Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Zanacan

An issue with the future of tank crew

Recommended Posts

Hey, I just wanted to ask if it might at all be possible to add in infantry into the module of the tank crew. This is of itself is an ambitious task, but I think that it would benefit the module immensely, simply because Infantry is another obstacle or asset to the player when they are in a tank. Given the engine's design is for aircraft and vehicles, I know that the engine itself let alone the servers would be strained, but I think that a limited graphical demand and at least a basic ai would enhance the game. Infantry in the bushes waiting for you to pass or troops shooting at their counterparts where you have to have to help in the engagement to win the battle. Then with sprites as the infantries' representation then it might just work depending on the stress the troop's existence might put on our machines. You could have players turn off the infantry if they want the pure experience of the better-animated vehicles, but the gameplay I think that infantry would go far.

 

I brought this up because from the gameplay I have seen I have little reason to pick it up over war thunder or even world of tanks as the gameplay boils down to strictly vehicle on vehicle combat in these titles in the same way. When games like post scriptum, squad or even battlefield can offer more varied gameplay with player controlled infantry and tanks with set objectives, even with the wonderful crew compartments and damage models, it all seems to have simple gameplay that is not worth the high price even with the high production.

 

Hope your day is going well, and leave thoughts below!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Zanacan. Your question certainly echoes my own curiosity over the viability of the product as a piece of entertainment software.  As a rule the developers tend to say very little about matters of gameplay.   Generally it is referred to as something that is expensive and nice to have, but unlikely to happen until some distant point in the future.  I don’t think there is anyone on staff who is specifically tasked with thinking about it as a specific goal though.  The issue of gameplay has become such for me, that after nearly 20 years of buying Il-2 products I’ve decided to stop.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don`t take this as a jab at yourself. I don`t think that is the route at all for the developpers of Tank Crew. IMO it is meant to supplement IL2: Great Battles, specifically placing tanks on BoX maps and giving them assignments to be countered by players flying above their turrets. Back in IL2:1946 days I remember in all online wars there was this postulate for tanks and AAA to be driven by human players, since AI warfare on the ground was more often then not very unrealistic - such as two groups of tanks shooting each other from 50m. In that sence, TC is a dream come true, because communication and air-ground coordination becomes possible for players.

 

I agree that if you buy TC standalone, theoretically there is not much sence in just using tanks alone without infantry.  However, notice that in ground combat focused games, if there is any trace of aircraft flying about, its AI only or very basic player driven plane with little realism. In IL2:Great Battles it`s meant to be the other way around.

 

All that said, I am a big supporter of all sorts of including PaKs. Those were simply too numerous and too important to not be included. Just make some "humans" textures attached to the anti tank gun and implement it.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing the game to World of Tanks just because there's no independent infantry is more than a little bit silly. In every tanksim I've played, infantry have been a nuisance at their worst, and an absolute non-issue otherwise, even when they have a guy in the squad with something like an RPG-7 or an AT4. You spot them, you send a burst of coax their way, maybe put an HE shell on top of them, don't have to worry about them again. Weapons teams with large anti-tank weapons are an entirely different kettle of fish, but I don't think there were ATGMs around the time of Kursk, and we already have AT gun positions in the game.

 

Also consider that Kursk is generally considered to be a tank battle, and the action at Prokhorovka specifically barely involved infantry.

 

Would infantry be nice to have? Perhaps. Is it absolutely necessary for a good tanksim? Not really, as long as the threats infantry can pose to a tanker are realized in other ways, i.e. emplaced machine guns and AT guns.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is safe to say that the player profile and product outline (for the gameplay loop sought and provided) does not overlap for Tank Crew and WarThunder (at this point) and WoT (at all, never).

And PostScriptum's tank experience.... is a very mixed bag (PS is primarily a slower paced FPS which allows more teamwork on dedicated servers with the right playerbase).

IDK if the IL2 engine would be able to handle more AI pure infantry assets with larger movement and reaction patterns.... but I do know for sure that Tank Crews environment is already far more populated and immersive than what WarThunder (maimed and abandoned) "sim"(in name only) mode provides in combined arms.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like at least some form of static infantry trench/ infantry unit that can sometime shot back

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think that maybe in the future we can have moving group of infantry like we had in Panzer elite. 

(but maybe even this is too hard to do , I dont know).

