How could Tanks prove themselves Profitable?

[Jade_Monkey]

Same here. Manning the AAA would be a great option, protecting the base from a coordinated attack for example.

[SYN_Skydance]

I think that having manable AAA guns at the airfields and/or at target objectives would be a great idea. Being static, it would be easier to model than a moving object too.

 

I can remember a dambuster mission that we used to fly in Microsoft Combat Flight Sim 1 (CFS1) that had a Lancaster, modded with a tail gunner. We used it as a static model that was spawned near to the dam to defend it.

Edited September 21, 2016 by SYN_Skydance

[PatrickAWlson]

As has been suggested, it's time, resources, and money.  There is a huge area to cover for WWII air combat and I have not yet given up hope for a RoF reboot.  Adding armor and doing it well is a drain on time, resources, and money.  To compensate it would have to generate enough income to justify the expense. 

 

Here's my thought - I wonder if 1C would be willing to separate the tank code from the rest and maintain it as a plugin.  If they did this then tanks could be worked by third parties while 1C focused resources on aircraft.  1C would have ultimate control of modifications to the plugin and would write a small security layer to ensure that only the "official" version could work with the standard product.  I know that crowd sourcing is not a popular idea with 1C and they have very good reasons, but if it is limited to tanks ... maybe?

[Gunsmith86]

As has been suggested, it's time, resources, and money.  There is a huge area to cover for WWII air combat and I have not yet given up hope for a RoF reboot.  Adding armor and doing it well is a drain on time, resources, and money.  To compensate it would have to generate enough income to justify the expense. 

 

Here's my thought - I wonder if 1C would be willing to separate the tank code from the rest and maintain it as a plugin.  If they did this then tanks could be worked by third parties while 1C focused resources on aircraft.  1C would have ultimate control of modifications to the plugin and would write a small security layer to ensure that only the "official" version could work with the standard product.  I know that crowd sourcing is not a popular idea with 1C and they have very good reasons, but if it is limited to tanks ... maybe?

 

that would be great!

[SAG]

As has been suggested, it's time, resources, and money.  There is a huge area to cover for WWII air combat and I have not yet given up hope for a RoF reboot.  Adding armor and doing it well is a drain on time, resources, and money.  To compensate it would have to generate enough income to justify the expense. 

 

Here's my thought - I wonder if 1C would be willing to separate the tank code from the rest and maintain it as a plugin.  If they did this then tanks could be worked by third parties while 1C focused resources on aircraft.  1C would have ultimate control of modifications to the plugin and would write a small security layer to ensure that only the "official" version could work with the standard product.  I know that crowd sourcing is not a popular idea with 1C and they have very good reasons, but if it is limited to tanks ... maybe?

 

As long as it can be worked on, even by third parties, i'm all for it!

 

either way, i dont speak of a full tank sim, perhaps a couple of tanks and AAA guns made drivable? it could be an optional DLC just like the Helicopter DLC for ARMA III, not exactly in-line with the core game but not to far from it either. they complement each other.

 

could this be  a possibility?

[Monostripezebra]

I first was a tank sceptik, but I found they can work very well and be fun as well as usefull stuff to an online mission. But it depends a lot on how they are implemented in the online missions. DeD Expert had some nice attempts, but usually there where not enough people on tanks to make it all worthwhile. I mean when they were new, there was a HUGE amount of interest in them, but due to the limited balance and aplicabilty that really has dwindled down.

 

I don´t think it makes sense blow it up to a full feature, because there would be huge stones (interaction with other ground objects and ai objects right now is very poor and water is not really reflected as another surface type...etc) in the way, but rounding out and making the feature more usable by adding some more vehicles and different spawn point logics etc. could really be a low-cost, high effect measure.

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

Make Marder III playable

[hames123]

Just have more maps where the tanks are supported by AI to capture a target nearby, thus preventing the feeling of boredom you can get after driving for 2 hours and not seeing anything else, and finding the enemy base deserted.

Also make the Stug playable.

[JG13_opcode]

Might as well give it up guys, they won't add anything to the tank side of things.  They're going Pacific, remember?  AFAIK there were no tanks at Midway.

[SAG]

Might as well give it up guys, they won't add anything to the tank side of things.  They're going Pacific, remember?  AFAIK there were no tanks at Midway.

 

 

I'm a fan of the pacific theater myself but i dont really think that once Midway map is out it will be the only map people will play. do you? 

