Ground Vehicles

[=AGW=Master]

I really hope that they do a few player drive-able ground vehicles. Just a flatbed truck with a MG swivel would be fine with me. Ideally an actual flak truck would be nice that you could drive around your aerodrome  and park somewhere when not flying.

 

Just do one Model T light patrol car with the rear gun set to standing position. Give it to all sides.

 

Edited July 5, 2018 by =AGW=Master

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

I’m hoping for the WWI tanks!

[TheBlackPenguin]

1 minute ago, 71st_AH_Mastiff said:

I’m hoping for the WWI tanks!

 

Male or Female?

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

11 hours ago, TheBlackPenguin said:

 

Male or Female?

I said tanks? [edited] is this ROF [edited] coming over here for? Better check you’re self! 

Edited July 6, 2018 by SYN_Haashashin
Lenguage

[TheBlackPenguin]

Just now, 71st_AH_Mastiff said:

I said tanks? Wtf is this ROF crap coming over here for? Better check you’re self! 

 

Sorry Mastiff, its the heat!

 

I was referring to tanks

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_tank

 

Oh there is a Hermaphrodite tank too.

 

http://tank-photographs.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/ww1-british-mark-V-composite-hamaphrodite-tank.html

 

Damn Brits...

 

Seriously though, I hope we get Ww1 tanks too. Are you referring to drivable ones?

 

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

5 hours ago, TheBlackPenguin said:

 

Sorry Mastiff, its the heat!

 

I was referring to tanks

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_tank

 

Oh there is a Hermaphrodite tank too.

 

http://tank-photographs.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/ww1-british-mark-V-composite-hamaphrodite-tank.html

 

Damn Brits...

 

Seriously though, I hope we get Ww1 tanks too. Are you referring to drivable ones?

 

well, I apologize, I have never heard of this expression on the WWI tanks. Especially in any of the History channel's stories.

and yes would love to get into some ground action in WWI FC.

Edited July 6, 2018 by 71st_AH_Mastiff

[Danziger]

Tank Crew WW1 could be pretty cool.

[Blooddawn1942]

Yeah. Just like driving along with 3 Km/h and getting stuck in a bloody trench.

 

While I really would love to see a MkIV or A7v created with its interesting interior, I doubt that the actual gameplay would be of any interest. 

[Cybermat47]

IIRC, the engine can’t currently handle aircraft like the B-17 and Lancaster due to the large size of the crew. And WWI tanks had large crews - the A7V had a massive crew of 18, and the Mk. IV had a still considerable crew count of 8, so I imagine the same restrictions would apply... at least for now.

 

 

 

[=AGW=Master]

Tanks would be interesting but I dont really think they could make a game of it without infantry.

 

But some form of field support vehicles for the aerodromes would go a long way in online MP (and be completely useless in SP)

 

And I've always said that the flak/mg cars on the train should be player man-able! That is probably asking too much though since they would have to code a way to man the guns on something that isnt controlled by the player.

[Avimimus]

On 7/6/2018 at 8:15 AM, Blooddawn1942 said:

Yeah. Just like driving along with 3 Km/h and getting stuck in a bloody trench.

 

While I really would love to see a MkIV or A7v created with its interesting interior, I doubt that the actual gameplay would be of any interest. 

 

While I don't see it as a priority... the FS-WW1 mod (http://www.fsww1.com/) includes a pack with a number of playable tanks and ground vehicles.

 

I found the related missions and campaigns extremely enjoyable. This despite the fact that it was ground combat in a 1998 engine (twenty years old this year!!!)

 

So you might be surprised! I know I was!

[=AGW=Master]

I hope that the tank crew stuff turns into a few ww1 vehicles.

 

Due to development and gameplay considerations we have decided to create a separate AAA vehicles add-on featuring the GAZ-MM + 72K and Sd. Kfz. 10 + Flak38. We will prepare them as a separate product to be released later and work to make them a more interesting addition to IL-2 Sturmovik Great Battles then initially planned.

 

Maybe they can include some AA vehicles in that separate AA addon for wwi as well.

 

Even just one AA vehicle or MG vehicle that both sides share would go a long way in MP for FC IMO.

 

@Jason_Williams

[=AGW=Master]

Could give us a dedicated flak panzer!

 

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww1/german/flakpanzer-a7v

 

 

But I'd rather having something more simple like this ?

 

Edited July 24, 2018 by =AGW=Master

[Pict]

On 7/6/2018 at 2:27 PM, FFS_Cybermat47 said:

IIRC, the engine can’t currently handle aircraft like the B-17 and Lancaster due to the large size of the crew. And WWI tanks had large crews - the A7V had a massive crew of 18, and the Mk. IV had a still considerable crew count of 8, so I imagine the same restrictions would apply... at least for now.

