Jump to content

So, Tank Crew stuff. What exactly are we getting?


AndyJWest
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'd love to see the Puma (234/2) in game. As you said, to act primarily as a scout or to get in some sneaky shots at side and rear tank armor, but would be S.O.L. if hit by a tank's main gun. 

 

 

   That's a cool looking thing, but I like it's sister, the "pakwaggen" (234/4) :) . 

 

I have so much fun in war thunder with that thing. superb ambush predator.

 

shot_2017.08.10_01.03.21.jpg

 

shot_2017.08.10_01.07.48.jpg
 
shot_2017.08.10_01.09.13.jpg
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair the T-34/76 is in a similar situation to the T-70 when facing Tigers and Panthers, they both have to engage them at the sides. And depending on the ammo available for the 76mm, it would even have trouble against the 80mm upper hull sides and rear armor of the Tiger.

The fair situation is when Tigers have less ammo than attacking targets...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 152 hit doesn't have much issues knocking out anything, 122 can probably be debated. The bigger issue is that you are going to have a very hard time hitting at any real distance, and missing means a looooong reload.

The SU-122 had a HEAT round available that could penetrate 100-160mm of armor.  I don't know how much of this ammo was available, and fighting tanks is not the primary goal of the Su-122, it was an infantry support vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone hoping for any serious infantry is probably going to be disappointed. We need to remember that this still needs to fit within the context of a flight sim. Having to properly simulate actual infantry on top of that is highly unlikely. And if infantry can't be done properly, it generally isn't worth doing. Even in DCS, infantry is extremely limited.

 

If you want a real tank sim that does include some decent infantry, with all the proper bells and whistles, you'll probably need to look at Steel Beast Pro PE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mitthrawnuruodo

The 122 and 152 can damage anything they hit. The problem is that hitting tanks with a low-velocity, slow-firing gun is not easy.

 

Also, I am not expecting a detailed infantry simulation. All I hope for is proper anti-tank gun emplacements and trenches that fire AT rifles and throw grenades at you if you drive too close.

 

This is not complicated yet entirely sufficient to prevent tanks from rushing completely unopposed when there is no enemy armour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ShamrockOneFive

You know that gives me an idea. If they can't do infantry (and I suspect they can't), they do have infantry manning machine guns. AT rifles shouldn't be too hard.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, it might be more mobile given its lighter weight (even if it isn't hugely reliable or fast).

 

However, the argument is pretty simple:

 

1) It provides more unique gameplay to have an infantry fighting light tank that can only hope to disable enemy tanks at close range. This provides a unique manoeuvring challenge to use effectively on the battlefield. These tanks would also carry lighter guns with higher rates of fire (good for suppressing anti-tank guns, infantry etc.)

 

2) We (or at least some of us) want to recreate something of the experience and obstacles faced by people during the war - as a result it makes sense to model more typical equipment rather than focussing on rarer 'superior' vehicles. Some of use want to fly the I-16, not just the Me-262 (if that makes sense?)

Oh, I fully agree, I just don't think many people are really aware of what the T60/70 was really like, it was highly represented at Kursk, but considering it being only a two crew vehicle and its actual real world/game performance, I feel it would actually be very unpopular and resources could be used on other 'rarer' and unusual vehicles in the ilk of I-16, perhaps my disdain for T-70 could have come across more jokingly , as I intended, maybe other vehicles needed for Russian could be SU-76m or even Churchill, however we sort of have the 'tankset' and I understand their choices

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone hoping for any serious infantry is probably going to be disappointed. We need to remember that this still needs to fit within the context of a flight sim. Having to properly simulate actual infantry on top of that is highly unlikely. And if infantry can't be done properly, it generally isn't worth doing. Even in DCS, infantry is extremely limited.

 

If you want a real tank sim that does include some decent infantry, with all the proper bells and whistles, you'll probably need to look at Steel Beast Pro PE.

 

I disagree - no

need to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Even limited infantry would add a lot.