 

Static infantry is possible imho. We have static AT guns with crew

 

Edited by Voidhunger
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If you fly over the battlefields of the Eastern Front within IL2 you will undoubtedly see tracers arching  across the sky from artillery positions and AI tank fire, etc.  Smoke billowing up and fires raging across the landscape.  If we could have some designed infantry modules, with lets say an MG42 and several soldiers in support placed randomly as we do the artillery and flak modules, I think this would give the needed immersion.  Of course, it's not going to create the nirvana of gameplay that one would like, but I think we have to be reasonable in terms of how these games develop.  It's a trade off.....maybe other sims have great infantry combat support and immersion, but IL-2 will certainly have sophisticated air combat overhead to bring in this very important historical element of combat on the eastern front.  And not all land combat games have that kind of air war sophistication overhead.

Edited by SCG_Neun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Zanacan said:

Hey, I just wanted to ask if it might at all be possible to add in infantry into the module of the tank crew.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again!

 

Just wanted to post an update to this thread some thoughts on my end I think the original reason I worry about the title is not made clear in the original post and is not necessarily just about infantry despite the focus. The main concern is the mission types available to the tanks. In a flight, sim planes have only a few missions to focus on, so having as many as they do in the game currently is a blessing. With tanks, I worry that the scope of their use will be mainly fighting other tanks and blowing up the same things the planes do but at a slower pace. I think other mission types need to be implemented to further the viability of the game to others and myself as the way things currently are, the tanks are great and look like they have much to build on for the future. Even with a Tank campaign, I'd at least prefer something additional than blow up these vehicles/buildings that we told you too. Though I doubt a campaign like you'd see in the triple-A title is needed in the first place, a more personal story might be something that makes the title stand out by being assigned to a unit beyond just a tank platoon, division, etc. and see what other units are cared for in particular.

 

As the post @LukeFF thanks for the heads-up on the other thread! I thought I looked thoroughly enough before making this thread to avoid overlap, but not. It looks like the possibility for infantry will more than likely not be happening shortly. Hopefully, this thread comes off as more constructive. 

 

Hope you all are having a great day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious what kind of taskings you'd give a tank other than destroying vehicles/fortifications, considering that's basically their only purpose. Unless you mean very specifically driving out and blowing up the targets your mission briefing tasks you with blowing up, in which case, neither of the two missions that ship with the current release of Tank Crew fit that mold (The KV-1 mission has you simply rejoining with your unit after an off-screen mechanical failure in your tank separated you from them on road march, and the Tiger I mission has you providing escort and overwatch for a group of lighter armored vehicles to defend a railroad crossing to allow a supply train through) and the mission editor that is downloaded with every copy of the game allows everyone the opportunity to create whatever they want to within the confines of the assets available and the limitations of the game itself. 

 

As for multiplayer, that's entirely up to the server owners and mission makers to fill in, though I doubt you'll see much more complicated for tanks than to take ground and destroy specific targets considering the nature of multiplayer. 

 

As for the story bit, the other IL-2 modules have their own campaigns with stories and such, and while I'm not aware of any indication from the devs that Tank Crew will be getting one as well, I don't see why it wouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much of what you are saying is actually up to the mission makers imagination in using the Mission Editor.

 

Along that line of thought, I would like to see some of the lighter tanks made drivable. It could make for some interesting mission challenges that don't rely completely on the strength or power of the AFV. Recon and convoy ambush for example. One doesn't need a King Tiger to attack and destroy a vehicle convoy. That is overkill. 🙂

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why I hope some day dev team makes the T38, T70, the Wespe, Marder and their counterparts. Also for the reason that those are easier to destroy from the air.  That however, depends largely on how TC I sells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree. The Pz 38t and the T-70 would be great lighter tanks to make drivable. They are small and have a main gun for some offense but it isn't over powering at all.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main missions will be to occupy terrain or to prevent enemy from occupying it. I imagine a mission being something like "advance into Stalingrad outskirts and occupy XX village."

