Developer Diary, Part 195 - Discussion

[Legioneod]

23 hours ago, kitsunelegend said:

 

Red Orchestra 2 had tanks with fully modeled interiors, though it was far from a sim. What the IL-2 devs have just done, is basically take RO2 tanks (which I REALLY freaking loved) added MORE tanks, and then made it multiplayer, multicrew, sim tanks. Including my favorite tank of that period... The Glorious Deathtrap Sherman! xD

 

This has got me beyond excited tbh.

 

 

 

@Jason_Williams Would you be able to tell us if certain tanks are getting mods like the aircraft do? So for example, the Sherman might by default have a 75mm main gun, but a mod might allow it to have a 76mm? Or maybe add-on armor like piece of track or some vegetation to use as camo?

The Sherman wasn't actually a deathtrap like many people believe and it did it's job very well and stood it's ground in combat.

 

Here's some really good site about the sherman and it's history.

 

http://www.theshermantank.com/sherman/sherman-tank-epic-info-post-introduction/

 

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/index.html

 

EDIT: I didnt see it mentioned at all but will we be getting smoke shells or smoke dispensers to use with our tanks? Smoke will be pretty important imo and I was curious if it will be added.

Edited June 25, 2018 by Legioneod

[kendo]

Wow!! Don't really comment much on these things...but that site should be filed under 'fantasy' - really - like here where he claims the Pz III was the best tank the Germans produced...

 

http://www.theshermantank.com/sherman/how-the-sherman-compare-to-its-contemporaries/

 

...very strange criteria for judging quality is all I can say...and of course if the Pz III was the Best German tank it was definitely much inferior to the Sherman...    

Edited June 25, 2018 by kendo

[Feathered_IV]

1 hour ago, =FEW=Herne said:

 

Just because infantry is unlikely to be a part of the upcoming game, it doesn't mean it will never be part of future IL2 tank games. As with the rest of Great Battles series, It will likely improve over time.

 

I've been thinking about that a lot lately.  Buying eggs and wishing for bacon.

 

[BraveSirRobin]

38 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

 

I've been thinking about that a lot lately.  Buying eggs and wishing for bacon.

 

 

I’m not sure that the drivable supply truck you’re hoping for is actually “bacon”.

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, kendo said:

Wow!! Don't really comment much on these things...but that site should be filed under 'fantasy' - really - like here where he claims the Pz III was the best tank the Germans produced...

 

http://www.theshermantank.com/sherman/how-the-sherman-compare-to-its-contemporaries/

 

...very strange criteria for judging quality is all I can say...and of course if the Pz III was the Best German tank it was definitely much inferior to the Sherman...    

I don't really agree with him but I think he judges "best" in terms of their actual use and reliability, whats the use of a tank if it's broke down and unusable most of the time?

Clearly it's not the best in regards to armor or gun but compared to other German tanks it was fairly reliable from my understanding.

I do realize that the site does seem a bit biased but there is nice historical info in there and you can't dismiss it all as bias.

 

Imo the best German tank of the war in regards to armor and armament was the Panther but due to it's reliability issues it didn't make much of a difference on the battlefield.

 

He is correct in stating (imo) that the best allied tank of the war was the Sherman, it had all the good quality's of a tank, it could more than handle the opposition it normally faced and on the rare chance it did come up against a Panther or Tiger it had numbers on it's side.

Edited June 25, 2018 by Legioneod

[Thad]

Salutations,

 

I sincerely doubt that the developers will model any reliability (breakdown) factors into the tank module. ?

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

The myth that the Panther tank was forever tied to rail transportation in order due to the Panthers reliability is all but a myth. In fact the improved reliability of the Panther by the summer of 1944 allowed units to conduct forced marches in the Normandy campaign during June-July. One such example is the 12th SS Panzer Regiment who conducted a 140km forced march from its garrison to the front line with 66 Panthers. At no point in the war diary of the unit in this 2 day period is there mention of large numbers of Panthers dropping out due to reliability woes but instead the largest challenges being the fuel supply and constant harassment from Allied fighter bombers

Edited June 25, 2018 by RoflSeal

[kendo]

30 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I don't really agree with him but I think he judges "best" in terms of their actual use and reliability, whats the use of a tank if it's broke down and unusable most of the time?

