Tank Crew

[Porkins]

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

 

I plan on getting it eventually but I'm more interested in American armor, Post Scriptum focuses on the British armor. Also the interiors of the tanks aren't fully modeled as far as I know.

 

Not much changed in the Tiger throughout its lifetime so the Tiger we are getting with Tank Crew could also be used for a North Africa scenario.

 

Battle of the Bulge, Market Garden, etc. would be easier to start with due to the fact that we are already getting the map with those areas in it. I've also read that the devs don't want to go to NA because of CloD doing it. Plus you'd have to have a planeset as well for support, Bodenplatte is getting all of this so it would be "easier" to just expand Tank Crew into Bodenplatte.

I agree it would be easier to do Western Europe, I was just posting what I would want. 

9 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

If TC next expansion is Battle of the Bulge and offers the same time frame as BoBP line ups could be

M4A3E2 (with 76mm gun as a mod)
M4A3, the devs can go wild with this as the late hulled version could hold both the 75mm turret and 76mm gun turret, post Battle of the Bulge up-armor and machine gun package, HVSS suspension and even add 90mm gun in M36 turret to represent the ~200 or so M36B1 (M36 turrets mounted on M4A3 hulls)
M18 Hellcat
Then to represent the British and their actions at the river Meuse

Sherman IC Firefly (as far as I am aware, composite hulled Shermans were mostly set aside for 17pdr conversion IIRC)

Churchill VII

 

And Germans could be 

Panther Ausf. G (chin mantlet as mod)

Tiger II (both turrets possibly)

Jagdpanther

Jagdpanzer IV

Jagdpanzer 38t

 

I would buy this. You may need to drop a tank from each faction in put in an AA option. I'd drop the Hellcat and Jagdpanther, purely from personal preference. 

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

3 minutes ago, Porkins said:

I agree it would be easier to do Western Europe, I was just posting what I would want. 

I would buy this. You may need to drop a tank from each faction in put in an AA option. I'd drop the Hellcat and Jagdpanther, purely from personal preference. 

Nah, it is fine since the TC Prokhorovka is 5 tanks + SPAAG per side, feel free to add whatever AA you wish.

 

Wirblewind/Ostwind is obvious for the Germans
For the Allies you have Crusader AA or M15/M16 GMC

Edited July 2, 2018 by RoflSeal

[Legioneod]

26 minutes ago, Porkins said:

I agree it would be easier to do Western Europe, I was just posting what I would want. 

I would buy this. You may need to drop a tank from each faction in put in an AA option. I'd drop the Hellcat and Jagdpanther, purely from personal preference. 

I know, was just saying. I'd like to see North Africa done someday as well, Italy would also be very cool with all the interesting terrain.

 

Africa would present some pretty interesting Tank battles, I don't know much about the African Theater but it seems like there wouldn't be much in the way of cover or concealment. Tank battles would be much more open it seems.

Edited July 2, 2018 by Legioneod

[Porkins]

43 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I know, was just saying. I'd like to see North Africa done someday as well, Italy would also be very cool with all the interesting terrain.

 

Africa would present some pretty interesting Tank battles, I don't know much about the African Theater but it seems like there wouldn't be much in the way of cover or concealment. Tank battles would be much more open it seems.

Italy would be great. The entire Mediterranean theater is really under served in video games. It was a fascinating and intense combined arms struggle all through the middle sea for many years. Including armored battles of North Africa and tough infantry fighting in Italy, but also some incredible naval, air, and amphibious operations in the Eastern and Western Med. Including some titanic struggles between the Luftwaffe and Royal Navy that would be fun to play. 