 

plus thats at least two years from now. so its kind of bitter sweet   

[GrendelsDad]

Hey, they were never going to make the JU52 flyable also.  Never give up hope guys!

[SAG]

Might as well give it up guys, they won't add anything to the tank side of things.  They're going Pacific, remember?  AFAIK there were no tanks at Midway.

 

 

Who said there couldnt be any tanks at Midway!?

 

 

 

     

[Danziger]

I'd wondered about the news that Albert had left Bos' as project leader and was managing another 1c title. I thought a tank sim seemed likely with a modified DN2 game engine.

This is what I was thinking as well. T-34: Battle of Stalingrad!

[hames123]

No, M3 Lee/Grant, battle of Kuban.

[VBF-12_Stele]

Firstly, as a ground pounder I think human tanks are far more interesting than predictable AI tanks. One server has/had a map that did this with icons off and it made ground pounding far more fun and exciting. I think this is an indirect feature that would help both tankers and ground pounders.

 

Secondly, I think there can be a balance for a mission on the servers. While tankers have a much longer time traversing than planes, I think it makes sense to make temporary spawn points that are close to objectives. If the tanks can meet those objectives (securing or destroying a location), then a new spawn point is created further in for another objective that pops up.

[SAG]

Firstly, as a ground pounder I think human tanks are far more interesting than predictable AI tanks. One server has/had a map that did this with icons off and it made ground pounding far more fun and exciting. I think this is an indirect feature that would help both tankers and ground pounders.

 

Secondly, I think there can be a balance for a mission on the servers. While tankers have a much longer time traversing than planes, I think it makes sense to make temporary spawn points that are close to objectives. If the tanks can meet those objectives (securing or destroying a location), then a new spawn point is created further in for another objective that pops up.

 

 

I am a bomber guy myself and i completely agree that moving and unpredictable targets are a far better option than tanks that stay in place or just move a few meters off road to avoid a bomb.

 

As for the second part of your comment, there are many people here that claim that the distance that Tanks have to travel is too much for their slow speed, but what youre saying is just one (a great idea by the way) possible solution that mission designers can create in order to make Tanks a good addition to current MP matches as well as SP.

 

In the end drivable Tanks, AAA, artillery, etc are just items that will enhance the Flight Simulator aspect of the game, and not only for ground pounders, if fighters commit to escorting bombers, theyll have to follow the routes that the ground forces are likely to take, so this will increase the chances of finding "trouble" but with the added value of having an Objective other than "Quaking" around the map.    

[GreenSocialist]

The reason I started playing WWII flight simulators was the realistic immersion into a beautiful, realistic landscape. Flying long distances didn't matter, because the view and sensation filled me with happiness.

If tanks are to be fun for anyone the buildings and vegetation have to be a lot more realistic. Tank sim in War Thunder, for example, is a lot more immersive and fun because it looks better and has more detail. Crashing through walls and crushing farm equipment as you struggle to out-turn an opponent really ads depth to the excitement. But these things, of course, demand a lot of work - and smaller maps, to facilitate the higher level of detail. So it seems unlikely to happen in IL-2. The ability to become AAA, though, seems more feasible. It would add more life to the airfields and bomb targets. A player could perhaps skip between multiple AAA, to fill out the time.

 

Oh, what am I saying - what I really want is the tanks!

Tanks that you can exit to repair tracks yourself, or climb enemy tanks and pour petrol down their hatches, stuff grenades into them, cover them with bushes, snipe the commander as he peeks out of the hatch with his Track IR etc

 

I think what I am trying to say is, that if you make something really beautiful and fun, people buy it. There will be a greater interest in tanks if the tank game gets the effort put into it.

[coconut]

That's what I do with all my tank missions: I put 5/6 spawns in a line separated by at most 3km. The spawns are divided among the two sides and the flags are a short distance away from the spawns. Capturing a flag captures the spawn. The spawns at each end are also typically protected by AT guns, rocket artillery or stukas/il2s.

[Zoltann]

I second the view of the OP.

 

Ideally no resources can and should be diverted from the main road as outlined by Jason.

 

But by allowing for the PZ IVG model with PZIIIL internal graphics to balance up (bigger punch, though weaker frontal armour) gameplay, and more smart use of existing possibilities (closer spawn at action points, less time to action) online and offline

 

ground pounding would be more interesting and way more historical indeed.

 

 

I remember big tank battles in the beginning, and in servers without labels sneaking around and sniping with the PZIII was quite fun.

