Jump to content
Geronimo553

Driveable AI ground vehicles *suggestion*

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

With all the hard work, dedication, and detail that goes into AI ground vehicles. Why not give those vehicles to everyone in the game by default to drive and enjoy like the original tanks. They do not need to be perfect and I believe players would be understanding of that context for what they are receiving. Giving players the ability to use the AI vehicles would add an entirely new element for the playerbase to enjoy and immerse themselves with. I cannot express how many times I looked at an AI vehicle and thought to myself, I want to drive that in my favorite simulator. (looking at you Sd.Kfz. 251 half-track) It would be a great additional bonus feature of the game for new and old players alike. Plus it would make ground missions for tankers more lively with additional player vehicle threats.

In fact, that is exactly why we have Tank crew now. Because people could drive a couple basic AI tanks and people loved it. So many people enjoyed that aspect of the game, that now, it has become its own feature. Why not extend that same kindness by allowing players to use all the other AI vehicles as well. Now of course this idea is all based on what the original drivable tanks were like and does not represent the game as a whole. The original tanks since implementation (and before tank crew) were crude, lacked any detail, and were often buggy. However the community still enjoyed them when enabled on a server because it was a new dynamic to explore and enjoy. I believe, it would only be a small compromise of detail in exchange for the ability to drive over a dozen new ground vehicles for everyone to enjoy during their expeditions across country. The AI vehicles already move, turn, and have their own damage model. So really the only dev work needed would be to add/copy control options from other existing control schemes, a camera view point in the driver/gunner seats, and perhaps even a few mounted guns controls. All of the setup already exists from other game vehicles/systems and only need to be reapplied/adjusted into the AI vehicles for players to use them. I have very fond memories of my squadron taking a small break from flying to just enjoy driving around in the limited tanks we had because it was simply fun. Surely others have had that same fun experience as myself and would like to do the same with other ground vehicles on the battlefield.

This request/suggestion should not be a taxing task to fulfil in the least. When the AI tanks were made to be driveable it was because a single dev worked on it in his/her spare time because the person enjoyed just driving tanks. I'm hoping other people will also mirror that same interest for these great WW2 ground vehicles and will show their passion and support for the ability to drive AI vehicles in the commentary. 


Please cast your vote and please only vote once. 

http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=5cc30c8ae4b01977b196a385

                 ^click here to vote^

 


A moderator recommended this subject to be it's own thread. So I thought the community would like to add in their own thoughts on the topic as a whole. 

Edited by Geronimo553
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Jeep would be great for an "everybody gets one" drivable vehicle. :cool:

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt it will happen because the devs have heaps on their plates already,

 

buuut, a few player controlled vehicles paired with the upcoming Field Marshall position could be very cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like it, even if its very loose and simple.

Nothing important though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Geronimo553 said:

...really the only dev work needed would be to add/copy control options from other existing control schemes, a camera view point in the driver/gunner seats, and perhaps even a few mounted guns controls....

 

I very much doubt that the existing AI vehicle 3D modelling is detailed enough to be acceptable when seen from inside.

 

As for your poll, I'm not going to vote, because developers don't make marketing decisions based on rigged ballots: "No - I dislike this idea, even though it benefits the whole community."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love this. Even the trucks and cars.

 

I doubt it will ever happen. But I'm not opposed to the idea at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought into the IL-2: Sturmovik franchise to fly and fight in World War 2 aircraft.  I don't really like the drift away from that.  I bought Tank Crew, and I'll give it a fair chance as long as it sticks to iconic ground combat vehicles of the second world war, but if if resources start getting allocated towards things like jeeps and trucks and support vehicles, that will really start to dissapoint me.   I'm a negative on this suggestion.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but no. Drivable ground vehicles are a terrible idea. Scope creep at its worst. And they’re boring. We want a flight simulator not Euro Truck WWII

Tank Crew seems like it could be a fine sim but those are tanks and are interesting frontline combat vehicles. 

Please don’t waste the Devs time with requests like this. 😵

On 4/26/2019 at 4:19 AM, Geronimo553 said:

.Please cast your vote and please only vote once. 

http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=5cc30c8ae4b01977b196a385

                 ^click here to vote^

No - I dislike this idea, even though it benefits the whole community.