 

Have you seen this in the controls/weapons section indicating 9 firing points? I only spotted it after the last update.

 

[LukeFF]

45 minutes ago, Pict said:

Have you seen this in the controls/weapons section indicating 9 firing points? I only spotted it after the last update.

 

That's been there a long time, so it doesn't indicate anything in particular. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

Model T Fords did not have a traditional gear change lever as shown in the original poster's illustration.

They had a two speed planetary gearbox that was operated with two foot pedals and the position of the handbrake lever.  It's a rather complicated affair by modern standards, but over 15 million owners of the T figured it out.

 

Sorry for the off topic, but antique cars are what provides my living...

[Arfsix]

 

 

7 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Model T Fords did not have a traditional gear change lever as shown in the original poster's illustration.

They had a two speed planetary gearbox that was operated with two foot pedals and the position of the handbrake lever.  It's a rather complicated affair by modern standards, but over 15 million owners of the T figured it out.

 

Sorry for the off topic, but antique cars are what provides my living...

 

Ford Model T - How to Start & How to Driv

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxfHMtgg2d8

[HiIIBiIIy]

8 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Model T Fords did not have a traditional gear change lever as shown in the original poster's illustration.

They had a two speed planetary gearbox that was operated with two foot pedals and the position of the handbrake lever.  It's a rather complicated affair by modern standards, but over 15 million owners of the T figured it out.

 

Sorry for the off topic, but antique cars are what provides my living...

LOL OP's illustration is just a illustration , besides it could have a Ruckstell 2 speed axle. ?

[Trooper117]

God... can we have just a WWI flight sim please, no tank driving, no messing with AA guns, just an honest to goodness flight sim, like in the old days... thank you God.

[Thad]

1 hour ago, Trooper117 said:

God... can we have just a WWI flight sim please, no tank driving, no messing with AA guns, just an honest to goodness flight sim, like in the old days... thank you God.

Honest to goodness, you do realize that nobody is forcing you to trudge along the ground at all. Go fly something if that's all you desire to do. ?

[Trooper117]

Thad, I get it... you love tanks and stuff, that's great, but please allow me to state my case and desires without you telling me what I should do...

[=AGW=Master]

2 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

God... can we have just a WWI flight sim please, no tank driving, no messing with AA guns, just an honest to goodness flight sim, like in the old days... thank you God.

 

Im going to go with NO. We already had a just air sim in RoF and the problems that caused online with people vulching and doing a conga line with the bombers cause a lot of people to quit the game. What we need a support vehicles on the ground that can spawn and protect the planes as they are on the field. To me, it is the most important addition the game could have. I'd have taken it over VR support.

 

But thats just my opinion. Obviously not everyone will share it but I will absolutely defend it in a thread about ground vehicles

41 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

Thad, I get it... you love tanks and stuff, that's great, but please allow me to state my case and desires without you telling me what I should do...

 

Did you not do the exact same thing in your first post telling everyone in here that GVs are not wanted? Seems kind of hypocritical to denounce something and then get onto someone else for also denouncing something?

12 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Model T Fords did not have a traditional gear change lever as shown in the original poster's illustration.

They had a two speed planetary gearbox that was operated with two foot pedals and the position of the handbrake lever.  It's a rather complicated affair by modern standards, but over 15 million owners of the T figured it out.

 

Sorry for the off topic, but antique cars are what provides my living...

 

That is what is great about forums like this. Someone will criticize something because of the smallest detail

 

If I am not mistaken most of the Model T vehicles used in ww1 were actually Model TT which used a worm drive on the rear axel along with a modified gear box that a second lever could be used for gearing between low and high.

 

So the picture above is probably correct with a misidentified caption.

 

Though to be honest, I really dont care how accurate they make a ground vehicles. I think the gun role is more important than getting the gear box accurate. Furthermore, almost none of these vehicles were standardized. The bed/body was generally constructured from the wood packing crate and a lot of the internals were different as well. The gun mounts were also cobbled together from things on hand. There were more piecemeal Model Ts than factor assembled role designated vehicles.

Edited July 26, 2018 by =AGW=Master

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, =AGW=Master said:

Obviously not everyone will share it but I will absolutely defend it in a thread about ground vehicles

 

And that would be an argument you'd likely lose every time. There's nothing revolutionary about playable AA guns, but being able to fly with VR absolutely is.