[Nightrise]

2 hours ago, RoflSeal said:

If TC next expansion is Battle of the Bulge and offers the same time frame as BoBP line ups could be

M4A3E2 (with 76mm gun as a mod)
M4A3, the devs can go wild with this as the late hulled version could hold both the 75mm turret and 76mm gun turret, post Battle of the Bulge up-armor and machine gun package, HVSS suspension and even add 90mm gun in M36 turret to represent the ~200 or so M36B1 (M36 turrets mounted on M4A3 hulls)
M18 Hellcat
Then to represent the British and their actions at the river Meuse

Sherman IC Firefly (as far as I am aware, composite hulled Shermans were mostly set aside for 17pdr conversion IIRC)

Churchill VII

 

And Germans could be 

Panther Ausf. G (chin mantlet as mod)

Tiger II (both turrets possibly)

Jagdpanther

Jagdpanzer IV

Jagdpanzer 38t

 

Though I admit these line-ups focus heavily on the battle and after it to march 1945, the preceeding operation, including Market Garden is neglected, but then again, Market Garden was not really a tank-heavy operation and focused on infantry and Paratroopers.

I would replace the IC with the VC and the jagdpanzer 38 with the pz 4 J ahnd also have the choiceofthe L48 and L70 armed versions of the Jagdpanzer 4 

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

16 hours ago, =FEW=nightrise said:

I would replace the IC with the VC and the jagdpanzer 38 with the pz 4 J ahnd also have the choiceofthe L48 and L70 armed versions of the Jagdpanzer 4 

I chose IC hybrid because that is a Firefly conversion from a late hulled Sherman and Sherman V was no longer in production. Sherman VC is more appropriate for a Battle of Normandy IMO.
Panzer IV Ausf. J is a valid choice, Germans overall are spoilt for choice for late-war jagdpanzer and panzerjager

[csThor]

On ‎7‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 10:45 PM, RoflSeal said:

[SNIP]

Tiger II (both turrets possibly)

Jagdpanther

Jagdpanzer IV

Jagdpanzer 38t

 

Actually only a handful of Porsche turrets for the Tiger II were ever produced and all those tanks went to 3. Kompanie / schwere Panzerabteilung 503. Only two of these Tiger II survived the withdrawal from Normandy and remained with the Abteilung when it was reequipped with new Tiger II and then transfered to Budapest in October 1944. As such only the standard Henschel turret would make sense, but here I'd agree with @=FEW=nightrise … the Panzer IV Ausf. J would be more sensible as a standard german Panzer Division of 1944/45 was supposed to have one battalion of Panthers and another of Panzer IV. I'd also toss out the Jagdpanther because it was relatively rare … so we could keep the Tiger II? Or maybe throw in a late-model StuG (either III or even IV)? 

Edited July 4, 2018 by csThor

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

6 hours ago, csThor said:

 

Actually only a handful of Porsche turrets for the Tiger II were ever produced and all those tanks went to 3. Kompanie / schwere Panzerabteilung 503. Only two of these Tiger II survived the withdrawal from Normandy and remained with the Abteilung when it was reequipped with new Tiger II and then transfered to Budapest in October 1944. As such only the standard Henschel turret would make sense, but here I'd agree with @=FEW=nightrise … the Panzer IV Ausf. J would be more sensible as a standard german Panzer Division of 1944/45 was supposed to have one battalion of Panthers and another of Panzer IV. I'd also toss out the Jagdpanther because it was relatively rare … so we could keep the Tiger II? Or maybe throw in a late-model StuG (either III or even IV)? 

I don't think rarity is an valid reason to omit a tank, look at other tanks/planes in series, but maybe JagdPanther can be reserved for an Eastern Front expansion as that is where they saw most action.

A Tiger IIP standalone would be valid if there was a battle of Normandy expansion down the line, however I would prefer it to be a modification just to not clog a later expansion with essentially the same tank. It really depends how much time the devs are willing to model different turrets fitted on the same hull, e.g. the late M4A3 can have the T23 turret that mounted the 76mm M1, or turret that mounted 75mm or the M36's turret that mounted the 90mm, all with very little modification to the hull itself. Same with the Tiger II Henschel and Porsche turrets, it would be just a turret swap, hull would be the same. Modelling a Sherman V and VC would be far more work I would imagine as the internals of the hull were significantly changed to accommodate for the 17pdr's shells.