Clearly it's not the best in regards to armor or gun but compared to other German tanks it was fairly reliable from my understanding.

I do realize that the site does seem a bit biased but there is nice historical info in there and you can't dismiss it all as bias.

 

Imo the best German tank of the war in regards to armor and armament was the Panther but due to it's reliability issues it didn't make much of a difference on the battlefield.

 

He is correct in stating (imo) that the best allied tank of the war was the Sherman, it had all the good quality's of a tank, it could more than handle the opposition it normally faced and on the rare chance it did come up against a Panther or Tiger it had numbers on it's side.

 

I did notice that he pushed the reliability criteria strongly - which admittedly is the Sherman's strong point - but it's just too biased overall for me.

 

I'm not denying the Sherman's good qualities, but it was just too under-gunned in comparison to the opposition for much of the time.

 

Probably I'd go for the T34 as the best allied tank.

[Legioneod]

16 minutes ago, kendo said:

I'm not denying the Sherman's good qualities, but it was just too under-gunned in comparison to the opposition for much of the time.

 

It really wasn't that under-gunned, it faced Pz IV and IIIs most of the time and was more than capable of penning them, it rarely faced Panthers and Tigers (the latter on only four or five occasions)

[=621=Samikatz]

One thing people don't really bring up about the reliability thing; it's not just how often something goes wrong, it's also how easy it is to fix something if it does go wrong. The more bits you have to pull apart to get to the thing you need to replace, the longer the vehicle's "down time" will be. You might need more tools (such as cranes) which means you have to transport yet more equipment which means you have to worry about the logistics of all that, etc

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

35 minutes ago, kendo said:

  

I did notice that he pushed the reliability criteria strongly - which admittedly is the Sherman's strong point - but it's just too biased overall for me.

 

I'm not denying the Sherman's good qualities, but it was just too under-gunned in comparison to the opposition for much of the time.

 

 Probably I'd go for the T34 as the best allied tank.

I would say Sherman's two strong points are overall reliability and ease of access in and out of the tank (out being more important) especially on the late large hatch hulls.

If the Sherman is under gunned, I would say the T-34 is undergunned as well, 75mm M3 and 76mm F-34, 76mm M1 and 85mm S-53 are very close in performance.

However Sherman's bad points are extremely poor cross country performance, at least until the upgraded suspension came in.

 

16 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

It really wasn't that under-gunned, it faced Pz IV and IIIs most of the time and was more than capable of penning them, it rarely faced Panthers and Tigers (the latter on only four or five occasions)

This is another myth that I see originate from the Chieftain from Wargaming. Not really a myth to be honest but a misrepresentation; somehow the "US Armored Corps faced Tigers 4-5 times in the war" became "the Sherman faced Tigers 4 or 5 times only in the war". All ~140 Tiger I and II along with 80% of German armour in Normandy were on the British and Canadian Sector of the beachheads. The Commonwealth Forces faced Tigers and Panthers regularly.  By 1944 the Panther was becoming increasingly common, something which American intelligence missed. In Normandy the Panther was in almost the same numbers as the Panzer IV.

Edited June 25, 2018 by RoflSeal

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

I don't really agree with him but I think he judges "best" in terms of their actual use and reliability, whats the use of a tank if it's broke down and unusable most of the time?

Clearly it's not the best in regards to armor or gun but compared to other German tanks it was fairly reliable from my understanding.

I do realize that the site does seem a bit biased but there is nice historical info in there and you can't dismiss it all as bias.

 

Imo the best German tank of the war in regards to armor and armament was the Panther but due to it's reliability issues it didn't make much of a difference on the battlefield.

 

He is correct in stating (imo) that the best allied tank of the war was the Sherman, it had all the good quality's of a tank, it could more than handle the opposition it normally faced and on the rare chance it did come up against a Panther or Tiger it had numbers on it's side.

 

The Comet was considerably better than the Sherman even in it's Firefly configuration, but if by "best" you mean something like "greatest impact" I could live with the Sherman for the western allies and the T-34 for the SU.

 

I think you are wrong about Shermans rarely facing Panthers: late German Pz Divisions had a battalion of Mk IVs and a battalion of Panthers as a standard, although it took time to work up to that. There were loads of them in Normandy. 

