Single player campaign for IL-2 „Tank Crew”?

[YoYo]

Will it be? Im not interested multiplayer with tanks and we have it now.

What about Single Player Campaignes for this incoming addon? If it will be = Id like to buy this!

Id like to see good tank simulator (not only click and hit arcade game) with TarckIR support and SP missions, campaignes for both sides.

 

It will be very good idea I suppose!

TY.

[Feathered_IV]

Its a good question.  I'm one of the 90% too and don't care too much for multiplayer.

[Juri_JS]

Without improvement of the ground unit AI a tank campaign wouldn't be much fun.

[Cybermat47]

It would be a waste not to have a singleplayer campaign.

[csThor]

It would, however, probably be little more than a glimpse, focused on one type of tank per side. More variety would bring a bunch of single missions, but how playable any of those would be depends a lot on a few significant AI issues being dealt with (LOS fix, use of NLOS weapons aka artillery and rocket artillery etc). And as Jason said AI is not exactly a low hanging fruit.

Edited December 23, 2017 by csThor

[InProgress]

career mode for tanks

[Yogiflight]

I am for a campaign, too. And for the beginning, it would be an idea to implement the tanks into QMB. Let's drive around and attack some artillery guns or AA positions or the three enemy tanks. At the moment there is hardly a posibility to use them, exept MP. So noone should wonder, that they are rarely used.

[216th_Jordan]

Without improvement of the ground unit AI a tank campaign wouldn't be much fun.

Seeing their progress in other parts of this sim I hope they put in a good effort

for AI improvements, arial and ground wise, I'm sure they can achieve great things.

 

Right now going against AI is a death trap, I have been killed by german 88s from 5km out behind a hill and in the forrest lol.

Edited December 23, 2017 by 216th_Jordan

[YoYo]

career mode for tanks

 

+ ranks and medals! 

[csThor]

I think that would be overdoing it. Let them concentrate on the air war in the new campaign system, it will probably need to be adjusted and/or bugfixed for quite some time until the kinks are ironed out. Secondly a really good mission for ground vehicles needs vastly different things - most of all a much bigger need to properly coordinate tanks, Infantry vehicles and especially direct and indirect fire support. For example you won't need to be able to call in artillery support in an aircraft, in a tank mission it might make the difference between surviving and being wiped out.

 

Secondly I think a static tank campaign profits vastly more from good storytelling as the potential for alternative outcomes and specific events during the mission is less great than in an aircraft. Take for example the approach Theater of War 2: Kursk has taken. You may select different setups for your troops but the objectives are always the same.

[PatrickAWlson]

Anything is possible, but somehow a tank campaign with no infantry seems ... off.

[Feathered_IV]

It seems that some of the Air Marshall technology would greatly benefit the gameplay with tanks. Hopefully some of that will find its way into singleplayer so that the add on has some depth.

[PatrickAWlson]

My ideal tank game: the depth of a Battlefront CM game combined with first person control of your own tank ala Panzer Elite combined with a dynamic campaign that allows you to be a tank commander through the war.  

[hames123]

The tank gane should have a large single player element. In fact, I really hope they make a tank campaign in this game(since we have 2 tanks that are drivable). Maybe it can be a community made thing. I am rubbish with the mission maker so I really cannot help, but maybe some good mission makers could throw together some missions and give them to the devs? I would be more than happy to try and dig up information on the tank battles that occured around Stalingrad.

[Thad]

My ideal tank game: the depth of a Battlefront CM game combined with first person control of your own tank ala Panzer Elite combined with a dynamic campaign that allows you to be a tank commander through the war.  

 

Ah, a man after my own tanker heart.    

[Guest deleted@30725]

Anything is possible, but somehow a tank campaign with no infantry seems ... off.

 

And it doesn't seem weird now?

[PatrickAWlson]

And it doesn't seem weird now?

i have not played tanks yet.  Can barely handle airplanes so first things first

[Pail]

There are people at the airfields (as far as infantry goes).

 

It could be a Battle of Tatsinskaya airfield. Crushing Ju 52s with T34s could be a nice highlight. I'm pretty sure Tatsinskaya is on the map already (?)

 

Battle of tatsinskaya airfield http://maximietteita.blogspot.com.au/2017/12/battle-of-tatsinskaya-airfield.html

[hames123]

Tanks without infantry would be stupid. The tank supports the infantry. Even ti this day, tanks cannot beat dug in infantry without their own infantry support.

[csThor]

Dug-in infantry presupposes objects of the "field fortification" type. Yet something this title would need aplenty (apart from things like mines etc).

[PatrickAWlson]

Dug-in infantry presupposes objects of the "field fortification" type. Yet something this title would need aplenty (apart from things like mines etc).

 

Given the number of cities dug in infantry could just occupy buildings ... but then buildings would have to be occupiable .

 

Getting real, the first edition is probably going to be tank vs. tank.  IMHO that's fine as long as progressive improvements are made.

