Jump to content
Geronimo553

Driveable AI ground vehicles *suggestion*

Recommended Posts

Geronimo, I want one of those boom boom things on the cycle mounted on my Kubel.

Wooo . . . . 

Oops, sorry Motherbrain as you are original instigator.

Any chance that's a recoilless rifle thingee on the bike ??????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As outlined in the recent dev diary post for April 30th. It appears the devs are currently working on improving the AI ground vehicles via better models. As stated, "Of course, the new theatre of war requires new ground vehicle models too." with screenshots showcasing the new model of the Sd.Kfz. 7/1 halftrack. So now that we know the devs are currently working on overhauling and improving AI vehicles. I believe, now would be the best time for the developers to take a serious look into the possibility of player driven AI vehicles as I outlined in the first post and follow up posts of this thread. The developer resources are already committed to this area of the game and adding the ability to operate these vehicles would only be a mild addition to the current asset tasks.

 

Such an addition to the game as drivable AI vehicles would provide much more appealing immersion to current and new players alike. Such options as, real players driving support mission roles on the ground, assisting resupply of tanks/planes, allow the future commanders to travel on the ground as a form of scouting, the ability of players to control flak or AAA placement for defensive roles in key positions, or giving control of less detailed AI tanks to players so more compelling tank missions can be created. If players could operate the long list of current AI vehicles then the game could only improve with greater choice of player influence on the battlefield. 

 

 



Also as stated in the diary post, "In May-June we plan to implement repairing, refueling and rearming (which later will be also applicable for aircraft)". This important line could mean two things.  One we will have fixed zones to drive tanks/aircraft into for repair/refuel/rearm. Or it could mean we will have operational service trucks/vehicles to resupply our tanks and planes in a manner similar to Arma where trucks are driven near vehicles to resupply them. I hope the devs are going for the latter as it would bring an entirely immersive simulation experience and the idea has been long requested as well.

Here is the dev diary post. Feel free to share your additional ideas or input. 😃

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently we have mid war German and Soviet AI groundforces. For Bodenplatte we need late war German, American and British ground forces.

 

So they are not overhauling the AI ground forces as a whole but add the bomb fodder that BPl fighter bombers need...

 

Making them drivable is something completely diffrent and I guess would take a lot more work...

 

So no development ressources right now are allocated to this task - and they should not.

 

You mention SdKfz 251 in your first post - that is the Panzergrenadier mothership and I would love to finally have a simulation that let you play a PzGren squad or even platoon leader! The quick change from mounted to dismounted combat in close support of the armor, dismounting in the hostile positions - sounds awesome - but would be a completely diffrent game!

Share this post


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

You mention SdKfz 251 in your first post - that is the Panzergrenadier mothership and I would love to finally have a simulation that let you play a PzGren squad or even platoon leader! The quick change from mounted to dismounted combat in close support of the armor, dismounting in the hostile positions - sounds awesome - but would be a completely diffrent game!


The fact we have drivable tanks at all means this is a different game. The devs are shifting the game into a new scope and perhaps it lightly mirrors war thunder but in a realistic sim approach. We need to assist the devs in finely tuning this new direction of development they are going. iL-2 is no longer just a flight sim, it is a WW2 battlefield style simulation featuring both air and ground units. The introduction of tanks into the main game has altered the capabilities of what iL-2 can become and the larger audience of appeal it can provide. We should not try to limit the developer's creativity and should be thinking of what new audiences could be brought into iL-2 by new aspects of WW2 simulation. Some people prefer just flying and others prefer just tanking, and the list of preferences is endless. However the more options iL-2 can offer to new audiences the bigger this game will become none of the less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The developers are quite capable of deciding for themselves what they do with their creativity. And of what the sensible scope of the game is, given the resources available. I rather doubt that a poll with only 8 votes in favour of extending it in the manner you are suggesting is going to change anything.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

The developers are quite capable of deciding for themselves what they do with their creativity. And of what the sensible scope of the game is, given the resources available. I rather doubt that a poll with only 8 votes in favour of extending it in the manner you are suggesting is going to change anything.

 

I just find it amusing your only stance against this suggestion has been about an optional poll and not the concept itself. It seems your only interest is attempting to drive the thread off topic into a bickering match filling the thread with posts regarding the meaningless poll. It was placed there so players could understand how other players are accepting or unaccepting of the concept in one easy to view location without reading the entire thread. If the devs choose to use the poll showcasing likes or dislikes of the results, then so be it. However that is not the purpose or intent for which the poll was created. If you had actually read anything I've purposed in this thread then that would be very clear that this thread is about people submitting their input about using vehicles currently inaccessible in game. I will remind you and as I stated in the first post that a moderator recommended that I start this thread in the first place so people could openly discuss the idea itself. The fact I have to repeatedly address your woefully sorry excuse of a problem that has filled the majority of this thread with constant whining over a side poll shows your true intent of just wanting this thread derailed and locked. Such mindset and spam is exactly why the forums are so tightly moderated now compared to several years ago. Because such pointless negativity like you have been posting ruined the forums and chased out the devs from commenting. I have addressed you twice over this meaningless argument you keep trying to make and that is enough. Stop spamming my thread with such meaningly rubbish.