[PL_Andrev]

On 6/24/2018 at 6:29 PM, Brano said:

Not having infantry makes me sit on the fence for this project...

 

Uhmm... they have right bro. I know that a lot of us want to see infantry here, but there is no sense to keep them in game, even as AI.

• This is a sim / multi game, so you should keep attention not only for enemy tanks - do not forget the skies here will be dangerous too.
• As I think we will have "infantry" units - not single soldiers but trucks, immobile AT guns, rocket lauchers etc.
• Focus on long-range shooting, prepare Kolobanov-style traps for enemy convoys and think about your ammo supplies!
• If somebody (shot) spot you, remember that enemy know where you are and will try to eliminate you.
• Do not shot for spotted alone tank - it may be a friendly tank with no radio.
• Focus for mission orders: your target is strategic point, supplies or friends flanked by enemies,

 

Hope you see there is a lot of mission combinations without infantry units, especially with multiplayer tank/plane battles 

And finally - we will be able to see something new, fresh and long-time expected in tank games: long-distance shooting. 

Just spot, mark, shot, kill... ooooh no... hope it was not ally tank.

 

 

 

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

4 minutes ago, PL_Andrev said:

-snip-

there is no sense to keep them in game, even as AI.

-snip-

 

 

 

 

I completely disagree - see Steel Fury.

 

Without even simple infantry the whole purpose of an armored sim is a lot more empty... Especially given the combined arms/infantry support role that armor played in WWII.

[Legioneod]

41 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

I would say Sherman's two strong points are overall reliability and ease of access in and out of the tank (out being more important) especially on the late large hatch hulls.

If the Sherman is under gunned, I would say the T-34 is undergunned as well, 75mm M3 and 76mm F-34, 76mm M1 and 85mm S-53 are very close in performance.

However Sherman's bad points are extremely poor cross country performance, at least until the upgraded suspension came in.

 

This is another myth that I see originate from the Chieftain from Wargaming. Not really a myth to be honest but a misrepresentation; somehow the "US Armored Corps faced Tigers 4-5 times in the war" became "the Sherman faced Tigers 4 or 5 times only in the war". All ~140 Tiger I and II along with 80% of German armour in Normandy were on the British and Canadian Sector of the beachheads. The Commonwealth Forces faced Tigers and Panthers regularly.  By 1944 the Panther was becoming increasingly common, something which American intelligence missed. In Normandy the Panther was in almost the same numbers as the Panzer IV.

I was talking of American forces (should have clarified), Americans only encountered the Tiger a handful of times, I'm fully aware that the Brits faced them more often.

 

38 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

The Comet was considerably better than the Sherman even in it's Firefly configuration, but if by "best" you mean something like "greatest impact" I could live with the Sherman for the western allies and the T-34 for the SU.

 

I think you are wrong about Shermans rarely facing Panthers: late German Pz Divisions had a battalion of Mk IVs and a battalion of Panthers as a standard, although it took time to work up to that. There were loads of them in Normandy. 

I could very well be wrong about that, and I know there were more than a few battles that they fought against each other, but overall the Pz IV was more likely to be encountered.

 

In regards to the comet being better it really depends on the criteria and what you are really comparing. The gun on the Comet is superior hands down but when it comes to armor and other things it really depends. 

[unreasonable]

2 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

 

I could very well be wrong about that, and I know there were more than a few battles that they fought against each other, but overall the Pz IV was more likely to be encountered.

 

In regards to the comet being better it really depends on the criteria and what you are really comparing. The gun on the Comet is superior hands down but when it comes to armor and other things it really depends. 

Only marginally from Normandy onwards: see analysis of tank strength in Normandy here.  The Mk IVs might have had slightly better serviceability numbers as well, but I would doubt that they were encountered much more than 10-20% more often.   https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=37339

 

[EAF19_Marsh]

The big cats in their element 1 vs. 1 were arguably superior to a Sherman. However as part of army you have to consider them in the situation in which they were used, which was not available [often], not in their element [poor combined arms or attacking] or generally how they found themselves [absence of support, or supplies and unable to maneuver in a useful tactical sense] in which case they were inferior to a Sherman.

 

Like air combat, tank battles were not equal jousting matches.