No - I dislike this idea and want it further explained

 

What kind of choices are these? And who says this “benefits the whole community”? What benefit is there to wasting resources that could go towards some thing better?

and a plain “No” vote. I don’t want it further explained but just “No”

or “No - Because it sounds really boring and a total waste of time” <— this is my vote 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This poll / vote is some kind of manipulative survey (@Geronimo553 - are you politician in RL?). It tries to lead

people in one direction, no matter what they actually like/dislike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2019 at 12:46 AM, [CPT]milopugdog said:

I just want a player controlled StuG III. ;)

 

We didn’t choose the StuG life, the StuG life chose us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pb_Cybermat47 said:

 

We didn’t choose the StuG life, the StuG life chose us.

793612528_1322753.gif?4

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm some of these "I only want a flight sim in my sim" arguments, are the very same arguments I remember reading when people also advocated for the idea of drivable tanks as a game feature or to add drivable tanks into server missions. I just want to express that, this line of thinking is what keeps our community so compartmentalized from each other and small. That is because there is not enough open content for everyone to use by default without a paywall in between content progression. Thankfully, iL-2 is expanding and is going for more of a larger WW2 simulation experience instead of solely existing as a flight sim. This approach from the devs will make iL-2 appealing to a much wider audience compared to the game we have now. Personally, I would love for the sim to create leagues more of all types of ground vehicle variants to provide the perfect large scale WW2 MP environment. Though changes like that take considerable resource devotion and time. This is why I offered my suggestion/idea as an option of interest for the devs to follow with as little resource dedication as possible from their current development cycle.

Drivable AI vehicles would only add to the interest of the game and add into the available content for all to enjoy on the battlefield. Even if that means the AI vehicles are not as detailed as the rest of the sim. Tanks were the same detail as AI for many years (low) and that never stopped anyone from enjoying them. Well, except those who only wanted to play a flight sim. But that is their choice and that is perfectly fine. Just let the rest of us enjoy the other aspects of the game as well if we choose to. 

As for the disgruntlement of the voting options and rude accusations. There are of course two places to vote for disagreement.  Admittedly I should have altered the second option from "I dislike this idea and want it further explained"  too  "I dislike this idea and will further explain". Unfortunately once the poll is posted I can no longer edit it without starting a new poll. So please take/read the second option as "I dislike this idea and will further explain" instead. I apologize for any unintentional ill will as that is not my objective of this thread. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing with conducting polls where you ask people's opinions on something is that is what you are going to get. Other people's opinions. Nobody is obliged to agree with you. And anybody is entitled to give opinions on the way the poll is conducted. So no, there were no 'rude accusations' about the way your poll has been worded. Instead there were perfectly valid comments on the way you worded it in order to force people into agreeing with one of your preconceived reasons for voting. Which is simply unacceptable if you are actually trying to find out what other people think. And which, since it discourages people who consider your poll invalid not to vote, makes any result less meaningful.

 

If you don't like other people's opinions. don't ask for them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the topic of drivable ground vehicles, let’s keep it within the scope of Tank Crew. I mean, what would I have to do with a jeep?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answers are basically:

 

1.  Yes, I love it.

2.  Yes

3.  Yes, when it's explained to me.

4.  No.  Because I hate the community and puppies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

The answers are basically:

 

1.  Yes, I love it.

2.  Yes

3.  Yes, when it's explained to me.

4.  No.  Because I hate the community and puppies.


If you clicked the separate "optional" poll from the topic. You would read,
Yes

Yes

No 

No
Maybe

At any rate, this is off topic to the discussion of drivable AI vehicles. 

Edited by Geronimo553

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is one of the responses:

 

No - I dislike this idea, even though it benefits the whole community.

 

This is the poster child for biased poll questions.  It essentially says, I'm voting no because I hate the community.  It's as blatantly a biased poll question as you will every see.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These 'should the developers add X?' polls are all rather meaningless anyway. The developers have limited resources, meaning that 'adding X' necessarily involves 'not adding Y', or 'delaying Z'. But the polls never state what it is they are proposing be de-prioritised. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Here is one of the responses:

 

  No - I dislike this idea, even though it benefits the whole community.