 

I don't think StuG III is valid for this expansion as the last version started production from 1942 and had minor modifications throughout production. I think StuG IIIG can be put in an expansion that takes place in an earlier time frame (e.g. Normandy or equivalent Eastern Front). StuG IV is a valid choice, but I feel is too similar to Jpz IV, and really just ends up being a worse variant.

 

So really a revised list IMO would be
Tiger II

Panther G
Panzer IVJ

Jagdpanzer IV
Jp 38t or StuG IV

 

[Nightrise]

honestly the stug 3 would be better off as a standalone collector vehicle rather than tied to a specific expansion. 

[[DBS]El_Marta]

The turretz control on the mouse feels way to sluggish and inaccurate. Would be great if we could bind them to keys, buttons or other axes. The trajectory of the guns looks odd also. The ballistic curve of a shot from a Tiger's gun should be more straight I guess.

[Legioneod]

33 minutes ago, [DBS]El_Marta said:

The turretz control on the mouse feels way to sluggish and inaccurate. Would be great if we could bind them to keys, buttons or other axes. The trajectory of the guns looks odd also. The ballistic curve of a shot from a Tiger's gun should be more straight I guess.

Tiger 1 traverse is very slow irl, could this be what you are feeling? Ballistics wise you can't really rely on what looks right or not, you need data and evidence. Also, the ballistics change depending on what type of round you are firing, the higher velocity of the round the flatter the trajectory.

Edited July 18, 2018 by Legioneod

[Thad]

39 minutes ago, [DBS]El_Marta said:

The turretz control on the mouse feels way to sluggish and inaccurate. Would be great if we could bind them to keys, buttons or other axes. The trajectory of the guns looks odd also. The ballistic curve of a shot from a Tiger's gun should be more straight I guess.

I have turret set up to be moved with my joystick.

[[DBS]El_Marta]

Yes my opinion on the ballistics is just a guess, but it looks very slow to me. What I mean with "sluggish" is when you want the motion to stop or reverse it becomes very inaccurate using the mouse. The speed is not the problem.

 

@ thad: which is the name of the controll?

Edited July 18, 2018 by [DBS]El_Marta

[Thad]

I use JoyToKey to map the joystick for tank use.

[wtornado]

The experienced Tiger crews did not use gun traverse to face

other tanks the driver swung the tank around instead due to

its slow traverse speed.

 

I tried it with the attacking convoy the ole' ''swing the tank

around'' Wittmann tactic and it works well.

[angus26]

3 hours ago, Thad said:

I have turret set up to be moved with my joystick.

If I may ask, how do you control it? Is it mapped to pitch and roll? Just wondering.

[Thad]

Hi,

 

I use a program called JoyToKey to map the joystick to perform as the mouse would. It runs in the background before I start the game. This seems more realistic than aiming with a mouse.

 

By the way, I've been working on a tank mission and I noticed something missing. One cannot field a Pz V H1 Tiger under AI control. It simply isn't on the vehicle list.

 

There is a player Tiger and a player Kv-1 (_kv1s) along with a AI Kv-1 (kv1s)

 

Hummm.. where is the AI Tiger? Inquiring minds want to know. (at least I do)

Edited July 19, 2018 by Thad

[Yogiflight]

12 hours ago, SCG_wtornado said:

The experienced Tiger crews did not use gun traverse to face

other tanks the driver swung the tank around instead due to

its slow traverse speed.

The second advantage is, you have the thick front armor of your hull to the enemy

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Tigers turret traverse was dependant on RPM IRL,

6 deg/s at 600 rpm idle

8 deg/s at 1750rpm

12 deg/s at 3000rpm were the goals

This was for the Maybach HL210

British post war tests of Tiger fitted with Maybach HL230 did 18deg/s at 2000rpm

[LLv44_Mprhead]

Okey, now after testing TC for a little while my thoughts: In general multiplayer scenario I would limit the availability of big cats to maybe 20% of all german tanks. I would also put [edited] AT-guns to protect tank spawning points. For people designing MP scenarios it will be challenging to create ones that players on both sides can enjoy. In pure headbutting contest Tiger (and Ferdinand in future) will give Germans clear advantage (no surprise there). Hopefully this can be remedied by having asymmetrical win conditions and with different kind of missions like attack, defense, meeting engagement with different kind of equipment available.