[PL_Andrev]

2 hours ago, Space_Ghost said:

I completely disagree - see Steel Fury.

 

Without even simple infantry the whole purpose of an armored sim is a lot more empty... Especially given the combined arms/infantry support role that armor played in WWII.

 

Sure, but Steel Fury is single player game, not multi.

Not sure you've read my full post. Infantry should be implemented here but as armored units - not as single soldiers. 

Killing Tiger is most funny than use MG against soldiers.

[unreasonable]

Without at least some static dug in infantry weapons teams and AT units, you will not be simulating WW2 tank battles, but simulating this:

 

 

[I./JG1_Baron]

Relax guys. Im 100 % sure that final product will be excellent. Like BoS, BoM, BoK, BoBd. Now we got basic information only. 

[RedKestrel]

3 hours ago, unreasonable said:

Without at least some static dug in infantry weapons teams and AT units, you will not be simulating WW2 tank battles, but simulating this:

 

 

Alright, now I really am sold!
/begin operation sneaky-sneak!

[EAF19_Marsh]

Creepy....

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

GuP is [edited]

 

I always downvote GuP - it's a shame we don't have that option here.

Edited June 26, 2018 by SYN_Haashashin

[616Sqn_Tyggz]

 Will there be support for steering wheel/pedal controllers for controlling the tanks?

 

@Jason_Williams

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, Tyggz said:

 Will there be support for steering wheel/pedal controllers for controlling the tanks?

 

@Jason_Williams

^This.

 

Also, how will you handle the loader? If the loader gets killed how will we be able to load the gun? Will it just be the end for the whole crew and we'll have to re-spawn or will someone be able to switch to the loader spot?

 

I know yall said no loader for a player position but imo it would be important to have it player controlled at least some of the time, especially for instances when the loader gets killed and you need to act as a loader.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

On 6/25/2018 at 10:31 PM, PL_Andrev said:

...

Killing Tiger is most funny than use MG against soldiers.

More challenging - yes, but most funny ?

[=27=Davesteu]

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

Also, how will you handle the loader? If the loader gets killed how will we be able to load the gun? Will it just be the end for the whole crew and we'll have to re-spawn or will someone be able to switch to the loader spot?

Being penetrated and a crew member killed definitely should be the end of your run. Some rare instances of tanks continuing the fight aside, you better hurry if your tank was penetrated. Not to mention it's highly unlikely only one is hit and nothing else important is damaged, wounded and/or dead.

 

It will be interesting to see how the game counts various possible endings. Where do you "land"? What happens if a track is thrown off?

Edited June 26, 2018 by =27=Davesteu

[Fercyful]

I like peppering infantry in Steel Fury. Will be happy "just" with static infantry inside trenches (with any kind of AT portable weapons) + AT guns. No need fancy animations. Just for add realism and tension when you roll by. 

[Myn]

T34 so overrated.

"Undoubtedly the T-34 went a long way to enabling the USSR to be ultimately victorious, but the price was huge with approximately 44 900 T-34s (82% of total production) being irrecoverably lost. "

 

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-t-34-in-wwii-the-legend-vs-the-performance/#Conclusions Regarding the T-34’s Overall Performance as a ‘War Winner’

[Thad]

Salutations,

 

From all I've read, I wouldn't declare the T-34 necessarily a "War Winner" but early in the war the T-34s battlefield effectiveness proved to be a shock to the Germans. It forced them to upgrade their equipment.  

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, =27=Davesteu said:

Being penetrated and a crew member killed definitely should be the end of your run. Some rare instances of tanks continuing the fight aside, you better hurry if your tank was penetrated. Not to mention it's highly unlikely only one is hit and nothing else important is damaged, wounded and/or dead.

 

It will be interesting to see how the game counts various possible endings. Where do you "land"? What happens if a track is thrown off?

Over-penetrating was a pretty serious problem for Americans fighting the Japanese, the round would go right through the tank and they would just keep fighting, thats the main reason they started using HE when fighting Japanese tanks. 

I'm curious to see how it will be handled in-game, without one-two crew you could still fight. There needs to be some mechanic in-place that accounts for crew death and over penetration, and that allows for more options than just abandoning the tank.

Edited June 26, 2018 by Legioneod

[Gambit21]

Spallling is often what kills a tank, by killing the crew.

