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

[Thad]

Salutations,

 

I would pay for the more 'drivable' tanks or other armored fighting vehicles. One more for each side would be a great start.

[Yogiflight]

I'd prefer long barreled StuGIII for german side. Would be something new to make this driveable. And it could well handle the T34.

[Ala13_Super6_1]

I really like the theme of the tanks in this simulator. It is the only simulator in which you can combine air and land operations. Now the tanks are very underdeveloped, if in the future they would remove a package with quality tanks and I would pay with them.

 

-Let the members of the crew be seen as in the airplanes.

-various types of tanks.

- damage system of real tanks.

-binocular for the tank commander. BASIC

-Animations and signals from the commander, just like on the planes.

-control of fuel and mechanics, as in aircraft.

[Gambit21]

Not going to happen.

Manning an AA gun however - very doable.

[Cpt_Cool]

Could a scripted campaign be made for the tanks we do have?

[216th_Jordan]

Could a scripted campaign be made for the tanks we do have?

 

I would think so. However singleplayer wise the engine is not adapted to really feature this kind of gameplay as AI for example can see you, no matter if you are hidden or not.

Edited December 23, 2016 by 216th_Jordan

[Blitzen]

I'd settle for more missions for what we already have & drive ability for all the tanks& perhaps some of the vehicles too.I think it would be great if mid mission we could switch from vehicle to vehicle & see the battlefield from various perspectives ala CloD missions or pick a vehicle prior to the mission beginning ala modded old Il-2 with MissionProCombo.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

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.

Well, yes and no.

 

I think it would need to be done in steps. When time allows, as it was done with the Pz.III and T-34/76, release a Panther and T-34/85 as premiums in Kuban for ten bucks each. They compare/contrast well and would make for really fun/balanced tank to tank combat. See how it does from both a player base and commercial standpoint, and then decide if there is enough there to start adding staff.

 

I suspect it would do very well and justify expanding. I wouldn't want to divert existing funds from the flight sim to launch a ground module or expand staff to accomplish it.

Edited December 23, 2016 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Well, yes and no.

 

I think it would need to be done in steps. When time allows, as it was done with the Pz.III and T-34/76, release a Panther and T-34/85 as premiums in Kuban for ten bucks each. They compare/contrast well and would make for really fun/balanced tank to tank combat. See how it does from both a player base and commercial standpoint, and then decide if there is enough there to start adding staff.

 

I suspect it would do very well and justify expanding. I wouldn't want to divert existing funds from the flight sim to launch a ground module or expand staff to accomplish it.

 

Panther and T-34/85 wouldn't be very correct. First off T-34/85 production started in February 1944, Panther's debut was Battle of Kursk, but don't know if after that there were some at Kuban.

 

Regardless of historical accuracy, the vehicles wouldn't be very balanced: from the front the T-34 would have to get quite close to the Panther to be able to penetrate (less than 1000 meters, if ammunition shatter is modelled then it may be even closer) and only in the relatively small flat area of the mantlet (the hull can't be penetrated at all), while the Panther can just pop the T-34 out of existence from more than 2 kms away. The Panther has the advantage in reload rate, being able to shot at least 2 shots for each one of the T-34/85. Also the Panther has the mobility advantage offroad thanks to it's very good suspension (T-34 suspension was optimized for road speed, while not being so good offroad).

 

Basically the T-34s will almost have to ambush the Panthers and shoot them at their sides, which wouldn't be too easy provided the Panthers are clever and keep the engagements in open spaces and long distances, they also have the way better rate of fire and moblity advantage which makes this task more difficult. The advantages of the T-34/85 (which are basically low price, ease of production, high numbers) wouldn't be protrayed in a game context, neither the disadvantages of the Panther (low reliability, transmission failures, hard to mantain, low numbers) in the early stages of it's service.

 

If we were to choose the main tanks of both sides in 1943... I would say they should be the Panzer IV H and the T-34/76 model 1943 (new hexagonal turret). If the T-34/76 mod 1943 is way too similar to the previous one for the players then another option could be the KV-1S, it's a variant of the KV-1 with a new transmission, new turret design and a bit less armor to make it faster and easier to handle, the gun is the same than that of the T-34/76

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Fair enough, I'll take a IVH v /76 but a stepped program is the only thing I think will work. I think you'd need something sexier to get more people into them. Panther v ????

 

But that's purely my personal opinion.

[Willy__]

 

 

Basically the T-34s will almost have to ambush the Panthers and shoot them at their sides, which wouldn't be too easy provided the Panthers are clever and keep the engagements in open spaces and long distances, they also have the way better rate of fire and moblity advantage which makes this task more difficult. The advantages of the T-34/85 (which are basically low price, ease of production, high numbers) wouldn't be protrayed in a game context, neither the disadvantages of the Panther (low reliability, transmission failures, hard to mantain, low numbers) in the early stages of it's service.

 

Change Panther to T34 and T34 to PzIII and you actually described what happens in tank battles today ingame. 

[hames123]

Maybe one day, the devs will find a way to integrate infantry, tanks and support weapons and make a tank sim: T-34, Battle of Stalingrad or KV-1, Battle of Leningrad.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Change Panther to T34 and T34 to PzIII and you actually described what happens in tank battles today ingame. 

 

While the T-34/76 vs Pz III is in favour of the T-34, the gap isn't as big as with T-34/85 vs Panther. The Pz III retains the rate of fire advantage and it's extra armor would cause problems for the 76mm gun at medium distances, more so if it's angled. But this is if every paramenter is correct (ammunition used, penetration stats, etc) I don't know how ballistics and penetration are modelled in BoS, it can get very complex really, with stuff like different penetration tables, the standards in which they were measured, the different types of armor, the hardness of the armor, modifiers to make them comparable between each other, the slope coefficients with the angle (it's more than just the pythagoras effective armor rule), overmatch, ammunition shatter, detonator fuse failure, etc.

But yeah I agree that a Pz IV vs T-34/76 would be a more balanced match-up than Pz III.

Edited December 24, 2016 by SuperEtendard