 

The point about infantry is not to give a full combined arms simulation - I agree that is beyond the scope of the sim for the foreseeable future - but to give the AFVs something to do and to worry about apart from AFV vs AFV engagements - which were after all by far the minority of what AFVs actually did. At a minimum we need more dug in bunkers and MG positions.  Existing MGs are easily destroyed by artillery.  I would also prefer to see some infantry half sections.  Realistically, as soon as they are engaged by an AFV  or even effective enemy small arms they would go to ground if in the open: so they do not have to have sophisticated AI. In the BoBod scenario, though, they would have powerful short range AT weapons (at least the Germans did) so the tanks have to pay attention. 

 

If the team can program a vehicle to move around, scan it's surroundings, fire at threats in range and take cover (easier to program for infantry than AFVs as they just have to lie down) then it program an infantry section. 

Edited by unreasonable
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if some level of abstraction might help with infantry.  I recall that in the early version of the Combat Mission games a squad of infantry was represented as just 3 figures.  As the squad took losses of 1/3, 2/3 figures were removed.  This might reduce the demand on the cpu to track and deal with every soldier.

 

Regarding the AT rifles, I think the Germans had largely abandoned them by this point in the war.  The Panzershrek was first introduced in mid 43 and should have replaced the AT rifles.  The Soviets however continued to use them until the end of the war.  They are great against any light vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mitthrawnuruodo

I can't see how the Tank sim element can incorporate the necessary features that will make it good enough to be a really gripping sim in itself, AND, be able to run under the aircraft sim.

 

As I understand it currently, it is hard for mission designers to get enough objects in without damaging performance. The things that I think the tank side needs (destructible environment, some form of infantry support, better aiming and line of sight) would surely all drag performance down?

 

Most of the tank sim elements are already included and the game runs just fine, even with a few tens of vehicles. Lines of sight, destructible environments, and AI improvements will impact performance, but I believe the effect will be small compared to things like the rendering changes. I think only some server improvements are needed. That is what most people are complaining about.

 

Regarding the AT rifles, I think the Germans had largely abandoned them by this point in the war.  The Panzershrek was first introduced in mid 43 and should have replaced the AT rifles.  The Soviets however continued to use them until the end of the war.  They are great against any light vehicle.

 

I think the Panzerschreck did not see service at Kursk. At close range, the Soviet AT rifles would be a threat to all tanks except for the big cats (only from the side or rear of course).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

<snip>

 

I think the Panzerschreck did not see service at Kursk. At close range, the Soviet AT rifles would be a threat to all tanks except for the big cats (only from the side or rear of course).

 

I think you are right that Kursk was too early for Panzerschrecks, but anyone playing tanks on a 1944 Bodenplatte map would be facing German infantry with both Panzerschrecks and more commonly Panzerfausts.  Certainly late war land battles without infantry with this type of weapon would be most unrepresentative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

II/JG17_HerrMurf

I can see a tank destroying crew of three or so being modelled with panzerfaust and antitank grenades. On the Russian side similarly with AT rifles. All without exactly modeling infantry. Specialized elements make sense. Infantry is still unlikely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see a tank destroying crew of three or so being modelled with panzerfaust and antitank grenades. On the Russian side similarly with AT rifles. All without exactly modeling infantry. Specialized elements make sense. Infantry is still unlikely.

 

Tank destroying teams are infantry!  They could also have an SMG an LMG and grenades - easily modeled in the game, just modifications of existing routines.  

 

Perhaps people are hung up on the idea that each individual infantry man has to be modeled separately with his own AI, running about with a rifle and trying to stay in formation etc. I agree that this would make little sense - too many objects and it is not what I am suggesting.  

 

What I have in mind is a group that is one game object - like a vehicle - that has various weapon capabilities - like a vehicle - and takes damage which affects those weapons and it's mobility - like a vehicle.  The graphical animation may show 4,3,2,1 infantrymen as the damage accumulates and weapon capabilities are knocked out out, but that is no different from damage decals on a vehicle.  The unit would need a moving about animation and a lying down animation - as far as I am concerned the legs do not even have to move......   In other words, if you think of an infantry half section as a vehicle with a peculiar set of capabilities most of the conceptual difficulties disappear.  

