striking a panzer III floating in space and able to transfer 100% of its energy to the vehicle (not realistic, it wouldn't do any damage to the armor) would only accelerate the whole tank to just over 1/2 foot per second (floating in space, remember).  Sitting on the ground the tank, absorbing most of the shot in the local area of its armor, wouldn't move.  (Video of panzers shooting-up three knocked out T34s shows the T34s not moving at all with any of the strikes.)  I've had the experience of driving down the road at speed, having a round strike the side of the vehicle toward the back and completely spin the tank around.  It doesn't get any gamier than that, frankly.

 

A separate co-ax machine gun trigger would be a godsend.

 

Being able to choose one's loadout would be cool, as well as maybe an ammo overload capability (with, maybe, an initial reload time penalty), tho not asking for it.

 

Would love the StuG - even the L43.

 

 

 

 

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

I really like tanks. I would like to see this branch evolve here

[Gump]

one thing that I REALLY think should change is the shaking view (commander) when driving should NOT be shaky - it should be smooth. a person's vision does not do this when riding in a bumpy vehicle. this shaking makes it hard to see sometimes and requires a stop to 'focus'.

.

i think that being able to drive the tank while in the commander position is good for gameplay. most tanks are single player entities, and not many ppl play them anyways. making them harder to drive would probably kill participation.

[Thad]

Salutations,

 

I don't really want to bring up any proposed new 'features' for the tanks in IL2. I just want to complain about how poorly they seem to be supported. For example, there are no tank missions included with my, just purchased, Stalingrad version. I doubt there are any included with the Moscow version. I had to search the forums to find a 'few'. Also, there are also no 'tank specific' control options 'readily available' for reference. I had to look all over the forums to find a limited commands lists for tanks.

 

I realize IL2 is primarily a flight simulation and not a armor based game but I'm disappointed and frustrated by the apparent lack of support the tanks have received. It does not bode well for 'any' new features for them in the future. I have to ask, why bring them in for player use and then not clearly support their use and functionality?

 

I don't want to come across as totally negative but I like the option to use tanks and think they should be better supported.

 

wdb

Edited December 10, 2016 by wdboyds

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Add a crewable long barrel Panzer IV to make the current tank combat competitive and I think you would have (had?) a better chance for commercial success. The tank battles were so one sided it makes the Bf 109 v Yak seem like parity.

 

Add the Panther v T-34/85 if we were going to take another stab at it. Those two would get the tankies salivating again. I'd buy them as premiums to support both the development and said tankies' fun. I might even drive them a bit.

 

It seems this was a loosely supported side project by a few Dev team members. Anyone know who they were? Maybe a couple of emails could convince them to dip back into these waters when the Kuban project nears completion.

Edited December 9, 2016 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[Gambit21]

Salutations,

 

I don't really want to bring up any proposed new 'features' for the tanks in IL2. I just want to complain about how poorly they seem to be supported. For example, there are no tank missions included with my, just purchased, Stalingrad version. I doubt there are any included with the Moscow version. I had to search the forums to find a 'few'. Also, there are also no 'tank specific' control options 'readily available' for reference. I had to look all over the forums to find a limited commands lists for tanks.

 

I realize IL2 is primarily a flight simulation and not a armor based game but I'm disappointed and frustrated by the apparent lack of support the tanks have received. It does not bode well for 'any' new features in the future. Why bring them in for player use and then not clearly support their use and functionality?

 

I don't want to come across as totally negative but I like the option to use tanks and think they should be better supported.

 

wdb

 

They were an experiment - and yes this is a flight sim.

Posts like this probably make the devs wish they hadn't included them at all - this is a SMALL team with

limited resources. As such I want my $$$ going toward aircraft, not tank development.

 

Fact of the matter is that it doesn't pencil out for them to further develop tanks at this time - so just enjoy what you have.

If you want a fleshed out armor simulation then look elsewhere.

 

Not being rude, just laying it out .

[SAG]

I would love more tanks and would pay for them. 

[216th_Jordan]

I have to agree though, the tanks are there and wonderful, but the game does not give you anything along with them. So there are many people that own BoS or BoM and don't even know there are player controlled tanks because only few MP servers use them and there are no built-in Single player missions (there is a package of nice ones though - they would just need to be integrated and labeled 'community made').

In any case the player can always be told by the game that the tanks are just a side project and not to expect too much from them. (they are a lot though! just maybe not the standard as in the planes)

Edited December 9, 2016 by 216th_Jordan

[TWC_Ace]

As a combat flight sim fan..Im almost sure they would make way more money if they make hardcore tank sim...a lot of WT and even WoT fans would convert to that...And that is a way bigger fan base than flight sim community..

Edited December 9, 2016 by blackram

[Gambit21]

They're a small flight sim development team - so no they won't make more money if they make a tank sim.

[TWC_Ace]

They're a small flight sim development team - so no they won't make more money if they make a tank sim.