[=AGW=Master]

That is perspective. I've played it in VR already and I've played it with TrackIR and VR gave nothing special over TIR for me personally but there was a LOT of lost definition for contacts at distance.

 

There isnt anything "revolutionary" about VR at the end of the day either. But ground vehicles! WHOA that would revolutionize flight sims. The next best thing since sliced bread!

 

At the end of the day it is just opinion and perspective.

Edited July 26, 2018 by =AGW=Master

[buster_dee]

I've always liked the idea of playable ground vehicles. It adds context to the air war.  Maybe I have a role-playing bug. Being bussed to the hardstand. Landing after a stressful mission at a airfield that seems too placid (except for the pubs). Being guided to your assigned hardstand. Mad activity when the field is under attack. But, this all takes resources (development, player seats, net traffic). I suggested a long time ago in a Clod forum (banana I think) that, instead of just having drivable vehicles, create a convoy commander role that drives (or is driven), issues orders (route changes, maintenance stops, camouflage and  defense), and is responsible for completing a task--maybe replenishing fuel or weapon stores at various airfields (a few other roles come to mind--airfield crash crew to fight fires and clear wreckage). This way, ground and air are more symbiotic, and the on-line seats gobbled up are fewer for the given impact. I recognize that rolling your "T" in a boundary drainage ditch might be more fun, but you get my drift.

Edited July 28, 2018 by buster_dee
context

[Guest deleted@83466]

I would assume that most people, including me, have Il-2 so they can experience the thrill of virtual aerial combat.  Driving a rickety truck around just doesn't hold much appeal.

[=AGW=Master]

7 hours ago, buster_dee said:

I've always liked the idea of playable ground vehicles. It adds context to the air war. 

 

I can remember the first time booting up Red Baron 3d and having a hard landing at an aerodrome and the ambulance would drive out to your wreck. Felt so immersive. Not that we should have drivable ambulances in game.

 

3 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

I would assume that most people, including me, have Il-2 so they can experience the thrill of virtual aerial combat.  Driving a rickety truck around just doesn't hold much appeal.

 

It's not about "driving" a rickety truck. (well maybe for some people it is.) But it is about having a vehicle that can spawn at a base online, check out if the field is under attack and help defend the base. You dont always want to be in the air. Sometimes you want to just sit there and drink a beer while watching the planes take off!

 

The "this is an airplane game" was only a valid argument before we had playable tanks. it is now a combined arms sim similar to DCS. Like it or not, vehicles are here to stay. Just like when they were added to Warbirds and aces high. Not everyone will like them, not every one will use them but there are people who will buy and use them who would otherwise not play the game.

[Guest deleted@83466]

7 hours ago, =AGW=Master said:

 

I can remember the first time booting up Red Baron 3d and having a hard landing at an aerodrome and the ambulance would drive out to your wreck. Felt so immersive. Not that we should have drivable ambulances in game.

 

 

It's not about "driving" a rickety truck. (well maybe for some people it is.) But it is about having a vehicle that can spawn at a base online, check out if the field is under attack and help defend the base. You dont always want to be in the air. Sometimes you want to just sit there and drink a beer while watching the planes take off!

 

The "this is an airplane game" was only a valid argument before we had playable tanks. it is now a combined arms sim similar to DCS. Like it or not, vehicles are here to stay. Just like when they were added to Warbirds and aces high. Not everyone will like them, not every one will use them but there are people who will buy and use them who would otherwise not play the game.

 

Well, it is an "airplane game", but insofar as derivatives on that focus, there is a difference between being an operator of a WW2 Tank, like the Tiger, and being a driver of a supply truck.  This difference should be obvious.  At the end of the day there is that pesky little economic reality called cost vs benefit.

[=AGW=Master]

You are the one who insinuated driving rickety trucks vs manning artillery and mg vehicles. You are trying to derail the thread by changing the topic of discussion to something that you can win an argument against. Its a sad little internet argument tactic.

 

Luckily you are a minority here. But I would ask you to stop trying to derail a thread discussing wwi anti aircraft vehicles. If you dont like it, that is fine. Go somewhere else.

[Guest deleted@83466]

If you read the comment above mine, by Buster Dee (the one I was actually responding to) you will find that he wishes to see driveable trucks for the purpose of ferrying pilots to their aircraft, marshalling vehicles, fuel trucks, etc.  I'm not creating a "strawman" argument, I'm responding to an actual post that was made in this thread.  I don't have a problem with ground vehicles as a general concept, I just don't want to see scarce resources devoted to "support convoys" and things of this nature that few would be interested in.  So if you're for Tanks, and Anti-aircraft vehicles, sure, if that's what you want, I have no problem with that in theory, if there is time and resource for it (I bought Tank Crew, and look forward to using that)  However, you are wrong if you think that the release of Tank Crew means that IL-2 is now some generalized war simulator, and not fundamentally a flight simulator at heart.  Wouldn't you like to see them flesh out the airplanes before making some Model-T with a machine gun on it?  A game like this simply can't be everything to everybody.  There are a lot of requests from lots of people for a lot of things. 