 

These "infantry vehicles" could contain anything from 4 men with rifles producing the occasional single shot, to a flamethrower team.  :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

II/JG17_HerrMurf

To be fair, when most are asking for infantry it is not with these small elements in mind. You and I, I suspect, are largely in the minority on this. I agree small specialty groups would be pretty easy to model and will have to stand in for larger formations. Mobile platoons or companies are right out. Call of Duty level AI interaction with users is just as unlikely.

 

For instance in grid X; there are three AT guns, four machine gun nests, two Panzerfaust teams and three mortar crews. I see these representing a heavy weapons company even though the individual numbers do not bear that out. (For arguments sake. I don't care if this would be a typical organic unit in the German or any other army.) I don't see waves of riflemen moving around the map. I suppose it's possible. Not probable but possible.

 

It is lovely to dream but we also have to keep our expectations grounded in what the focus of this team and game engine are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is lovely to dream but we also have to keep our expectations grounded in what the focus of this team and game engine are.

 

Sure - the infantry in game is generally not possible by few reasons:

  • each soldier have to be calculated separately as individual unit,
  • devs are limited to several units in game,
  • infrantry may be complicated to enter multiplayer game,

At the 1st page devs guarantee that terrain will be NOT totally destructive, included bomb craters etc.

 

It means that we may expect:

  • more detailed ground only (a lot of bushes, rocks, more ridged floor),
  • devs focus only at tank clashes - maybe for players who are disappointed with WoT / WT,
  • campaign will include air activity (few airfields at the tank map are guaranteed),

Not sure how the tanks will cooperate with other IL-2 games. In my opinion there is no problem - BoK shown that maps are detailed enough for playable tank participation.

Generally the multiplayer missions includes tank require capture the area or destroy critical targets inside (artillery, transport, enemy tanks)...

And there is open question about combined multiplayer matches - as I know the WT player hates them, but the reason is quite tiny maps and well-known sniping positions where enemey tanks may be spotted by planes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VO101Kurfurst

Ingantry is well available I think - Just look at its execution in Steel Fury, which is still the best WW2 EF tank simulation I think. Heck even decade(s) old stuff like Jane’s WW2 fighters managed to pull it off.

 

I believe any sort of problem with infantry is mostly resource and marketing related (players crushing humans with heavy vehicles kinda cranks up ESRB ratings)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, when most are asking for infantry it is not with these small elements in mind. You and I, I suspect, are largely in the minority on this. I agree small specialty groups would be pretty easy to model and will have to stand in for larger formations. Mobile platoons or companies are right out. Call of Duty level AI interaction with users is just as unlikely.

 

For instance in grid X; there are three AT guns, four machine gun nests, two Panzerfaust teams and three mortar crews. I see these representing a heavy weapons company even though the individual numbers do not bear that out. (For arguments sake. I don't care if this would be a typical organic unit in the German or any other army.) I don't see waves of riflemen moving around the map. I suppose it's possible. Not probable but possible.

 

It is lovely to dream but we also have to keep our expectations grounded in what the focus of this team and game engine are.

 

I think we are largely on the same track then:  similarly 6-7 four man teams (LMG,SMG,Pzfaust) actually is a late war German Pzgren Platoon, near enough.  So this is 6 objects, each of no more complexity than a typical vehicle.

 

 

Sure - the infantry in game is generally not possible by few reasons:

  • each soldier have to be calculated separately as individual unit,
  • devs are limited to several units in game,
  • infrantry may be complicated to enter multiplayer game,

 

 

 

 

No, they really do not. As I explained above.

 

The devs do have a decision to make - if they want to progress towards a more realistic integrated war simulation they will have to include infantry formations - at least in the small group = one unit form that I propose.  Otherwise the tank game will get stuck as a WoT emulator, bearing little or no relationship to WW2 combat, which will certainly be of no interest to me.

Edited by unreasonable
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see how the Tank sim element can incorporate the necessary features that will make it good enough to be a really gripping sim in itself, AND, be able to run under the aircraft sim.

 

As I understand it currently, it is hard for mission designers to get enough objects in without damaging performance. The things that I think the tank side needs (destructible environment, some form of infantry support, better aiming and line of sight) would surely all drag performance down?

 

If the developers manage it, they will be geniuses!