You know what I meant. If and IF they convert all their sources to make a tank sim.....they would sell copies like christmas candies and they would be able to afford more employees...Maybe Im wrong dunno...

[Gunsmith86]

I hope that we will see some comunity made tanks when mods are alowed with BoK

[csThor]

I have to agree though, the tanks are there and wonderful, but the game does not give you anything along with them. So there are many people that own BoS or BoM and don't even know there are player controlled tanks because only few MP servers use them and there are no built-in Single player missions (there is a package of nice ones though - they would just need to be integrated and labeled 'community made').

 

Well, from my perspective the choice of the T-34/76 is correct from the historical and gameplay POVs, but while the choice of the Panzer III Ausf. L is absolutely correct from the historical POV (with the Panzer III being the most numerous tank model during the Stalingrad campaign on the german side) it presents a serious problem from a gameplay POV. Capability-wise the Panzer IV Ausf. G would have been a much better match for the T-34/76 as the Panzer IV has the capability to penetrate the T-34/76 from the front at combat distances, the Panzer III Ausf. L does not (the field could be somewhat leveled if the Pz III Ausf. L had the Panzergranate 40 tungsten-cored round which became available in numbers in spring 1942 and which could penetrate a T-34/76 from the front below 500m).

 

That presents the mission maker with a serious problem, because he has to compensate for this "lack of capability" by carefully designing an environment which depicts the german strength at combined arms warfare (i.e. spawning 8,8cm Flak guns, AT guns, artillery fire etc). That is difficult to pull off in a game engine not designed for that particular role (not to mention that I have no clue if it could be even done in the Mission Editor and that maze of different triggers and event handlers) but even if it could be done it would still not overcome the most serious problem: Teamwork with AI. The Wehrmacht of 1941 and 1942 (and in good parts of 1943) overcame numerically stronger (often far stronger) soviet (armored) forces because of their superior doctrine, skill at combined arms, much better command & control and the general presence of radios in each and every tank (something the soviets didn't achieve until very late in the war). The Panzer III is a relict of that age, it's not a Panther which can take out a T-34 at 2,000m if you can shoot well enough ... But that level of teamwork isn't possible with the AI, is it? I cannot truly envision the player being able to have his platoon of 5 tanks stop behind a ridgeline and wait for the enemy to present their sides (at least the custom tank missions I've played weren't designed that way).

 

Accurately depicting tank warfare as it happened on the eastern front is a serious task and especially for the german side it puts high demands on the mission builder even if just to avoid player frustration by putting him into situations that bear little relation to reality (but correspond to some superficial "urban myths"). Which is probably why there are so few tank missions out there (apart from the fact that not everybody is able to use the Mission Editor in the first place).

Edited December 9, 2016 by csThor

[Brano]

Frankly,for average player it is really a jobstopper not having easy-to-use quick mission builder for tank engagements and at least few stock SP missions for both sides coming in one package of game install. I understand what wdboyds tries to say.

Im all for combined arms simulation. It can bring in tankers from WoT/WT craving for more realistic tank warfare. For that you need to flesh out the accessories. Like they do for Ju-52. Not only the plane will be available,but also game mechanics to justify its use within game environment. I stay optimistic on this matter and Im sure devs will come back to this sooner or later. It cant be a proper WW2 war game without tigers,panthers,IS-2 and zveroboys for Korsun-Shevchenkovsky winter and Bagration summer 1944 DLC :D

[Dakpilot]

It is interesting that if you look at the very first DD there is the Tank tech demo long before a single aircraft was shown 

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/page-1

 

As has been said the Tank tech was already there and introduced as an experiment with the 3D models being made when there was an empty timeslot for the modellers.

 

No extra time or resources were taken from developing the Flight sim aspect.

 

There was a lot of public backlash when Tanks were introduced, which I felt was a shame as human targets/logic added greatly to some MP servers

and gave a new gameplay element for some.

 

As an experiment I would call it a success, it hindered nothing, cost us nothing and is/was fun and improved ground/terrain interaction that benefitted the flight sim part

 

As csThor says, to develope it further would need considerable thought/developement, also with benefits of DX11 previous elements of gameplay which were limited by performance considerations may become easier to consider

 

Personally, to reduce the German frustration a Stug III would go a long way to cure the disparity in a historic way and add a new element without huge new (comparatively) work. 

 

What does need to be done ASAP is update the Users manual and integrate into Base game install, and maybe include one/some of the better user made missions (aircraft and tanks) with each patch

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[csThor]

What does need to be done ASAP is update the Users manual and integrate into Base game install, and maybe include one/some of the better user made missions (aircraft and tanks) with each patch

 

Given the number of times Jason has had to discourage expectations of users with a "lack of resources" given as reason I doubt this can be a task the development team can achieve. Missions and manuals will have to come from within the community (as for example JimTM proved with his Mission Editor manual). As I said before the challenge here is to mesh knowledge about armored warfare (and the "specific quirks" of both sides) with the ability to use the Mission Editor to its fullest - and then add the layer of using the Editor's campability to include media files (and have someone with the ability to write briefings and texts in an interesting and yet realistic manner). That is hardly a task one person alone can fulfill, I don't think anyone is that versatile.