 

This is the poster child for biased poll questions.  It essentially says, I'm voting no because I hate the community.  It's as blatantly a biased poll question as you will every see.  

 

Again this is off topic, and I have addressed I cannot edit the poll above or I would adjust it. So please refer to my above post regarding the poll. Now with that said, the option to vote no is there and the option to vote no with explanation is there as well. These attempts to derail the topic because certain people disagree is becoming ridiculous.  


 

40 minutes ago, Pb_Cybermat47 said:

On the topic of drivable ground vehicles, let’s keep it within the scope of Tank Crew. I mean, what would I have to do with a jeep?


Well there is more than just that though. There are several AAA vehicles and light personnel carriers. Plus other tanks and artillery pieces. Maybe even trains or ships could be a thing.  The idea is to explore the world with more vehicle options or to bring more vehicles into ground battles for tanks or to even fight aircraft from the ground. Perhaps even some player driven convoys on the ground trying to escape air units or tank units. Really there is a large aspect of potential ideas and missions that could be crafted with further player control. But the bottom line is that anyone who owns BoS could drive these vehicles to fill up the world with activity instead of the usual set wave point type objectives we have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The topic went off the rails the moment you posted that ridiculous poll. In the interests of trying to at least getting something positive out of this trainwreck however, could you please give an answer to these simple questions:

 

(a) How are you proposing that the development work for this new content be funded?

(b) Which of the existing project features already in development do you propose be de-prioritised in order to free up development resources for your new proposals?

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Geronimo553 said:

 

Again this is off topic

 

No, it isn't off topic.  The fact that your poll is blatantly biased means that it's completely useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Either way, it's irrelevant because it's highly unlikely it will ever happen, even though I do like the idea.

 

You shouldn't take polls and suggestions like this too seriously.

 

The IL-2 team isn't going to look at one poll and say "oh my lord, we need to get on this right now", regardless of how people vote.

 

The forums would have to be flooded with pretty much the exact same idea for them to maybe consider it. And even then if it's impractical or not cost-effective they still won't consider it no matter how good the idea is (sadly).

 

But to play devil's advocate, I really don't see a reason why they couldn't do something like make the AI only ground vehicles at least basically playable.

 

The only reason I would think people would not like the idea is that it would take away precious development resources from things that are more important, like finishing the P-51 and Me-262 and working on Flying Circus Vol.1 & 2, which are things people have already paid hard earned cash for, which is perfectly reasonable.

 

If Jason had a team like Gaijin or Wargaming I think they would have no problem doing something like this, but sadly, that's not how it is.   

 

2019_4_16__4_48_33.thumb.jpg.d06a287863e500744c54301bb25518e3.jpg 

 

 

Edited by Motherbrain
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You shouldn't take polls and suggestions like this too seriously.

 

 

Most polls get an overwhelming majority yes for whatever they're proposing, so they're usually easy to ignore.  But a poll that basically says "if you vote no you probably kick your dog" was too silly to ignore.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted   "No - I dislike this idea, even though it benefits the whole community".

 

The idea might benefit the whole community, but implementing it would be a cost to the whole community. Net - negative.

 

The additional benefit of voting for this option is that it might discourage the OP from such absurdly transparent bias. I think the OP would do well in the MSM.

 

Of course the real reason for my vote is that I do not much like puppies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Geronimo553 said:

Well there is more than just that though. There are several AAA vehicles and light personnel carriers.

 

I think SPAA makes sense, given the combined-arms aspect of the game now that TC content is available. But personnel carriers would be useless without infantry. 

 

12 hours ago, Geronimo553 said:

Plus other tanks and artillery pieces.

 

I think it’s a safe bet that if CaP does well, we’ll get another TC expansion that will have more tanks, and possibly assault guns.

 

12 hours ago, Geronimo553 said:

Maybe even trains or ships could be a thing. 