So you would have to advance and engage and then prevent the enemy from taking it back. In the dynamic career I can see this being very successful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the missions don't necessarily need to be about you blowing the thing up is my taking. Its why infantry would be a good idea I think as it makes missions not just about seeing to the destruction of units but the supporting of them in a meaningful way by providing your vehicle as a means to an end. Tanks can be used as cover, recon, distractions, and defensive tools that might involve destruction but there would be more to it. Many games that do something like this fall into either team deathmatch or zone control game modes which I have come to find not as entertaining as they once were sad. With a focus on fighting based on a realistic objective with realistic stakes, it becomes more than just the game mode above but focuses on making your force succeed more than to gain victory by the end if you catch my drift. Playing things like LOL, Rainbow six siege, squad, titanfall 1 & 2, CoH 2, or even fortnight all are based on styles of gameplay that has been around for a while but takes the respective genres in interesting ways. With War thunder we have an all right understanding when we see tanks v planes, the planes win a good amount of the time. Even with the large maps, tanks can only go so fast, and bombers on voice chat with buddies will overwhelm or hold back a player tank pretty well. So making tank crew simply tanks doing their missions while planes do theirs, all the while planes also hunt tanks at times to kill players isn’t so engaging. It why I go to infantry as ai for the player to support as the planes might be more of an occurrence that happens rather than a focus. The tanks would then have something other than just blowing up things but a squad/platoon/division to help with and that might make organic tasks for the player to deal with by having their objectives, removing the problem of maybe not being engaged all the time. AI infantry would help resolve a little of the sameness of missions as an AI light tank, they just don't wanna see a tiger, but infantry doesn't wanna see their counterparts or a tiger. Towns become more hazardous you and for the AI to progress making the player a valued asset. People, like feeling important and in the times in multiplayer where there are no other players in sight the AI, will still need support so they could fill gaps. Maybe more robust AI options are better for the units we got as the AI tanks/trucks/halftracks/AT guns would call upon the player to help them accomplish their goals and let the battlefield seem more alive. I think the realism, in this case, would benefit game-play and fun rather than hinder it. If anything the titanfall series makes a good example of just making the player feel more badass by having dumb AI roam the battlefield talking you up to make you feel more important if your eating shit in a match. I should know...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

My 2 cents: I'd be glad to see infantry, but I think infantry would be more important in an urban/close quarters environment, which we don't really have from what I have seen in my limited time in the game (IS2 BoX generally, not Tank Crew specifically)

 

 

 

Edited by Marechal
edit to clarify game played

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My friend, formatting your posts makes them a lot easier to read, a gigantic block of text is really easy to get lost in.

 

Anyway, you're making a mountain out of a molehill, and drawing far too strong of a connection to WarThunder combined arms with Tank Crew. Yes, there will be spells of inactivity where a player is just driving along not shooting at anything. It's a tanksim, tanks spend far more time out of direct combat than in it. The aim of a tanksim isn't to make the player feel like a badass, it's to simulate armored warfare in reasonable detail, and those spells of inactivity are a large part of that. It's also quite important to keep in mind that we only have two vehicles out of the roster implemented (the pre-existing Panzer III and T-34 count as well, I guess, but they're not to TC-levels and I think TC is going to be introducing more period-correct vehicles for Prokhorovka), and in a way they're two of the least interesting. They're both heavies, both allow for much sloppier tactics and don't have nearly as many threats posed to them on the battlefield as something lighter, say the Panzer IV and the T-34. Once more diverse vehicles start to hit the game and more of Tank Crew's systems are implemented, variety of gameplay will improve significantly.

 

As for the WarThunder comparisons, don't take WT combined arms as an indication for how player tanks and player planes will interact in IL-2. In WT, pilots have unrealistic levels of visibility (third person view and, I believe, markers on enemy vehicles at least some of the time) and the paths tankers will be taking are very predictable and confined. There are very rarely credible anti-air threats (I know back when I played, SPAA was just something you took to have a vehicle to drive when you ran out of spawn points for everything heavier), and fighter pilots are more interested in killing the other fighters most of the time rather than going for the ground attack aircraft. Will planes be an issue for tanks? Absolutely! They were historically, being camouflaged from above was just as important as being camouflaged from the direction of the enemy's lines. Will they be such a force as to ruin the experience of being a tanker? I highly, highly doubt it. Stick to the shadows, stay near treelines, avoid kicking up dust trails (I don't even think you really can do that in IL-2 at the moment) and keep a pair of eyes turned to the sky at all times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Skeleboners said:

 Will planes be an issue for tanks? Absolutely! They were historically, being camouflaged from above was just as important as being camouflaged from the direction of the enemy's lines. Will they be such a force as to ruin the experience of being a tanker? I highly, highly doubt it. Stick to the shadows, stay near treelines, avoid kicking up dust trails (I don't even think you really can do that in IL-2 at the moment) and keep a pair of eyes turned to the sky at all times.

Yes, of course. But I think a tankers chance of survival versus air forces will be greatly improved by participating on a server without 'icons' on. Tanks may well then be much harder to locate and or spot for attack. Especially at altitude. :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"issue with the future of a product that isn't even released" thread.

