Ground Vehicles

[Garven]

WW1 tanks would be a snooze fest.  

[=RS=Stix_09]

21 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

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.

Nope prob not, but I would jump on an aa gun to defend and airfield, like you can do in il-2 COD,  or drive a vehicle as part of a combined air and ground assault of target.

[J2_Trupobaw]

Just imagine Black September with player-controlled tanks!

[=AGW=Master]

On 8/30/2018 at 7:31 PM, SeaSerpent said:

 

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.

 

To be honest I've heard the same argument with DCS jet guys talking about how they dont see why anyone would want to fly wwii planes when they could be in jets or helicopters.

 

Everyone likes different things. Luckily enough we live in an age where there is generally enough variety to make everyone happy.

 

For what it is worth I completely agree about wwi tanks. Without infantry there really is no point in driving wwi tanks by themselves. But it is also kind of a circle of life thing. You have planes, you have trucks to kill the planes, you have tanks to kill the trucks that kill the planes. You have planes to kill the tanks that kill the trucks that kill the planes.

 

You dont have to enjoy every aspect of that circle but each piece goes a long way to helping the other pieces have better purpose.

 

You can set up AI to move tanks about but no AI tank will ever drive the way a human would drive in that same tank. To deny the opportunity for some random tanker to have their fun in a wwi tank denies the people who fly the planes a good human target!

 

But really... I just really really really want AA trucks to help guys aerodromes online.

[Garven]

If airbase is under attack spawn in a two seater and then jump into rear gun position; voila there is you're player controlled AA machine gun position.

Edited September 2, 2018 by Garven_Dreis

[MiloMorai]

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

Saw that earlier today. 

Very cool, yet steamy.

[=RS=Stix_09]

On ‎9‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 10:11 AM, Garven_Dreis said:

If airbase is under attack spawn in a two seater and then jump into rear gun position; voila there is you're player controlled AA machine gun position.

 

Ya but what if we want to drive and AA truck, you might now want to , but some of us do. In COD its a lot of fun to shoot at planes from the airfield under attack. Be nice in BOX to do this. And why not.

 

They are totally different experiences. I don't get this mentality that we should only fly planes in BOX. I want both as do many. Lets have the choice.

Edited September 7, 2018 by Stix_09
addition

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Yes yes yes please..
If we are going to have tanks its a given we need drivable AAA or FLAK and so on.
like in WT great times hiding on map and shooting down enemies who cant see your AAA.

[Garven]

10 hours ago, Stix_09 said:

I don't get this mentality that we should only fly planes in BOX. I want both as do many. Lets have the choice.

Relax, I bought Tank Crew at the same time as Flying Circus, which was within hours of both being made available for purchase.  I just don't think a WW1 version would be worth the effort and development cost.

Edited September 8, 2018 by Garven_Dreis

[=AGW=Master]

They seem to be planning to do a AAA pack for wwii. I'd hope they could just stick a wwi AAA and MG truck into that pack. Im not sure a ww1 tank pack would do well on it's own but you never know. BF1 did exceptionally well. Maybe there are a lot of ex BF1 tankers looking to upgrade.

 

[buster_dee]

Controllable flak, good; moveable, controllable flak, better.

[buster_dee]

Love steam power. My dad once mentioned that steam trains never lacked for power--they were just murder on the tracks.

[=AGW=Master]

Also, if we had player controllable flak we could use it in it's historic context for warning friend airplanes and directing them to inbound enemies.

[Thad]

Salutations,

 

There is very little downside to more and more player options in gameplay. 

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

On 9/12/2018 at 9:12 PM, buster_dee said:

Love steam power. My dad once mentioned that steam trains never lacked for power--they were just murder on the tracks.

Steam trains Defo Lack power..

A Full Steam Train engine and Coal Carriage and everything, Can all be replaced by a small diesel engine that runs a generator that drives electric motors
Providing 5-10x more power in a package thats 1/15th the weight. 