 

disclaimer: coherence of the post seriously affected by the lack of sleep...

Edited July 29, 2018 by SYN_Haashashin

[Legioneod]

2 minutes ago, LLv44_Mprhead said:

Okey, now after testing TC for a little while my thoughts: In general multiplayer scenario I would limit the availability of big cats to maybe 20% of all german tanks. I would also put shitloads of AT-guns to protect tank spawning points. For people designing MP scenarios it will be challenging to create ones that players on both sides can enjoy. In pure headbutting contest Tiger (and Ferdinand in future) will give Germans clear advantage (no surprise there). Hopefully this can be remedied by having asymmetrical win conditions and with different kind of missions like attack, defense, meeting engagement with different kind of equipment available.

 

disclaimer: coherence of the post seriously affected by the lack of sleep...

So far in multiplayer Tigers are only good if they can keep distance between them and enemy tanks. If a group of tanks rush them then they dont stand much of a chance. My friends and I were in a three man convoy driving T-34s and we took out around 16 Tigers in a multiplayer match. The best tactic when facing a Tiger or any tank is to charge and flank, this was the doctrine irl (at least for the US) and we have been using it to great effect in multiplayer, the Tigers just can't cope with multiple targets closing in quickly, by the time they take one out the other is already on it's flank.

[LLv44_Mprhead]

5 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

So far in multiplayer Tigers are only good if they can keep distance between them and enemy tanks. If a group of tanks rush them then they dont stand much of a chance. My friends and I were in a three man convoy driving T-34s and we took out around 16 Tigers in a multiplayer match. The best tactic when facing a Tiger or any tank is to charge and flank, this was the doctrine irl (at least for the US) and we have been using it to great effect in multiplayer, the Tigers just can't cope with multiple targets closing in quickly, by the time they take one out the other is already on it's flank.

But this will require you to have numerical superiority? Ofc it may wall be that this will force co-operation for red players and this will solve problems at least to some extent.

[Skeleboners]

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

So far in multiplayer Tigers are only good if they can keep distance between them and enemy tanks. If a group of tanks rush them then they dont stand much of a chance. My friends and I were in a three man convoy driving T-34s and we took out around 16 Tigers in a multiplayer match. The best tactic when facing a Tiger or any tank is to charge and flank, this was the doctrine irl (at least for the US) and we have been using it to great effect in multiplayer, the Tigers just can't cope with multiple targets closing in quickly, by the time they take one out the other is already on it's flank.

How were those Tiger's playing, if you don't mind my asking? One thing I'm noticing a lot watching people posting gameplay footage of TC with them in Tigers is that they seem to be overestimating its armor and negating their strengths, often choosing to drive in closer to the enemy rather than engaging from a distance at which they're effectively invincible, or choosing to stand and fight when the enemy presses them. 

 

All that being said, I'm very interested in seeing how a semi-realistic composition of forces is going to be encouraged in multiplayer. Not much point in choosing a Panzer III or IV if I can hop into a Panther at will.

[Cybermat47]

I'm hoping that we get the Sturmpanzer IV as a collector's vehicle. It's essentially a Panzer IV with a 150mm howitzer and some holes to poke an MP-40 out of. And yes, it was at Kursk, operated by Sturmpanzer-Abteilung 216  

 

 

It also saw action at the Battle of the Bulge, with Sturmpanzer-Abteilung 217. Some of the Stupas there may have been from the 4th production series with a redesigned superstructure, incorporating an MG-34 mounting, and a StuG III cupola with an MG mounting.

 

 

 

Out of the confirmed AFVs, definitely the Panther.

Edited July 26, 2018 by FFS_Cybermat47

[Legioneod]

7 hours ago, LLv44_Mprhead said:

But this will require you to have numerical superiority? Ofc it may wall be that this will force co-operation for red players and this will solve problems at least to some extent.