 

What is the point in this stuff..?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salutations,

 

Primarily I think we do it to influence the developers to include some of our special interest into Tank Crew.

 

I pled and urged for months in the forums for the developers to expand the tank aspect of the game. Many wearied of my constant drone for more tank support. But, we now have Tank Crew.

 

Now, I don't take any credit for this expansion but I like to think I did. 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2018 at 12:35 PM, Skeleboners said:

I'm curious what kind of taskings you'd give a tank other than destroying vehicles/fortifications, considering that's basically their only purpose. Unless you mean very specifically driving out and blowing up the targets your mission briefing tasks you with blowing up, in which case, neither of the two missions that ship with the current release of Tank Crew fit that mold (The KV-1 mission has you simply rejoining with your unit after an off-screen mechanical failure in your tank separated you from them on road march, and the Tiger I mission has you providing escort and overwatch for a group of lighter armored vehicles to defend a railroad crossing to allow a supply train through) and the mission editor that is downloaded with every copy of the game allows everyone the opportunity to create whatever they want to within the confines of the assets available and the limitations of the game itself.

OP has a point though. Let`s not forget that even in WWII there wasn`t one philosophy of what a tank should be. Until the second half of WWII, tanks weren`t exactly built to destroy other tanks. Heck, the Sherman which is in Tank Crew tanklist was first tasked purely as infantry support.It`s obvious that it won`t do the same things that Tiger is tasked as well, and vice versa. It seems to be even more complicated in the Pacific War.

 

From that rise many gameplay problems. How do we setup the gameplay so that the battlefield will be gamer friendly (ie. balanced)?

12 hours ago, Zanacan said:

 AI infantry would help resolve a little of the sameness of missions as an AI light tank, they just don't wanna see a tiger, but infantry doesn't wanna see their counterparts or a tiger. Towns become more hazardous you and for the AI to progress making the player a valued asset. People, like feeling important and in the times in multiplayer where there are no other players in sight the AI, will still need support so they could fill gaps. Maybe more robust AI options are better for the units we got as the AI tanks/trucks/halftracks/AT guns would call upon the player to help them accomplish their goals and let the battlefield seem more alive. I think the realism, in this case, would benefit game-play and fun rather than hinder it. If anything the titanfall series makes a good example of just making the player feel more badass by having dumb AI roam the battlefield talking you up to make you feel more important if your eating shit in a match. I should know...

That is why I think the Devs are having trouble communicating what Tank Crew is meant to be.

 

At the same time it is needed for new players to understand from where has risen the idea to implement player driven tanks in a flightsim. The starting point for the whole idea was to make ground units interact much more realistically than what it was. And I reapeat - it was two groups of 5 tanks shooting at each other from 50m in an open field plus some artillery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mac_Messer said:

OP has a point though. Let`s not forget that even in WWII there wasn`t one philosophy of what a tank should be. Until the second half of WWII, tanks weren`t exactly built to destroy other tanks. Heck, the Sherman which is in Tank Crew tanklist was first tasked purely as infantry support.It`s obvious that it won`t do the same things that Tiger is tasked as well, and vice versa. It seems to be even more complicated in the Pacific War.

 

From that rise many gameplay problems. How do we setup the gameplay so that the battlefield will be gamer friendly (ie. balanced)?

The Sherman wasn't an infantry support tank at any point in its development or service, it was expected to kill other tanks as part of its mission and its armament and armor show that (alongside period field manuals). The Germans had a dedicated tank-fighting tank in the Panzer III very early in the war. Tank vs. Tank combat was anticipated and planned for by basically every major power from the onset of the war. As for the Pacific, there's not really any value in making a PTO tanksim to be honest, most vehicles fielded by the Japanese were a non-issue for any armor the Western Allies fielded. With really detailed infantry implementation (the sort of detail that would really require a dedicated infantry module, which is a bit much to ask from a flightsim), it might be worth it? But even then I don't think the Japanese fielded any particularly effective anti-tank weaponry beyond mines and the like.