 

I tried again a few weeks ago with a buddy, but the few servers wich had tanks had spawn point and action point about 45min driving separated, killing all fun.

 

 

A shame. This already available feature deserves more creative thought and implementation, without (maybe exept for a "quick and dirty" PZ IV or other 75mm  chassis) any new content, attracting some more tankers and certainly providing many existing 

 

customers a nice change of view.

[unreasonable]

 

I think what I am trying to say is, that if you make something really beautiful and fun, people buy it. There will be a greater interest in tanks if the tank game gets the effort put into it.

 

I think what you are trying to say is, that there would be a greater interest in tanks if it were a tank game.

 

Seriously, I agree, and I suspect this development group could make a very good tank game if it had nothing else to do. I would love to see a full WW2 ground warfare game on these maps, (with suitable terrain modification for extra detail, terrain DM etc), but not at the expense of development time for the main CFS.

 

The best bet for at least some new vehicles etc may be modding - they did appear in RoF, although I understand they are difficult to make. 

[InProgress]

I enjoyed tanks, it was nice to raid airport and destroy AA guns. The only problem i see with tank is insane spawn. Really... it takes like 30min to drive to battle, while you can get destroyed by other planes and have fun spawning again and driving for 30min... While pilots can just join battle in 5min or less.

 

It does not need to be tank sim, but just fixing spawns, deleting those stupid icons(on some servers) that show everyone where you are would fix it all. Also adding tanks to WoL server would be nice, i have never seen them on this server and it seems like this is the most popular one.

[hames123]

Hopefully one day we will see T-34 Battle of Stalingrad.

Since there is a lack of good tank sims nowadays

[InProgress]

To be honest I think it may be really hard to make tank sim, there was 4-5 people inside, controlling it all by yourself?

[PatrickAWlson]

To be honest I think it may be really hard to make tank sim, there was 4-5 people inside, controlling it all by yourself?

 

There are only three positions that are interesting - commander, gunner, driver.  Most sims that I have seen allow the commander to also play the role of driver, but the driver position is still modeled to let the player get hull down - or just to drive .  Radio operator could be interesting because of the MG.  In the end though a single player could spend most of the time as commander and then switch to gunner view to fire the main gun.

[SpaydCBR]

There are only three positions that are interesting - commander, gunner, driver.  Most sims that I have seen allow the commander to also play the role of driver, but the driver position is still modeled to let the player get hull down - or just to drive .  Radio operator could be interesting because of the MG.  In the end though a single player could spend most of the time as commander and then switch to gunner view to fire the main gun.

Dude, I want to be a loader. I imagine a little mini-game where I have to open the breach, look around the tank for a round, use my mouse to pick it up and drag it into the breach before closing it and letting the gunner know it's ready.

[Gambit21]

To be honest I think it may be really hard to make tank sim, 

 

Nah, been done multiple times.

[Monostripezebra]

There are a ton of of useable and fun tank sims out, but the point here is kinda that it has to fit into a flightsim environment. It starts with distances, mission ground object interactions, difficult interactions with ai units and even the choice of tanks that is not really balanced:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTbc1HFvlD4

 

but still, a lot of it could be easily tweaked to more usability and sense.. like adding some more playable vehicles.

[coconut]

Beside the expert setting server I'm running, I'm also running a test server with a tank-oriented mission. Settings are standard normal, but with a catch: icons for player-controlled tanks, attack planes and bombers are disabled. The lack of icons for tanks makes things a bit more challenging for planes chasing them, and it also makes it possible to sneak on people (unless the radar shows the dot, I haven't checked that). Icons disabled for slower, big planes, should help them survive a bit better.

 

The tank spawns are 2.5 km from eachother, 5 spawns in a row, each side starts with 2 spawns. Planes have a ground start on runway and an airspawn. Planeset is mostly BOM, map is Moscow autumn in Klin (big industrial city). The planeset includes Stukas and a few F4s for the Germans, and the Lagg for the Russians. People who don't own BOM planes can also join.

 

The name of the server is Coconut NORMAL TANKS. The mission is something I threw together quickly today, and balance may be a bit off.

[SAG]

Beside the expert setting server I'm running, I'm also running a test server with a tank-oriented mission. Settings are standard normal, but with a catch: icons for player-controlled tanks, attack planes and bombers are disabled. The lack of icons for tanks makes things a bit more challenging for planes chasing them, and it also makes it possible to sneak on people (unless the radar shows the dot, I haven't checked that). Icons disabled for slower, big planes, should help them survive a bit better.