Not exactly, I've taken them out 1v1 on a few occasions but numerical superiority even if it's just 1 more player can make things much easier. 

 

5 hours ago, Skeleboners said:

How were those Tiger's playing, if you don't mind my asking? One thing I'm noticing a lot watching people posting gameplay footage of TC with them in Tigers is that they seem to be overestimating its armor and negating their strengths, often choosing to drive in closer to the enemy rather than engaging from a distance at which they're effectively invincible, or choosing to stand and fight when the enemy presses them. 

 

All that being said, I'm very interested in seeing how a semi-realistic composition of forces is going to be encouraged in multiplayer. Not much point in choosing a Panzer III or IV if I can hop into a Panther at will.

 

Frontally the Tigers can't be penned (save for one or two spots) outside of 500m and most of my kills have been within 200m. The Tiger commanders advanced instead of pulling back and they usually were working alone and not as a team.

 

There was one instance where the Tiger players were actually working together, they spread out about 500m apart from each other that way they could cover each others flanks.

 

2v1 is enough of an advantage to take out a lone tiger imo and that was what the allies said they needed irl as well, not the 5v1 that is commonly accepted today.

 

Here us a vid of some of the tank kills we got the other night, not the best quality but you'll see how the Tigers fought and how we took them out.

 

[mAIOR]

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

Not exactly, I've taken them out 1v1 on a few occasions but numerical superiority even if it's just 1 more player can make things much easier. 

 

 

Frontally the Tigers can't be penned (save for one or two spots) outside of 500m and most of my kills have been within 200m. The Tiger commanders advanced instead of pulling back and they usually were working alone and not as a team.

 

There was one instance where the Tiger players were actually working together, they spread out about 500m apart from each other that way they could cover each others flanks.

 

2v1 is enough of an advantage to take out a lone tiger imo and that was what the allies said they needed irl as well, not the 5v1 that is commonly accepted today.

 

5vs1 is not accepted. Actually one of the best jokes I have seen is that you needed 4 or 5 Panthers or Tigers to kill a Sherman. 4 would be lying in a ditch broken down or out of fuel and the fifth would blow the Sherman to pieces before it too broke down or ran out of fuel.

 

2vs1 at those ranges give you a huge advantage since even if you lose one T-34 the tiger will get murdered once you close the distance to 150 meters or so or flank it. But the tankers you have been facing seem to have their sights poorly aligned ^^.

 

One of them took 2 or 3 shots point blank against your buddy and it failed to hit a single one...

 

But you did a wonderful display of fire and manoeuvre so have a thumbs up

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, mAIOR said:

5vs1 is not accepted. Actually one of the best jokes I have seen is that you needed 4 or 5 Panthers or Tigers to kill a Sherman. 4 would be lying in a ditch broken down or out of fuel and the fifth would blow the Sherman to pieces before it too broke down or ran out of fuel.

 

2vs1 at those ranges give you a huge advantage since even if you lose one T-34 the tiger will get murdered once you close the distance to 150 meters or so or flank it. But the tankers you have been facing seem to have their sights poorly aligned ^^.

 

One of them took 2 or 3 shots point blank against your buddy and it failed to hit a single one...

 

But you did a wonderful display of fire and manoeuvre so have a thumbs up

 

I was just referring to the commonly held belief that it took 5 Sherman to kill 1 Tiger when in reality the ratio was only 2v1.

 

Many of them make the mistake of traversing their turret instead of moving the whole tank, thats one of the reasons it was so easy to take all of them out.

I've also had a few strange instances where I bounced 88s off my T-34 within 100m, I was very surprised by that.

 

In all fairness to the Tiger crews they were working all alone and not together, my friends and I were all coordinated and on TS, thats one of the main reasons we were able to out maneuver the Tigers so easily.

 

There was one player who gave us a really hard time, I can't remember his name but he was pretty much the Michael Wittman of Il2 Tanks.

[Thad]

35 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

There was one player who gave us a really hard time, I can't remember his name but he was pretty much the Michael Wittman of Il2 Tanks.