[csThor]

Although I doubt anyone would mind some simple "trench and bunker" objects like they existed in 1946 and as they exist in CloD. The lack of true field fortification objects always annoyed me because it took away from the "frontline feeling" and seeing airfield objects pressed into the "strongpoint role" doesn't exactly do it for me.

[Gambit21]

Tanks without infantry would be stupid. The tank supports the infantry. Even ti this day, tanks cannot beat dug in infantry without their own infantry support.

 

Oh come off it.

By your logic we shouldn't have aircraft either since aircraft support and attack infantry, or attack the vehicles that support the infantry.

[hames123]

Oh come off it.

By your logic we shouldn't have aircraft either since aircraft support and attack infantry, or attack the vehicles that support the infantry.

Except we have the stand in for infantry in the wide assortment of anti-tank guns, artillery pieces and MGs there are in game, as these are usually attached to the infantry. While this is alright in a flight sim, a tank sim must model individual soldiers, both friendly and enemy. Imagine how stupid it would be to only be able to fight tank on tank. There needs to infantry to chuck AT grenades onto our tanks, to support with MG fire as they advance, to flush out enemy infantry ahead of our tanks. It would be a very deserted battlefield if there are no infantry men, and much more noticable from a tank than from a plane.

[PatrickAWlson]

Oh come off it.

By your logic we shouldn't have aircraft either since aircraft support and attack infantry, or attack the vehicles that support the infantry.

Just MHO but I think infantry is a much more integral part of a tank game than a flight sim.  Most of the time airplanes were shooting at something that moved on wheels anyway, so not having infantry is a relatively small loss.  In tank sims no infantry completely changes the way you fight.

 

Not panning a game before it's even released.  A lot of RoF was fighter vs fighter and look what that became.  1C has repeatedly delivered for those that hang in there with them.  No reason to believe that they will not continue to do so.

[hames123]

Indeed. If you look at the other game focusing on Kursk, Theatre of War 2, the most outstanding part is the infantry modelling. This is from a company that was famous for tank sims(and has now made the excellent CM series). You lot should try it, it currently costs a few cents on steam. Any tank sim about Kursk should have an infantry that at least behaves as well as the troops in that game, if not better(since this is 2017 after all).

 

If not, it will merely be tanks killing each other for no reason. Tanks cannot capture things, so really it will just become one huge deathmatch.

 

As an aside, are there any multiplayer lobbies where there is good tank on tank combat? Or any missions or campaigns with the tanks in it? The tank missions the devs gave us were remarkably bad, simply being one tank against the world, instead of a more common senario. Like a group of German tanks breaking Soviet lines in Summer 1942, then continuing onto their artillery in the rear, overrun supply dumps and attacking truck convoys. Or Soviet tanks in the streets of Stalingrad itself, which would be full of both friendly and enemy MGs, AT guns and field guns.

Edited December 27, 2017 by hames123

[Gambit21]

Except we have the stand in for infantry in the wide assortment of anti-tank guns, artillery pieces and MGs there are in game, as these are usually attached to the infantry. While this is alright in a flight sim, a tank sim must model individual soldiers, both friendly and enemy. Imagine how stupid it would be to only be able to fight tank on tank. There needs to infantry to chuck AT grenades onto our tanks, to support with MG fire as they advance, to flush out enemy infantry ahead of our tanks. It would be a very deserted battlefield if there are no infantry men, and much more noticable from a tank than from a plane.

I think infantry would add tremendously to the experience - no doubt.

It's just not a waste of time without them for now is really my only point.

 

No argument from me on how much it would boost the experience.

Not sure how practical it will be, but who knows - they always seem to surprise us.

[unreasonable]

Indeed. If you look at the other game focusing on Kursk, Theatre of War 2, the most outstanding part is the infantry modelling. This is from a company that was famous for tank sims(and has now made the excellent CM series). You lot should try it, it currently costs a few cents on steam. Any tank sim about Kursk should have an infantry that at least behaves as well as the troops in that game, if not better(since this is 2017 after all).

 

If not, it will merely be tanks killing each other for no reason. Tanks cannot capture things, so really it will just become one huge deathmatch.

 

As an aside, are there any multiplayer lobbies where there is good tank on tank combat? Or any missions or campaigns with the tanks in it? The tank missions the devs gave us were remarkably bad, simply being one tank against the world, instead of a more common senario. Like a group of German tanks breaking Soviet lines in Summer 1942, then continuing onto their artillery in the rear, overrun supply dumps and attacking truck convoys. Or Soviet tanks in the streets of Stalingrad itself, which would be full of both friendly and enemy MGs, AT guns and field guns.

 

Let's be honest, the majority of MP experience currently is just planes killing one another for no good reason - with the exception of a few ground-pounders trying to complete mission objectives. 