 

The tank spawns are 2.5 km from eachother, 5 spawns in a row, each side starts with 2 spawns. Planes have a ground start on runway and an airspawn. Planeset is mostly BOM, map is Moscow autumn in Klin (big industrial city). The planeset includes Stukas and a few F4s for the Germans, and the Lagg for the Russians. People who don't own BOM planes can also join.

 

The name of the server is Coconut NORMAL TANKS. The mission is something I threw together quickly today, and balance may be a bit off.

 

 

Sounds like a good option to try some interesting Tank option, i get #Unable to connect to gam server" though 

[coconut]

ouch, something must be wrong with the firewall, will fix that

 

EDIT: fixed, I think.

Edited September 24, 2016 by coconut

[216th_Jordan]

Indeed, just some more playable vehicles or AAA guns would be great! Sitting on the ground, seeing a divebomber coming down at you, now its kill or be killed, exciting setting for a sim, not so much for a real life person though.

Edited September 24, 2016 by 216th_Jordan

[Liberticitiz34]

I think a better idea (If we are committed to adding something to ground forces) would be to add vehicles that would have a greater impact on the main focus of the game, namely the planes. How you ask?

 

Self Propelled Anti Aircraft Artillery. 

 

Allowing players to trundle about objectives on the map in say a Wirbelwind would be quite enjoyable I feel. Airfield under attack? Hop in a AAA vehicle to protect it. 

 

As to how you make that profitable..make the more fun variants premium?

 

 

Indeed, just some more playable vehicles or AAA guns would be great! Sitting on the ground, seeing a divebomber coming down at you, now its kill or be killed, exciting setting for a sim, not so much for a real life person though.

yeah i think it's the best way to popularize the tank-vehicule feature wirbelwind,halftrack with 3.7 mm or the quad-20mm but there is another way it's to allow the possibility to let the community to create some new tank (with an interior and a FM controlled by Devs ) Tank are not an marketing thing for the moment sooo why not ??maybe more peoples will be more interested "new player base "ex war thunder player""  by the game or it's will simply  help the devs on the work they begin to make on their on time.

[=AD=uumembwa]

 

 

I would like to be an 88mm battery officer/gunner

 

I would like to be gunner at 88mm in PzVI Tiger

[hames123]

If we get Kuban, will there be a chance of Tigers and KV 85s?

And drivable Stugs, of course.

[GreenSocialist]

If the airfields and other targets were more teeming with life on the ground, the reward of finally reaching them with a tank would be the diversity of combat on arrival.

People attacking with anti-tank weapons, or simply just shooting at the view slits. More processor expensive polygons and animations, yes - but just one guy with a machine gun would really bring things to life, without just being scenery. If a player could also control that guy then the tactics, danger and excitement would increase.

[coconut]

My tank mission got a few people hooked for several hours yesterday. It was a lot of fun with some funny situations, for instance:

 

 

Icons turned off for tanks + short travel distance + Klin city = fun!

[unreasonable]

If we get Kuban, will there be a chance of Tigers and KV 85s?

And drivable Stugs, of course.

 

I am 99.9% sure that there were no Tigers in the Kuban bridgehead, they were concentrated for the Kursk offensive. (My detailed Tiger books have no index, but after skimming I can see no references).

 

Tigers could be a Collectors Plane  Tank, though. It could have been there if the Germans had deployed differently, just like the 190 could have been at Stalingrad. 

[Aap]

 

 

And drivable Stugs, of course.

 

With current state of tanks, I think that would be the best addition with least effort.  

[SpaydCBR]

My tank mission got a few people hooked for several hours yesterday. It was a lot of fun with some funny situations, for instance:

 

 

Icons turned off for tanks + short travel distance + Klin city = fun!

The amount of shots it took to kill that T-34 just shows why tanks are unpopular, but the potential fun is awesome!

[coconut]

The amount of shots it took to kill that T-34 just shows why tanks are unpopular, but the potential fun is awesome!

I disabled the T-34's turret in one shot, and after that he couldn't do any harm. This happened many times, so the imbalance isn't as hard as one might think. The PzIII also reloads much faster than the T-34. You can land two shots for every shot of the T-34. But then today, I repeatedly lost despite getting the first shot in most encounters. There's no denying the imbalance issue is hard to overcome.