Huh? Wait.... are you implying that player skill 'might' be a factor in successfully managing a tank? Outstanding! ?

[DetCord12B]

34 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

I was just referring to the commonly held belief that it took 5 Sherman to kill 1 Tiger when in reality the ratio was only 2v1.

 

Fairly interesting exceptions to the force on force ratios though. I know people like to refer to Wittmann and all, but unlike him Staudegger's run is backed up by hundreds of witnesses, including Soviet corroboration of the events. I know it sort of OT. It's just a really interesting read.

 

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/guest-bloggers/franz-staudegger-german-tiger-ace-battle-kursk.html

[Yogiflight]

3 hours ago, Legioneod said:

I was just referring to the commonly held belief that it took 5 Sherman to kill 1 Tiger when in reality the ratio was only 2v1.

It is a question of the terrain, you are fighting at. Tanks like the Tiger need open, flat terrain, where they can use the advantages of their weapons. In the mostly unclear terrain, they fighted in the west, the Tiger has no advantages. In fact, today you would fight there mainly with armored infantry, with their IFVs. For such terrain TC will need infantry, in which way ever, to make the gameplay look realistic. On open ranges, where tanks are dominating, infantry would just follow, and the main fighting would be attacking tanks versus defending tanks, supported by AT guns. Fighting through villages, not to mention towns, is something I would try to avoid in the game, as you can't simulate it, that it looks even halfway realistic. It will always be more or less an egoshooter, like the mission, you have to drive through the village with the T34 or the PzKw III. I would IRL never drive through this village, but pass it in save distance. But for having some fun, it is ok.

[Skeleboners]

6 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Frontally the Tigers can't be penned (save for one or two spots) outside of 500m and most of my kills have been within 200m. The Tiger commanders advanced instead of pulling back and they usually were working alone and not as a team.

 

There was one instance where the Tiger players were actually working together, they spread out about 500m apart from each other that way they could cover each others flanks.

 

2v1 is enough of an advantage to take out a lone tiger imo and that was what the allies said they needed irl as well, not the 5v1 that is commonly accepted today.

This is the stuff that makes me excited for Tank Crew going forward, as a sort of exercise in the realities of armored combat in the Second World War and an opportunity to dispel myths around the vehicles involved. It's funny, too- there's historical precedent for exactly that kind of behavior from Tiger commanders, and exactly that kind of result when faced with capable enemies, I recall reading about how many Tiger commanders who had gotten complacent in their apparent invulnerability against earlier vehicles with less capable anti-tank weaponry were in for a very rude, often fatal awakening when facing more modern AFVs as the war progressed.

 

I've never seen the 5v1 statistic quoted seriously from any source I actually trust, it's usually found alongside other pop-history falsehoods like the whole "Ronson" comparison (despite the fact that Shermans were not considerably more or less likely to brew up than other tanks, and significantly less likely to do so after the introduction of wet stowage ammo bins), or the insistence that US armored doctrine said that tanks were not meant to fight other tanks. 

[BTB_Larguzo]

8 hours ago, Legioneod said:

No exactamente, los saqué 1V1 en algunas ocasiones, pero la superioridad numérica, incluso si solo es 1 jugador más, puede facilitar las cosas. 

 

 

Frontalmente, los Tigres no pueden ser escritos (salvo por uno o dos puntos) fuera de los 500 my la mayoría de mis muertes han sido dentro de los 200 m. Los comandantes Tigre avanzaban en lugar de retroceder y generalmente trabajaban solos y no como un equipo.

 

Hubo un caso en el que los jugadores de Tiger estaban trabajando juntos, se extendieron a unos 500 metros de distancia uno del otro, de esa manera podían cubrirse los flancos.

 

2v1 es una ventaja suficiente para eliminar a un tigre solitario y eso es lo que los aliados dijeron que necesitan irl también, no el 5v1 que comúnmente se acepta hoy en día.

 

Aquí tenemos un video de algunas de las muertes de tanques que obtuvimos la otra noche, no de la mejor calidad, pero verás cómo lucharon los Tigres y cómo los sacamos.