Edited December 9, 2016 by csThor

[RAY-EU]

Tiger I

 

[7.GShAP/Silas]

Some of the best fun I've had in the sim has either been in tanks with some comrades or in IL-2s supporting them on DED. Nothing like flying over your own tankers, close enough to see the open crew hatches and helping them hammer the enemy.  Or bombing a bridge as the enemy armor rushes to get across and attack your airfields/capture a town.  Or commanding a tank, taking the time to navigate to an enemy airfield, cautious of every droning aircraft engine you hear.

 

Great fun. Very excited for any additions the developers make.  Just like the Ju-52 and associated gameplay will add a huge amount of color to the MP experience for EVERYONE, so too do tanks.  Where there are tanks there are attack aircraft, where there are attack aircraft there are fighters, where there are fighters there are more fighters. A healthy ecosystem.

 

 

Tiger I

 

 

Didn't know they made another Lord of the Rings movie.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Silas

[Dakpilot]

Given the number of times Jason has had to discourage expectations of users with a "lack of resources" given as reason I doubt this can be a task the development team can achieve. Missions and manuals will have to come from within the community (as for example JimTM proved with his Mission Editor manual). As I said before the challenge here is to mesh knowledge about armored warfare (and the "specific quirks" of both sides) with the ability to use the Mission Editor to its fullest - and then add the layer of using the Editor's campability to include media files (and have someone with the ability to write briefings and texts in an interesting and yet realistic manner). That is hardly a task one person alone can fulfill, I don't think anyone is that versatile.

 

Sorry I was not very clear, I meant the very good Official user manual

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/16752-il-2bos-user-manual-released-first-edition-english/

 

This needs to be integrated and not a separate download, updated with new patches with new features, such as Tank commands and newer aircraft and their systems as they are released

 

Although using resources I feel it is vital for new users and would be hugely beneficial to the success of the series

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[216th_Jordan]

Sorry I was not very clear, I meant the very good Official user manual

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/16752-il-2bos-user-manual-released-first-edition-english/

 

This needs to be integrated and not a separate download, updated with new patches with new features, such as Tank commands and newer aircraft and their systems as they are released

 

Although using resources I feel it is vital for new users and would be hugely beneficial to the success of the series

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

This.

[7.GShAP/Silas]

Sorry I was not very clear, I meant the very good Official user manual

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/16752-il-2bos-user-manual-released-first-edition-english/

 

This needs to be integrated and not a separate download, updated with new patches with new features, such as Tank commands and newer aircraft and their systems as they are released

 

Although using resources I feel it is vital for new users and would be hugely beneficial to the success of the series

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

This is true.  You (very)often see people asking about the controls, and not just tank controls(though those are particularly difficult to find) .

Edited December 9, 2016 by Silas

[Nil]

I do not like to play with tanks, but after tried it in a training server, I found a lot of potential.

We should be able to play tanks on Quick missions!

To add more, I would love to drive a AA gun truck to protect our airfields in MP or whatever we care about

[Roo5ter]

Definitely monetize the ground game and start selling it.  If DX11 is also going to allow more players on the maps not just objects then there is huge potential.  I wouldn't want the game to have more stuff for tanks unless they were going to be able to monetize it and hire a couple people dedicated to doing the tank stuff so the flight simulation was not affected.

A ton of people who don't like flight sims would pay for a solid ground game.  Build out more tanks and interesting groundplay, test it, release it and sell it separately of the other games.  For the people who already own the game, allow them to use the tanks that are already in the game since we don't want to take features away.

 

I think this model would work especially if there are robust AAA options for players on the ground between mobile and airfield defense.  Ground forces would need to be something you can jump into though given the large expanses on the maps, much in the way that gunners are for aircraft today.  You can just jump in and crew it up and AI fills the rest of the spots (server configurable of course).  Having players actually on the deck at airfields and other objectives providing defense from the ground working in tandem with air would be fun. 

Edited December 10, 2016 by Roo5ter

[Thad]

Salutations,

 

Personally, I really like the inclusion of player tanks into the IL2 experience.

 

I'd like to see section (2 AFV) and platoon (3-4 AFV) control for the player. Much like the flight leader has in the air but for tanks. Is this possible in the game engine?

[hames123]

I want some Mark 4s now that we are going into 1943 and beyond, and maybe even a Panther to match the T-34s.

And some lobbies with tank objectives, for example, the Germans must capture a point defended by Soviet AT guns and AA, with support from aircraft, while the Soviets must stop them.