 

Realistically, I think the vehicles will be added, with the different positions, and that will be it.

 

I'll be very happy to be proved wrong!

 

That's the thing.  With a flight sim you can wave a map and a few aircraft at me and chances are I'll buy it.  With tanks or something else though, to get my notice a dev team would want to make sure they hired someone to actually design some quality gameplay.  Not just the empty sandbox that we've come to see as an industry standard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The devs do have a decision to make - if they want to progress towards a more realistic integrated war simulation they will have to include infantry formations.

 
That's correct but look onto it from another point of view: if you play as plane / tank there is no fun to kill "hundreds" of infantry units by MGs.
Or be killed by hide soldier with grenade pack.
 

Otherwise the tank game will get stuck as a WoT emulator, bearing little or no relationship to WW2 combat, which will certainly be of no interest to me.

 

Really? WoT emulator? For me WoT looks like RC-tank arcade game.
You should look onto BoK tank presentation on YT - it is not how WoT looks like. Well, it may looks like WT than WoT:
  • single player campaign (not possible in WoT & WT),
  • huge, open, field map where sniping will be allowed (not possible in WoT),
  • artillery / katyusha call possible (not possible in WoT),
  • air support call possible (not possible in WoT & WT),
  • different class of targets like bases, camps, artillery, tanks, support trucks (not possible in WoT & WT),

And again, please look what Jason said:

 

Tanks on other maps will look like it does now which is still good enough for open range tank maneuvers and battles.

 

Not possible to meet the enemies in first 10 seconds of game or game where everyone camps (as WoT & WT forced).

Personally I'm not a flight-sim fan, but no problem if my tank will be supported / attacked by sim-flight fans.

More fun when you kill real player than AI, isn't it?

 

Well, in my opinion no infantry possible here, but I expect fully integration with planes by other plane-sim games to Tank Crew (reason why Jason mentioned few airfields for tank maps)...

which are not possible in WoT, again.

Edited by PL_Andrev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ShamrockOneFive

That's what I'm excited about: the intersection between flight sim fans and armored vehicle fans flying and fighting together to achieve a certain objective where performance on the ground and in the air matters. It's all very much a sandbox for that kind of battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mitthrawnuruodo

In general, MP games focus on fast-paced action and simplicity at the expense of historical accuracy and thorough simulation. MP games will inevitably gravitate towards Quake in tanks. 

 

Meanwhile, games designed around SP will have intricate mechanics and persistent environments with many supporting non-player entities. Therefore, I think a game designed for SP with MP bolted on will offer the level of detail that Il-2 enthusiasts usually expect. 

Edited by Mitthrawnuruodo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BraveSirRobin

In general, MP games focus on fast-paced action and simplicity at the expense of historical accuracy and thorough simulation. MP games will inevitably gravitate towards Quake in tanks. 

 

Meanwhile, games designed around SP will have intricate mechanics and persistent environments with many supporting non-player entities. Therefore, I think a game designed for SP with MP bolted on will offer the level of detail that Il-2 enthusiasts usually expect. 

 

Steel Beasts probably contradicts everything in your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mitthrawnuruodo

Steel Beasts probably contradicts everything in your post.

 

I have no doubt that there are notable exceptions. That's why I say 'in general'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BraveSirRobin

I have no doubt that there are notable exceptions. That's why I say 'in general'.

 

Sorry, but I think that it’s a little silly when people who prefer SP say that it’s because of “historical accuracy”. I’ve seen no evidence that the people who prefer SP are any more interested in “historical accuracy” than MP players. And when the game that is pretty much considered the gold standard for tank sims directly contradicts what you believe about SP vs. MP, you might want to reconsider your views.

 

The main difference between SP and MP is that SP is a lot more expensive to produce. AI ain’t cheap. Everything else is pretty much the same.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fair solution is to stay historical and stop mixing things.

 

Sorry, but the only wway to make it historical is to either make sure that Russian tanks can take 100 times more losses than Germany in any battle to simulate the numbers needed to take out a Tiger 2 or other German supertanks, same goes for Sherman on west side, it was numbers that won, not the tank itself. This is the problems of making a CFS / FPS game, to get people not to choose only one side it got to be playable for both sides. In other words , games like this will never be historical

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BraveSirRobin

I have no doubt that there are notable exceptions. That's why I say 'in general'.