Edited July 29, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[=AGW=Master]

No, in all honesty I didnt play much RoF single player. I mostly played it online with a group of 20 people in my squad. We played on open servers like Wargrounds and syndicate. The biggest issue that hurt the game was spawning in as a group and taking off as a group with people vulching or doing a conga line bomb runs on the bases.

 

The game desperately needed two things.

 

1) It needed a spectator camera attached to the field so you could see the current status of the field before launching.

 

2) It needed a means for players to defend the field from attacks. If you jacked up the AI then the flak and mg at bombing targets were too powerful/precise. If you lowered it too much then the MGs at the fields were useless.

 

Player controlled MG/Flak vehicles would fix both of those issues with very minimal work. They literally just need to stick a 2 seater turret on the back of a flatbed truck (bare minimum).

 

This problem has affected just about every online flight sim and every single one solved it by adding ground vehicles.

 

We need ground vehicles before or with the first group of 2seat bombers. We probably wont get them then, if every since they have not confirmed anything but two wwii AAA sofar. If we dont get them... then people will just do what they did in RoF and shoot the wings off their plane and park the plane somewhere near the field. Which is an absolutely ridiculous solution to this problem.

 

I fully understand that not everyone wants drivable vehicles or plays online which would be basically their only use. But on the other hand there are lots of people who do want them and feel that they are needed long before Vol 1 is in full release.

 

Further more... they WILL flesh out the airplanes. That is a given. Vol 1 will be successful which will allow them to do a Vol 2 at bare minimum. But numbers will remain low until Vol 1 has enough flyable planes to have online variety. But it's pretty much a given that they are not going to abandon Vol 1 and start working on ww1 tank crew or some such nonsense. No one is arguing that the planes should all be put on hold until I get my ground vehicles.

 

But it is NOT a given that we will ever get ww1 AAA vehicles. Therefore if any of us want them it behooves us to argue for them as vehemently as possible even in the face of people who say we shouldnt get them. Maybe even especially in the face of those people.

Edited July 29, 2018 by =AGW=Master

[LukeFF]

3 hours ago, =AGW=Master said:

This problem has affected just about every online flight sim and every single one solved it by adding ground vehicles.

 

Since when was it a problem in the original IL2? 

[=AGW=Master]

Did you not play on the dynamic campaign servers for il2? (original) was [edited] people vulching the airfields. It was never fixed for the original il2 obviously. No ground vehicles in that game or in cliffs of dover.

Edited September 6, 2018 by SYN_Haashashin
lenguage

[Guest deleted@83466]

So your theory is that a couple of players parked in trucks with a Lewis gun in back will discourage vulchures?  Super-Duper Laser Flak doesn't discourage vulchers, because vulchers live to vulch, and they expect to get shot down anyway, so I just don't see it happening.

 

There are so many things that people want that would be so much more in popular demand.  People want Aviatiks and Rumplers.  They want Mosquitos and Arado Schnelle bombers in Bodenplatte.  They'll want different engine variants and weapons options for planes, and additional tanks and half-track mounted AA guns for Tank Crew.  Many wish to see aerial reconnaissance and spotting missions added to the game.  There is nothing wrong with you making a thread like this and asking for what you want, I'm just trying to tell you that your personal wish list for ground vehicles in Flying Circus might strike most people as something that should be a lower priority then several other dozen things, and it is impossible for a software development team to do everything.   So yes, whether they are making a WW1 ground vehicle for Flying Circus, or working on a Turbocharger for a Bodenplatte airplane, everything has an opportunity cost.  Like everyone else, I read the developer diaries every time they come out, and what strikes me the most is how full their plate already is. 

Edited July 30, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, =AGW=Master said:

Did you not play on the dynamic campaign servers for il2? (original) was a cluster**** of people vulching the airfields.

 

Yes, I did, and I never saw that behavior that you're describing.

 

Quote

It was never fixed for the original il2 obviously. No ground vehicles in that game or in cliffs of dover.