Thus I'm not sure about "over-penetration" but I don't know everything about tank v tank.

 

[Legioneod]

2 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Spallling is often what kills a tank, by killing the crew.

Thus I'm not sure about "over-penetration" but I don't know everything about tank v tank.

 

I agree but it all depends, some rounds are less likely to cause spalling than others, a solid slug is more likley to go right through the tank, that was the problems Americans were having in the pacific, it's the reason they switched to HE because it's more likely to cause spalling and outright kill the crew or tank.

[Gambit21]

I see...thanks.

[Thad]

6 hours ago, Tyggz said:

 Will there be support for steering wheel/pedal controllers for controlling the tanks?

 

@Jason_Williams

Salutations,

 

One can already do most of this now. I use my Thrustmaster FCS Throttle to move forward, brake and reverse. Its' paddles are used for turning my tanks. Works great.

 

I use JoyToKey  in order to map the turret for aiming. I find this better than the basic immersion breaking mouse aim.

[Legioneod]

29 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

I see...thanks.

Np, another factor is the hardness of the metal used, to hard of a metal is more likely to fracture and cause spalling. German armor had this problem and after repeated hits the armor would sometimes just fall apart basically, Americans used softer steel which help reduce spalling.

[Bajzon20]

As for Sherman ...

- It will probably be a "premium" tank like current planes P-40, La-5 etc.. 

- Most likely we will get an earlier version of the M4A2, with a 75mm gun, with a single hatch on the turret and with an early plate of the front armor with small, protruding slightly forward hatchways. 
 


- It is very possible that we will be able to mount various tracks types or mount Browning M2HB on the turret.  
- Only one unit of the red Army have Shermans near Kursk, its a 229. Tank Regiment  , they fight near Belogord.
 

It will not be to me a bad tank, I know that the Shermans have a reputation for flammable or ronson, but in reality poo terms of simplicity was almost the best tank of the time, it was a modular design, so all the elements could be quickly and efficiently replaced the crew, tools and crane were enough to replace the gearbox or the engine. He was also very fast and maneuverable tank, of course, will not they could reproduce all the features and technical strength tanks, but I can already see that Sherman will be ideally suited to attacks from the flank by its speed, maneuverability, and by stabilizer cannon, can be quite accurately shoot movement. And while playing from the inside view, Sherman will also have the advantage of over the T-34, because of better optical instruments. 
 

Of course, it will not be as in fact the best tank, because Sherman was never like that, a challenge with a tiger or Panther tank was each Ronson, but compared to T-34 Pz.IV whether this is for me the best tank of the time, and certainly I will buy it.

Edited June 27, 2018 by GTursonA523

[JaffaCake]

If my current experience of tank battles in IL2 is anything to go by I will likely end up manually driving for half an hour to get killed by an AAA gun through the forest.

 

Its great to see the team working on these detailed models (and they do look very promising!) But personally I see a lot more challenge on the AI / implementation side of things for the project:

 

- AI vision through bushes / forests / fences

- Long, mundane tank driving for players - requires implementation of "auto-level" with road-keeping capability.

- Multiplayer "kamikaze" tactics from air players - it costs a lot less to suicide into a tank to ensure a kill, than it takes to drive a tank to that location.

 

All of these issues are currently present with the available tanks, and I would love to see them addressed to some extent.

 

Majority of the popular tank-driving games also provide some feedback to the players in terms of the "bullet cam". Having such feature for more arcade servers, and especially for debugging purposes, would be extremely valuable.

[Kurfurst]

Good old Panzervier. Ah, Steel Fury, those were the good times - and now its coming back with cats on top!

[Feathered_IV]

10 hours ago, =27=Davesteu said:

It will be interesting to see how the game counts various possible endings. Where do you "land"? What happens if a track is thrown off?

 

It seems that anything other than a perfect run will mean you just have to exit and restart.  Tank games never require you to return to base to complete a sortie.  If you loose a track you will just sit there like a dummy until you quit.  Some minor turret damage or jammed gun will leave you in limbo with no support and no choice but to restart and go trundling out all over again.  Have the devs thought about this and do they have a plan?  Some kind of repair & recovery system in multiplayer, or a quicksave/quickload feature in singleplayer?