In no case is steam power really a viable option its too slow inefficient, dangerous and too heavy having to carry its own water and coal
(where as a 1Tonne Diesel fuel provide as much energy as like 2-3 carriages full of coal (20-25t)

[Guest deleted@83466]

21 hours ago, Thad said:

Salutations,

 

There is very little downside to more and more player options in gameplay. 

 

Sure there is.  In economics, this is known as Opportunity Cost:  The money that wasn't earned because manpower and resources were devoted to products or activities that were less profitable than alternatives which could have been pursued instead. 

[Barnacles]

56 minutes ago, =TBAS=Sshadow14 said:

In no case is steam power really a viable option its too slow inefficient

In applications like shipping steam power can still be a good solution eg modern aircraft carriers generally use steam turbines or gas turbines as they have to generate a lot of speed to operate aircraft. You're right about the steam locomotives being far less efficient though. A total loss single expansion steam engine is ridiculously inefficient compared to a desiel engine. Once you add condensers though steam engines improve their efficiency a fair bit.

[buster_dee]

17 hours ago, =TBAS=Sshadow14 said:

Steam trains Defo Lack power.

There was a funny story circulating 20-ish years ago. I think it was set in the Andes Mountains. A company, embarrassed at being the odd man out, finally purchased Diesel-Electric. After adding two more engines, they found that they could match the old engine's work. Apparently, high altitude preferred steam. Of course, today, everything is probably supercharged, and it wouldn't know if it was on final to the moon.

[=AGW=Master]

On 9/13/2018 at 11:21 AM, SeaSerpent said:

 

Sure there is.  In economics, this is known as Opportunity Cost:  The money that wasn't earned because manpower and resources were devoted to products or activities that were less profitable than alternatives which could have been pursued instead. 

 

Can you show us on the doll where the ground vehicles hurt you?

[Guest deleted@83466]

5 hours ago, =AGW=Master said:

 

Can you show us on the doll where the ground vehicles hurt you?

 

You clearly don't understand the concept of a relatively small team, working within a tight budget, under a demanding schedule, with tons of work already underway or commited to.   Wouldn't that be nice if the developers could just click their fingers, and features and content magically appear?  Or maybe you really have convinced yourself that World War One ground vehicles would be such a profitable hit that they should divert resources away from very widely in-demand things like Bodenplatte, more collector planes, vehicles for Tank Crew, reconnaissance in Flying Circus, or any of about a thousand other things?  Get Real.

Edited September 14, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Yeah a tiny company in a garage? with over 700 employees world wide,
200 shopfronts across EU and RU With over 40 game titles currently for sale under 1C Publishing.
and a net company worth of a few hundred million $$USD (yeah times are hard for everyone it seems, lmao..  )

Edited September 14, 2018 by =TBAS=Sshadow14

[Guest deleted@83466]

48 minutes ago, =TBAS=Sshadow14 said:

Yeah a tiny company in a garage? with over 700 employees world wide,
200 shopfronts across EU and RU With over 40 game titles currently for sale under 1C Publishing.
and a net company worth of a few hundred million $$USD (yeah times are hard for everyone it seems, lmao..  )

 

That might be 1C, but that doesn't represent the team working on Il-2, and you know that...so what is your point?

 

I mean I get it, a few of you guys want some World War One vehicles.  I want a well-proportioned Night Witch.  I want a Spad pilot that doesn't have a furry caterpiller crawling across his upper lip.  Lots of people are eager for Bodenplatte and Tank Crew to be completed.  Players who have died and gone to Hell (because they only flew Luftwaffe) are predictably demanding more winter maps.  So I guess you'll just have to get in line with the rest of the people wanting things, won't you?

Edited September 14, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[BraveSirRobin]

Tank Crew will have AA vehicles.  Problem solved!

[BraveSirRobin]

1 hour ago, Plank said:

Is that WWI tank crew or WWII tank crew?

 

 

WW2.  A WW1 tank game would be financial suicide.

[=AGW=Master]

19 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

So I guess you'll just have to get in line with the rest of the people wanting things, won't you?

 

Sounds like a plan.... what should we do while we wait? OH YEA! Lets discuss why they should make WW1 AA vehicles!