 

So, how in the world would this be a foolproof solution if, on the one hand, you claim it "has affected just about every online flight sim and every single one solved it by adding ground vehicles", but the two biggest WWII flight sims (pre-IL2 BoS) never implemented said solution? What are these other big-name, popular flight sims that implemented your proposed feature?

Edited July 30, 2018 by LukeFF

[Trooper117]

People buy flight sims to fly flight sims... They don't buy flight sims to only play with a few vehicles and the odd AA gun.

Logically then, people who should be populating the servers in aircraft are then going to muck around with said vehicles, instead of flying planes.

That perspective is only a perceived problem from my point of view in a MP setting of course...

[Thad]

Salutations,

 

I've 'bought' ALL the modules available including Tank Crew. I have the  'choice' to fly the many different aircraft in the modules. We also have the 'choice' to drive and fight on the ground in armored vehicles (although this aspect is currently limited). Still, this 'choice' is there.

 

Apparently, you are concerned that players, as you assert, (that should be populating the servers in aircraft) will choose to fight on the ground in multiplay.

 

Ultimately, it is about choice. We are increasingly being provided new choices in gameplay. To me, that is a good thing.

 

While I acknowledge your concern about there being fewer pilots populating servers airspace, the option for ground combat is there and will become even more compelling as Tank Crew improves and grows. Regardless, new theatres of operations for pilots and more planes are in the making. I think it is going to be a win, win situation in the long run.

 

I also think more player options are always a good thing. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

In '46 it was quite easy to build enough ground anti air defenses at airfields to deal with even the most determined ground attack enthusiasts.  That is because in the original IL2 setting the competency level of anti aircraft guns could be done individually, and not globally.  So you could have moderate flak at real ground objectives, and walls of "ace" level flak at an airbase.

 

I assure you that 3 wirblewinds,  along the runway,  4 to 6 88s scattered behind the base,  with another 4 to 6 40mm Bofors guns nearer to the base, all set to the highest settings would take care of any "vulching" issues.   And, if you had a river or the ocean nearby, plop one of the Finnish flak ships, and a DD or surfaced submarine or two there and call it mission accomplished.

[=RS=Stix_09]

On 7/31/2018 at 12:00 AM, Trooper117 said:

People buy flight sims to fly flight sims... They don't buy flight sims to only play with a few vehicles and the odd AA gun.

I think this is much more than just a flight sim. 

 

IMHO vehicles are a great addition to this game (If its not overdone and too complex). I think it will bring a lot more people to the game, and that also means more money to develop (vehicles AND planes). There is a huge player base for vehicles, and this platform is perfect to have both and have it done well. I don't buy the argument, that it takes away development of the planes , that just doesn't make economic sense. If you want more development on a game , increase its player base , and you will have an economy that can support it.  Adding vehicles it going to grow this title. 
You need player growth or games die. I like how this game is developing.

People buy games to have fun , whether that's flying or shooting at planes from the ground. The point is you can choose to fly or drive an AA gun or tank.
Being able to control a ground vehicles adds to the immersion. You want to fly planes , great , fly planes. I want to do both.

The other aspect is to get in a vehicle all you need is a mouse and keyboard. To fly a plane and enjoy it , you need a lot more hardware (and $$).  This is quite a roadblock for many, with a bigger learning curve. (And many of these new players may start only with vehicles...). There is an argument for current and new players in all this, and many perspectives.
(For me track IR is $300 NZD , or $75NZD for a Ps3 eye with opentrack. Not cheap... then you still need a reasonable stick, let alone peddles and all the other stuff you can get , to get really immersed)

Personally I want to do both. They are both enjoyable... just like many , many others also find. (hence this thread). And they go together to make a far better WW2 combat simulator (as I said as long as its not too overdone and complex)
 

On 7/31/2018 at 12:00 AM, Trooper117 said:

Logically then, people who should be populating the servers in aircraft are then going to muck around with said vehicles, instead of flying planes.

That perspective is only a perceived problem from my point of view in a MP setting of course...

Your concerns are valid, but there are solutions. Whats to stop it having 100+ player matches to support this in the future... think bigger.
Configuration of the servers could have limits on each also.... many ways to do this.

As long as its managed well it will work, and devs have been on the ball so far... its a very active developed game, with some thought going into it.

Edited August 30, 2018 by Stix-09
Addition

[Guest deleted@83466]

 

Not convinced.  People will spend money to drive iconic vehicles like Tiger tanks and Shermans, hence the viability of Tank Crew.  However, you are talking World War one vehicles.  I would be very surprised if somebody with little interest in flying airplanes would be willing to buy Flying Circus so they could drive something like a World War One truck with a machine gun mounted in back, or even the odd ww1 tank.