 

Can you imagine how much work would be needed to turn GBS into a ship sim up to the same standard as tanks and planes? Not to mention the size of the maps. Just look at Silent Hunter. Just the North Atlantic theatre needs to model France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Britain, Denmark, Norway, the Faroe Islands, Iceland, Greenland, Canada, and the USA. Not to mention that ships spent months at sea, meaning that the devs would have to make time compression much faster, and incorporate an in-game save mechanic.

 

As for trains... literally on rails.

 

13 hours ago, Geronimo553 said:

But the bottom line is that anyone who owns BoS could drive these vehicles to fill up the world with activity instead of the usual set wave point type objectives we have now.

 

If you’re talking about multiplayer, most people fly nothing but fighters. Do you really expect people who won’t even touch a jabo to drive a train?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Pb_Cybermat47 said:

 

I think SPAA makes sense, given the combined-arms aspect of the game now that TC content is available. But personnel carriers would be useless without infantry. 

 Well currently people do own and have paid to fly the JU52. Which is purely a transport vehicle. The options of merely transporting goods/infantry is a viable alternative to just fighting. This also adds to the ability of map makers to create more diverse missions for everyone. Live players on the ground trying to deliver their cargo to a destination while avoiding live players in the air on a large scale map. Sounds like a fun simulation experience to me and I know many others also enjoy doing smaller support tasks just like that as well.

 

7 hours ago, Pb_Cybermat47 said:

 

If you’re talking about multiplayer, most people fly nothing but fighters. Do you really expect people who won’t even touch a jabo to drive a train?

 

A large percentage do fly fighters no question about that. However a good number of people also fly bombers or drive tanks. There is zero reason to limit the options of available choices for players to choose or participate in just because a percentage enjoy a certain aspect more than others. 
 

7 hours ago, Pb_Cybermat47 said:

Can you imagine how much work would be needed to turn GBS into a ship sim up to the same standard as tanks and planes? Not to mention the size of the maps. Just look at Silent Hunter. Just the North Atlantic theatre needs to model France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Britain, Denmark, Norway, the Faroe Islands, Iceland, Greenland, Canada, and the USA. Not to mention that ships spent months at sea, meaning that the devs would have to make time compression much faster, and incorporate an in-game save mechanic.


My suggestion is to do such with as little development needed in order to provide player control to AI equipment. Lots of this equipment ingame already has windows to see or external seats for people to use. However if visibility is lacking from a limited game asset. Then let's say for example a ship can solely be third person or a camera just above the bridge or something that would be fine for the intended purposes I have proposed. The idea is to get more people playing these units in order to create more diversity and realism in missions. This reduces the constant repetitive nature of the current mission format we have now. If everyone who has purchased the cheapest and most common battle expansion "BoS" can play these units then more missions and events can be greatly improved using real players instead of the standard wave point AI system.

I have no doubts people would enjoy trying to shoot down planes with AAA or attacking tank crew players with less detailed AI tanks or organizing a convoy of trucks to deliver goods before the enemy planes can destroy them. Like I have said, the options are limitless. 
 

7 hours ago, Pb_Cybermat47 said:

I think it’s a safe bet that if CaP does well, we’ll get another TC expansion that will have more tanks, and possibly assault guns.

 

The game already has several often unseen and unused tank variants as AI. It feels like a waste to never use them. Hopefully TC will continued to be improved and expanded on. TC is actually my next purchase and I look forward to it.

Edited by Geronimo553

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, still no explanation as to how this new content will be paid for, or which existing development work will be delayed in order to provide it.

 

What a surprise...

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
19 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

So, still no explanation as to how this new content will be paid for, or which existing development work will be delayed in order to provide it.

 

They could do something like what DCS does with Combined Arms and make controllable AI vehicles an entire module for purchase, but that still doesn't solve the last part of the point you mode and I doubt many people would go for it anyway unless they priced it really low, which would kind of defeat the purpose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Geronimo553 said:

 Well currently people do own and have paid to fly the JU52. Which is purely a transport vehicle. The options of merely transporting goods/infantry is a viable alternative to just fighting. 