 

By the way, do you know why BoS was released with a “campaign” that was little more than a random mission generator? It’s because they discovered that hardly anyone played the RoF campaign. That means almost all the guys playing SP were just playing quick missions, which are not exactly renowned for their historical accuracy. It’s just airquake against the AI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but the only wway to make it historical is to either make sure that Russian tanks can take 100 times more losses than Germany in any battle to simulate the numbers needed to take out a Tiger 2 or other German supertanks, same goes for Sherman on west side, it was numbers that won, not the tank itself. This is the problems of making a CFS / FPS game, to get people not to choose only one side it got to be playable for both sides. In other words , games like this will never be historical

Also tanks operate in a super-complex environment. Infantry fights right there, support and repair is often performed under fire, immobility does not mean death, losses can be taken etc.

 

Hence, it is vastly more complex to even try to simulate tank combat. Outside of dedicated sims, I think it's a waste of time, and time should be spent on making relatively realistic tank game, not a tank combat simulation.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TG-55Panthercules

Sorry, but I think that it’s a little silly when people who prefer SP say that it’s because of “historical accuracy”. I’ve seen no evidence that the people who prefer SP are any more interested in “historical accuracy” than MP players. 

 

With all due respect, I think it's because you're not an SP kinda guy and/or aren't listening to most of the SP guys.  Sure, there are some MP folks who are extremely interested in historical accuracy in the way they play, and sure, there are some SP guys who don't care about the historical accuracy and just want to run around blowing stuff up like they were playing some sort of arcade game that they can beat.  However, with the exception of those few occasions when I've been lucky enough to fly with a specific group of MP folks in an event-type setting where they've done a good job of limiting participation to other players with a similarly serious historical focus/attitude, in my experience in normal, run-of-the-mill MP servers there will always be large numbers of players who don't give a crap about the historical accuracy of the game or their behavior. 

 

That kind of experience pulls me completely out of the immersion/illusion that I'm actually involved in any sort of historically accurate activity, and while it can almost be guaranteed to happen in most MP situations, it should never (or hardly ever) happen in a SP environment, if the devs have done a decent job.  That is why I (and I believe large numbers of other SP-oriented players) prefer to play SP.  We really are there for the historical accuracy of the subject being simulated (that's usually why we chose to play that particular game instead of one focused on a different technology/time period in the first place), and we trust that if the devs have done a decent job with the game there will be much less chance of being jarred out of our immersion/illusion.  There's no good way to prove it, but I think it's a pretty safe statement that most SP types are more interested in the historical accuracy of the sim than most MP types. 

 

In any event, I don't think it's silly at all if some SP-oriented players say they prefer SP because of historical accuracy, because I know it's true in many case (even if not all). 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BraveSirRobin

With all due respect, I think it's because you're not an SP kinda guy and/or aren't listening to most of the SP guys. 

With all due respect. You are completely wrong. RoF was the first game that I ever played MP. Prior to that I only played SP in every game I ever owned, and there were a lot.

 

there are some SP guys who don't care about the historical accuracy and just want to run around blowing stuff up like they were playing some sort of arcade game that they can beat. 

 

Not some. Almost all. They found that hardly anyone plays the RoF campaign.

 

  There's no good way to prove it, but I think it's a pretty safe statement that most SP types are more interested in the historical accuracy of the sim than most MP types. 

 

Not only is it not a safe statement, but it’s ridiculous nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mitthrawnuruodo

Sorry, but I think that it’s a little silly when people who prefer SP say that it’s because of “historical accuracy”. I’ve seen no evidence that the people who prefer SP are any more interested in “historical accuracy” than MP players. And when the game that is pretty much considered the gold standard for tank sims directly contradicts what you believe about SP vs. MP, you might want to reconsider your views.

If one looks at the evolution of the two most popular multiplayer tank games, it is clear that they take historical accuracy less seriously as time goes on.

 

I think we are writing about entirely different subjects. This 'gold standard' that you mention has licences that cost 125 US and ship on a physical stick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...