In what server was that? I want to play with more people in pvp or in Coop. Regarding the flanking of the tiger I understood that it was not an easy task since I could swing, move the chains in opposite directions and that's why it turns so fast but in the tc I do not see it possible to do it

[Legioneod]

4 minutes ago, E69_Heinz_Knoke said:

8 hours ago, Legioneod said:

No exactamente, los saqué 1V1 en algunas ocasiones, pero la superioridad numérica, incluso si solo es 1 jugador más, puede facilitar las cosas. 

 

 

Frontalmente, los Tigres no pueden ser escritos (salvo por uno o dos puntos) fuera de los 500 my la mayoría de mis muertes han sido dentro de los 200 m. Los comandantes Tigre avanzaban en lugar de retroceder y generalmente trabajaban solos y no como un equipo.

 

Hubo un caso en el que los jugadores de Tiger estaban trabajando juntos, se extendieron a unos 500 metros de distancia uno del otro, de esa manera podían cubrirse los flancos.

 

2v1 es una ventaja suficiente para eliminar a un tigre solitario y eso es lo que los aliados dijeron que necesitan irl también, no el 5v1 que comúnmente se acepta hoy en día.

 

Aquí tenemos un video de algunas de las muertes de tanques que obtuvimos la otra noche, no de la mejor calidad, pero verás cómo lucharon los Tigres y cómo los sacamos.

In what server was that? I want to play with more people in pvp or in Coop. Regarding the flanking of the tiger I understood that it was not an easy task since I could swing, move the chains in opposite directions and that's why it turns so fast but in the tc I do not see it possible to do it

I think it's called Action Tanks and Planes, it's pretty unstable though and goes down alot.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

T-34 has the advantage that the gunner and commander occupy the same spot. Whilst disadvantageous in real life, in game it is a huge advantage as you can control the turret when opened up. In the Tiger, the gunner always returns to transport position when you switch to commanders spot, not only centering the turret rotation put pointing the gun 5 degrees up as well.

[RIVALDO]

On 7/26/2018 at 5:44 PM, III/JG52_Heinz_Knoke said:

On 7/26/2018 at 9:19 AM, Legioneod said:

 

In what server was that? I want to play with more people in pvp or in Coop. 

Hi! Check out the Attention EFront server!!!Lotsa action, lotsa fun every day!!!

[Haza]

On 1/26/2019 at 1:55 PM, RIVALDO said:

Hi! Check out the Attention EFront server!!!Lotsa action, lotsa fun every day!!!

 

The server to join, to be camped and spawned killed, more like!

Lots of fun for red players!

 

On 7/28/2018 at 3:25 PM, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

T-34 has the advantage that the gunner and commander occupy the same spot. Whilst disadvantageous in real life, in game it is a huge advantage as you can control the turret when opened up. In the Tiger, the gunner always returns to transport position when you switch to commanders spot, not only centering the turret rotation put pointing the gun 5 degrees up as well.

 

Yeah, hopefully all of this will be corrected!

[RIVALDO]

2 hours ago, Haza said:

The server to join, to be camped and spawned killed

I'm so sorry that the spawn area  is next to the flag which is supposed to be captured.

[feuervogel]

Haza, I was watching described situation from my position yesterday. It is a matter of mission building and I have experienced similar situations vice versa when blue side tried to reach flag and the reds were spawning over and over again, easy prey but it is going to be a bit stupid. I am hoping for new alternative mission types.

The T34 and Tiger are from different "generations" in development, I am sure controls will be adapted when the TC T34 will be available finally. I think this is the main reason for that unexpected effect of ammo types/armor for example. It's an annoying thing but be patient and wait for the final release of TC and content.

[FTC_Riksen]

Vogel is right ... The DM can be very frustrating at times but TC is not finished yet ... far from it. The devs mentioned that they will start the work on tank combat damage soon and that should greatly improve the gameplay (hopefully).

[RIVALDO]

The developers changed the effect of the HE type of ammo on tiger.