 

You seriously seem to be the only one here who has a complete disconnection with reality. Everyone knows they are a small company with limited resources. Hell they are not even doing the ww1 planes. THEY FARMED IT OUT TO ANOTHER COMPANY.

 

But seriously, point on the model truck where it touched you inappropriately because there has to be some deeply seeded reason for your vehement hate lol.

18 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Tank Crew will have AA vehicles.  Problem solved!

 

It wont. They said they will release the AAA vehicles as their own bundle. Im just hoping they include some older AA in that bundle. WW1 AAA was used during WW2 so it wouldnt be out of line to include it even if the package still mostly focuses on WW2.

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.

[Guest deleted@83466]

17 minutes ago, =AGW=Master said:

 

Sounds like a plan.... what should we do while we wait? OH YEA! Lets discuss why they should make WW1 AA vehicles!

 

You seriously seem to be the only one here who has a complete disconnection with reality. Everyone knows they are a small company with limited resources. Hell they are not even doing the ww1 planes. THEY FARMED IT OUT TO ANOTHER COMPANY.

 

But seriously, point on the model truck where it touched you inappropriately because there has to be some deeply seeded reason for your vehement hate lol.

 

 

 

 

It's just as valid to argue why they shouldn't and won't make WW1 vehicles.  You don't like it;  you don't have to.  Welcome to the internet.

 

You want your WW1 vehicle, and so you've convinced yourself that because you want it, that it therefore is something that the development team should do and/or fund.   And building things like WW1 Flak trucks will be a smashing success that will bring in so many more people-because you want it to be that way, and that must mean everybody feels the same way you do, right? You brush away the very straightforward argument that WW1 vehicles are very likely a sub-optimal use of resources compared to other forms of content, simply because you want your WW1 vehicles, and you refuse to accept anything that runs counter to that.  That's fine, keep thinking whatever you want...Maybe they'll find a few spare man-hours and appease you.  I doubt it though.

[=AGW=Master]

1 hour ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

It's just as valid to argue why they shouldn't and won't make WW1 vehicles.  You don't like it;  you don't have to.  Welcome to the internet.

 

You want your WW1 vehicle, and so you've convinced yourself that because you want it, that it therefore is something that the development team should do and/or fund.   And building things like WW1 Flak trucks will be a smashing success that will bring in so many more people-because you want it to be that way, and that must mean everybody feels the same way you do, right? You brush away the very straightforward argument that WW1 vehicles are very likely a sub-optimal use of resources compared to other forms of content, simply because you want your WW1 vehicles, and you refuse to accept anything that runs counter to that.  That's fine, keep thinking whatever you want...Maybe they'll find a few spare man-hours and appease you.  I doubt it though.

 

You dont want WW1 vehicles, and so you've convinced yourself that because you don't want it, that it therefore is something that the development team shouldn't do and/or fund.   And building things like WW1 Flak trucks will be a smashing failure that will push people away -because you want it to be that way, and that must mean everybody feels the same way you do, right? You brush away the very straightforward argument that WW1 vehicles are very likely an optimal use of resources compared to other forms of content, simply because you don't want your WW1 vehicles, and you refuse to accept anything that runs counter to that.  That's fine, keep thinking whatever you want...Maybe they'll appease you.  I doubt it though.

 

?

 

Again, where did the big old bad Model T touch you? Just point to the model. You dont even have to say it out loud!

Edited September 15, 2018 by =AGW=Master

[Guest deleted@83466]

Yeah, I'm sure the majority of the community wants to see the developers take time away from everything else so they can spend their precious time on Model-T's....Brilliant idea.  Yes, I'm sure my desire for them to work on things like airplanes, bug fixes, feature improvements, and of course Bodenplatte, Flying Circus, and eventually Pacific before they waste their time on Model-T's, puts me in a tiny minority, lol.?