 

As for balance, that's all mission design. Put sensible limits on the Big Cats (consider how few of those vehicles existed at the time of the battle) and give both sides realistic positions and numbers of vehicles. I think you underestimate the abilities of some of the seemingly-lesser contenders on the roster, there are plenty of after action reports floating around online of Shermans (armed with the 75mm M3) knocking out Tigers and Panthers, and the Panzer IV we're getting has a fantastic 75mm gun. There really isn't a vehicle in the roster that can't at least make an attempt at killing any other vehicle on the roster and have a good chance at winning with good tactics on behalf of the commander.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point I'm making when I say that the missions as they might be might not be good enough as even though multiplayer missions can be made well it'll still come back to gameplay that is that you can find in other games with ww2 tanks. I'd like to see something a little different from those types of games before I throw down and purchase the game myself, because I like  where this is going but I want something a little bit different than what I've done from before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zanacan said:

The point I'm making when I say that the missions as they might be might not be good enough as even though multiplayer missions can be made well it'll still come back to gameplay that is that you can find in other games with ww2 tanks. I'd like to see something a little different from those types of games before I throw down and purchase the game myself, because I like  where this is going but I want something a little bit different than what I've done from before.

Could you explain in more details what you would like to see, just to get an overall picture. In my case I like Steel beasts, however the only game mechanics I would like to have are infantry and the commander options with the NPC crew.

 

In combination with binocular order the crew to lay suppress fire, fire the main gun using binocular and so on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/7/2018 at 11:41 PM, Skeleboners said:

The Sherman wasn't an infantry support tank at any point in its development or service, it was expected to kill other tanks as part of its mission and its armament and armor show that (alongside period field manuals). The Germans had a dedicated tank-fighting tank in the Panzer III very early in the war. Tank vs. Tank combat was anticipated and planned for by basically every major power from the onset of the war. As for the Pacific, there's not really any value in making a PTO tanksim to be honest, most vehicles fielded by the Japanese were a non-issue for any armor the Western Allies fielded. With really detailed infantry implementation (the sort of detail that would really require a dedicated infantry module, which is a bit much to ask from a flightsim), it might be worth it? But even then I don't think the Japanese fielded any particularly effective anti-tank weaponry beyond mines and the like.

 

 

My bold - that is potentially misleading if you mean it literally. The Pz III was never a dedicated tank-fighting tank, it was simply a replacement for the Pz IIs and was integrated into panzer divisions in the same way and Pz IIs and the Pz 38.

 

German doctrine early in the war was to use tanks to fracture the front and create encirclements. That means, primarily, breaking through infantry positions and destroying any counter-attacks by reserves.  While engagements with other tanks were possible they were generally to be avoided unless the enemy force was weak numerically or consisted of light forces such as armoured cars or tankettes (like the Pz II).  The best anti-tank weapon was the AT gun: which is why German panzer divisions so many.  Even in the Western Desert where the ratio of armour to infantry was higher than anywhere else, the Germans preferred to use AT weapons to destroy British armour where possible.

 

The only truly dedicated German tank in the early war - for close infantry support - was the early Pz IV with the short barrel.  

 

Later on in the war I am in no disagreement: the mobility of tanks (and tank destroyers etc) and their ability to survive the increasing weight of artillery being used did tip the AT role more towards AFVs rather than the AT gun. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 2:41 AM, Skeleboners said:

 I think you underestimate the abilities of some of the seemingly-lesser contenders on the roster, there are plenty of after action reports floating around online of Shermans (armed with the 75mm M3) knocking out Tigers and Panthers

 

Presumably in online play the Sherman will only need to blow a track off the Tiger to take them out.  The Tiger player will hit escape and restart back at base as soon as he gets disabled.  After all, why should he be expected to stick around and spoon feed a victory to some random guy?  It is much more in his interests to bug out and exit as soon as he loses the ability continue with his mission and respawn with a brand new vehicle. 

 

Maybe the devs could credit the Sherman with a kill when the slightly damaged Tiger exits the field.  Although that is hardly a reason for the Tiger to stick around, as without any kind of repair ability or other incentive to stay, they will sooner or later have to exit anyway and Mr Sherman still gets the win.  Might as well hit Esc immediately and begin the next crawl out from the spawn point to be battle area. 

 

In that respect a Sherman loaded with HE and lying in wait would be the equal of any of the German heavies.   They just need to flip off a track, then withdraw immediately and wait for them to vanish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think what I'd like to see has been properly implemented in the way I'd like to see it, but the steel beasts game video is close. I think looking at games like COH2, post scriptum, or titanfall 1 or 2 kinda show what I'm asking for. Though on a previous note I am not looking to be made out or pretend that is some badass with ai infantry but that it interacts with the player making demands and giving orders to me so that I could help out. The ultimate goal is that the player is not a lifeless tank fighting lifeless equipment but that the player is in an army fighting another army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×