 

A true ground war sim must have an expanded infantry component - IMHO it does not have to have individually modeled soldiers, but should go down to the half section level - ie a 4 man group with some combination of weapons that has AI and can move and fight in a broadly plausible way. Also more infantry hard positions: MG nests, bunkers etc.  Personally I am not sure that we will get that: to me it looks like the team is going for a quick win with tank vs tank MP and I doubt that they have the manpower - or perhaps even the knowledge - to make a good all round ground sim. Perhaps in the  much longer term.

 

I have learned to keep my expectations grounded for BoX - that way I avoid the sorts of early disappointments we had with the initial full release, and every now and again I get a nice surprise when the team exceeds my expectations! 

Edited December 27, 2017 by unreasonable

[Dakpilot]

If one considers the title being released and discussed, expectations should be kept in check

 

Tank Crew – Clash at Prokhorovka

 

predomitably and mainly famous for being a Tank battle, with the Map specifically focussing on this area of the Southern 'Kursk' sector 

 

If done well and plausibly it could be great fun , and I am looking forward to it, but to already expect a ground war sim or an extended campaign would be jumping the gun a bit

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Pail]

 

 

If one considers the title being released and discussed, expectations should be kept in check

 

True but it would be a shame not to have an attack on a defended airfield for its use of current 'game assets' and the possibility for improvements and additions...

 

 

 

...and I do see that it is probably not happening...

[johncage]

buy steel armors blaze of war or graviteam's older titles focused on ww2 if you want tanks. il2 is spreading itself thin enough with bodenplatte

[PatrickAWlson]

buy steel armors blaze of war or graviteam's older titles focused on ww2 if you want tanks. il2 is spreading itself thin enough with bodenplatte

 

Can't really agree with that statement given that 1C is coming out with a sim called "Tank Crews".  I am guessing that 1C actually wants us to buy it 

[Rjel]

Rather than 1C spreading itself too thin, more product to market should actually allow them to grow. I can't imagine Jason's vision being any less than expanding his company and its revenue. Given the speed this team works at now, I can only wonder where the series and its offspring might be in five years if they could increase their crew size.

[Feathered_IV]

Didn't they say it was a new team working under license?

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Infantry is going to be a push imo. We have poor cpu utilisation that struggles with the objects we have atm. Now add a couple of hundred AI soldiers... I can't see it working anytime soon without a serious overhaul.

 

Also the focus for tank crew is to increase the land details but decrease the map size still very much designed for air ground play. If it was a sole tank sim you may be able to have infantry because the aircraft could be implemented very cheaply.

 

As it is still air and ground playable I can't see troops any time soon.

Edited December 29, 2017 by AeroAce

[Feathered_IV]

Infantry can be an object like any other.  Treat a squad like a stationary vehicle. It has a certain offensive range and a certain amount of vulnerability.  If you drive too close it will shoot at you.  If you shoot it first you can destroy it.  They don't need to have fancy animations and run around shouting Oura or screaming Mutti.  Keep it simple. 

[OrLoK]

Ill be more than happy with vehicles only.

 

Yes infantry are realistic and true to life but possibly not practical/cost/time effective at this time.

 

If the tanks DLC was going to hugely "interfere" with il2 development and support then the devs wouldn't be doing it

 

One doesnt have to play that part of the game if it doesnt appeal.

 

S!

[unreasonable]

Everyone saying that infantry is not possible, too time consuming etc.... there is already infantry in the game.  In the form of a static HMG.  If they can make that, (and it would look much better with a loader and spotter as well like the AAA, then they can easily make any other kind of static infantry, whether in a trench/bunker or in the open. It is just a matter of weapon loadout and some "hit points".   Making them move is more of a challenge, but only due to the animations - the programming logic and AI is similar that of a vehicle. Not every soldier has to have individual AI, any more than every gunner in an AAA team has to have individual AI.

 

As to Prokhorovka being just a head-on clash of massive tank forces in serried phalanxes: only in crap TV.  Certainly the Soviets launched a large tank attack - but supported by infantry. Certainly there were German AFVs facing it, (294 over a ~30 km frontage): but also infantry (Panzer Grenadiers) who eventually helped stop the Soviet advance. AFVs do not operate in a vacuum: the German line primarily consisted of infantry units (PzGren) supported by the armour. 

 

But that is OK: if it is just a money spinner for people who like WoT type games that is good for the team's finances and long term health then fine, just do not expect people interested in actual WW2 ground tactics to buy it.

[Rjel]

How many of us grew up playing with plastic army men like those seen in Toy Story? I'd guess most of us. They didn't do a damn thing but fuel our imaginations. As others have said, just the suggestion of infantry would go a long way to make a tank game feel more alive. Static as they might be it would aid in our imagining a real battlefield.

[Feathered_IV]

But that is OK: if it is just a money spinner for people who like WoT type games that is good for the team's finances and long term health then fine, just do not expect people interested in actual WW2 ground tactics to buy it.

 

Good luck to them if they believe they can charge triple-A prices to tempt that player based away from a free to play game, by offering 1% of the vehicles and even less of the gameplay.  God help them, if they haven't thought it through.