 

But the Ju-52 is often flying close to, or into enemy territory, with every enemy fighter who sees it going in for an easy kill. That’s the fun of the Ju-52 - it takes skill and luck to complete your mission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pb_Cybermat47 said:

 

But the Ju-52 is often flying close to, or into enemy territory, with every enemy fighter who sees it going in for an easy kill. That’s the fun of the Ju-52 - it takes skill and luck to complete your mission.

 

Correct, and that concept would be the same for driving ground vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Geronimo553 said:

 

Correct, and that concept would be the same for driving ground vehicles.

Why would anyone do this? Driving a truck just so you can be a ground target?

flying a transport aircraft is at least interesting. But vehicles?

forget it. Too boring. 

 

This would all be a big waste of resources that could be used for better things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fundamental problem with this proposal (beyond the intentionally unanswered one as to where the resources to implement it are going to come from) is its open-endedness. The underlying premise seems to be that 'doing things in computer games is fun, so the more different things you can do, the better the game gets'. Feature creep as a design paradigm. For evidence of where that leads, see the never-ending saga of Star Citizen, with its apparently unbounded capacity to swallow gamers funding, and its pathological inability to move on beyond yet another iteration of a tech demo, accompanied as always by explanations from the faithful as to how this time next year it will all be complete. That isn't how you design games. Do a few things, and do them well. And if you decide to expand the scope, make it clear what the new limits are. Don't tack on low-quality 'new things' for the sake of it, because you have a few assets that can be bodged together to do it. Quality beats quantity, because the player can only do one thing at a time, and because low-quality bodges drag down the overall experience.

 

If I want to drive a simulated truck, I will do so in Eurotruck Simulator, or its American cousin. Because it does it well. And it does it well because that is all it does. Trying to create an open-ended simulation of anything that might possibly happen withing two hundred miles of a battlefield (which is where this proposal appears to be heading) is a recipe for attempting too much, and making a mess of all of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making jeeps or trucks driveable in a game that's about tank and air combat makes zero sense and, as has already been pointed out, means something else more enjoyable (read: profitable for the team) gets pushed farther down the to-do list. 

 

I drove supply trucks and hummers occasionally during my time in the military. It is the most mind-numbingly boring thing I can think of to simulate within a computer game. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
9 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Making jeeps or trucks driveable in a game that's about tank and air combat makes zero sense and, as has already been pointed out, means something else more enjoyable (read: profitable for the team) gets pushed farther down the to-do list. 

 

Well for the AI vehicles it wouldn't mean just the trucks and jeeps it would also potentially mean the AI only tanks and AAA trucks.

Instead of making the AI vehicles "drivable", I think a better thing to do would be to make a "Combined Arms" expansion for IL-2 the same as what DCS has.

Having a simple RTS aspect to the game allowing you to direct AI vehicles and aircraft using the map. Driving individual vehicles would be an added bonus.

But still I'm pretty sure Combined Arms is DCSs least popular module as far as I'm aware so there's no point in trying this. Though I personally would love to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you ever want to explore the map in a truck when you can explore the map in a tank and blow things up?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want a Jeep.

I want a Jeep.

I want a Jeep.

Waaaaa . . . .

 

Tanks are noisy and smelly, and attract the wrong kind of attention.

As in I am always the things getting blown up

 

But most of all, flying mostly for the Germans,  I want a Kubelwagen.

Ja ja . . . .

 

Kubel 1.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vonNutz said:

I want a Jeep.

I want a Jeep.

I want a Jeep.

Waaaaa . . . .

 

Tanks are noisy and smelly, and attract the wrong kind of attention.

As in I am always the things getting blown up

 

But most of all, flying mostly for the Germans,  I want a Kubelwagen.

Ja ja . . . .

 

Kubel 1.jpg


Yes, the Kubel does have a finely tuned behind. 🤗  It would be so glorious to drive it and outclass planes trying to strafe it with superior maneuverability.


 

3 hours ago, Motherbrain said:

Why not both... 😉

 

5773d0954321f136158b4c03-960-480.jpg

 

I would have a field day if this was "lend leased" into the game. lol

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...