[=AGW=Master]

Because you know, making 1-2 ww1 trucks would probably stall the production of everything to the point that the whole company would fail. Even though they are hiring 3rd party groups to work on specific unrelated things. Yep, those too would grind to a hault because a few 3d modelers spent their time on ww1 vehicles. God knows how complicated a model T is. Just contemplating how they might model one would probably cause massive year long delays....

 

LOL

[Guest deleted@83466]

Convince, them, the developers, how free their time, and/or their money is...

Edited September 15, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[Guest deleted@83466]

Good luck with your crusade to get a WWI flak truck!  Just don't throw a temper tantrum be dissapointed when it doesn't happen, for all the reasons I've mentioned. ?

Edited September 15, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[Stumble]

On 9/16/2018 at 6:35 AM, SeaSerpent said:

 

It's just as valid to argue why they shouldn't and won't make WW1 vehicles.  You don't like it;  you don't have to.  Welcome to the internet.

 

You want your WW1 vehicle, and so you've convinced yourself that because you want it, that it therefore is something that the development team should do and/or fund.   And building things like WW1 Flak trucks will be a smashing success that will bring in so many more people-because you want it to be that way, and that must mean everybody feels the same way you do, right? You brush away the very straightforward argument that WW1 vehicles are very likely a sub-optimal use of resources compared to other forms of content, simply because you want your WW1 vehicles, and you refuse to accept anything that runs counter to that.  That's fine, keep thinking whatever you want...Maybe they'll find a few spare man-hours and appease you.  I doubt it though.

 

Hello! Long time no chat.

 

First off, this is a great read! Someone should really chuck this in a book!!! Might be able to find those missing funds everyone keeps talking about.

 

SeaSerpent-  It's a discussion. Why do you try turn everything into a bloody argument? Please show me a thread on this FC forum where you haven't started an argument from simple disscussion. Just give it up. Please.

 

Calm down. 

 

Salute!

[Guest deleted@83466]

1 hour ago, Stumble said:

 

Hello! Long time no chat.

 

First off, this is a great read! Someone should really chuck this in a book!!! Might be able to find those missing funds everyone keeps talking about.

 

SeaSerpent-  It's a discussion. Why do you try turn everything into a bloody argument? Please show me a thread on this FC forum where you haven't started an argument from simple disscussion. Just give it up. Please.

 

Calm down. 

 

Salute!

 

Get your facts straight kid.  If you wish to play semantic games, it went from being a cordial "discussion" to a "bloody argument" when AGW guy didn't like what I had to say and responded with:  "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."

 

They taught you how to read and follow the logical progression of a dialogue in school, right?  If me having a genuine and fundamental disagreement with someone on this forum makes me guilty of "starting an argument", then let's just roll back to about 1975, and not have an Internet at all. 

 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[Cybermat47]

1 hour ago, SeaSerpent said:

They taught you how to read and follow the logical progression of a dialogue in school, right?  If me having a genuine and fundamental disagreement with someone on this forum makes me guilty of "starting an argument", then let's just roll back to about 1975, and not have an Internet at all. 

 

Fundamental disagreement? You’re telling me that the dev team not wasting resources on WWI vehicles is one of your fundamental beliefs? It’s as important to you as Christianity is to people in the Bible Belt?

[Guest deleted@83466]

Just now, PB_Cybermat47 said:

 

Fundamental disagreement? You’re telling me that the dev team not wasting resources on WWI vehicles is one of your fundamental beliefs? It’s as important to you as Christianity is to people in the Bible Belt?

 

Do we need a facepalm picture, or can I just save myself the time, and let you imagine one?

[BraveSirRobin]

Cybermat, you know that ‘fundamental” has nothing to to with religion, right?

[HiIIBiIIy]

@SeaSerpent Do you own a copy of Flying Circus ? If not why ?

[BraveSirRobin]

5 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

Do we need a facepalm picture, or can I just save myself the time, and let you imagine one?

 

1 minute ago, HiIIBiIIy said:

@SeaSerpent Do you own a copy of Flying Circus ? If not why ?

 

NOYFB

[HiIIBiIIy]

3 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

 

 

NOYFB

Do you own a copy of Flying Circus, or you in this sub forum to troll ?