 

I had hoped people could openly and freely discourse over the suggestion itself and instead the thread is filled with your bickering making the subject matter difficult to understand.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be under the misapprehension that starting a thread gives you some sort of veto over subsequent content. It doesn't. And discussing the lack of response to a poll in a thread expressly started to conduct said poll is under no reasonable definition whatsoever any form of 'derailment'. As I said earlier, if you don't like other people's opinions, don't ask for them.

 

As for your proposal, I note that yet again you have given no indication whatsoever as to how the resources necessary for your proposed expansion to IL-GB scope would be found. And until that issue is addressed, there really isn't much more to be discussed. The developers face real constraints, financial and otherwise, and are in no position to add content on a whim, just because you think that making the game more like war thunder or whatever would attract a 'larger audience'. Any decisions they make have to be based around the finances they have available, the size and capabilities of the development team, and the constraints put on them by those providing continued funding for development. Pretending otherwise isn't going to alter the fact. So once again I ask for a straight answer to simple questions:

 

(a): How are you proposing that this extended scope be funded.

(b) How are the development resources (i.e. programmers time etc) to be found for this proposal, without imposing delays on already-paid-for parts of the project.

 

The development of a niche application like IL-2 GB was always likely to be more constrained in scope than more mainstream gaming products, and although the developers have had sufficient success to be able to expand somewhat, the constraints quite evidently still apply. There are a great number of revisions and improvements that Jason has made clear he would like to see made to the core project if and when the resources become available, and that, to me and I suspect to the majority of forum members, would seem to be a higher priority than the pursuit of a hypothetical 'audience' for a jack-of-all-trades WW2-everything simulation that prioritises quantity over quality. As I've noted earlier, even without the constraints on resources, the Star Citizen fiasco illustrates the folly of promising customers anything and everything. A sure-fire recipe for endless 'alpha' tech demos, with so much technical debt that there is no hope of completion. Personally, I think that if Jason Williams had the sort of funding that Chris Roberts has, he'd be able to put it to better use, but he doesn't so the issue is moot. The developers have limited funds, and in consequence a limited team. Such resources are best put to use continuing the success they have had with the specialist product they have, rather than diluting their project with half-baked material aimed at attracting people who would be just as happy with whatever free-to-play 'war simulation' becomes fashionable for a month or so.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I had hoped people could openly and freely discourse over the suggestion itself

 

That’s what we’ve done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Pb_Cybermat47 said:

 

That’s what we’ve done.

 

Some indeed have, yes. Others not to so much as they want irrelevant information from the topic to aid their argumental agenda about how the game is already perfect and vastly disagree with anyone or anything that distracts from the topic of new planes. It is always the same handful of names causing this uproar and it is not worth the time to answer their endless questioning and bickering in every thread when someone proposes a suggestion or outlines a problem in the game. Which will just lead to more irrelevant questions from such individuals as they become easily confused it seems and derail each topic they disagree with. Thus resulting in many otherwise productive threads becoming locked/deleted because they provoke negative outrage and which is their goal of each thread. Perhaps they cannot pathom games need to be maintained with updates and corrections as that is part of game development itself. Instead they will argue about slowing of development for new planes or associated nickel and dime costs. Such information obviously can only be stated by the developers themselves which is why they even bring up the subject as no one beyond the developers can answer it correctly, so it is a trap question at best. Sadly, that is the type of person that keeps the forums from being productive and constructive.

 

Game developers already have personnel dedicated to such tasks at any rate because part of a team makes new content and the other part continues improves old content or game systems. Yes, that applies to small dev teams as well. The best part is however, new planes already have their own dedicated developers to solely continue production of new planes so fixing the game does not slow down new plane development in the least. Which makes such arguments from select "the game is perfect" individuals very moot at best. While on the other hand, there are also developers dedicated to adjusting the game itself and those are developers that game improvement threads are directed towards. But these argumentative individuals want a pie chart, the full yearly salary of each developer, and estimated production delays included in every answer to satisfy their endless questions. To be frank they cannot be satisfied and are a waste of anyone's time. It is very unfortunate we have to contend with them continually blowing up the forums with such arrogance and that I have to even explain the issue at all in this thread. As the evidence is very much visible across multiple threads where the same individuals have derailed the topic at hand. 

Hopefully more people will join the discourse so we can finally move on from having to entertain such meaningless arguments trying to turn the thread into friviless bickering. The developers are already working on AI vehicles in this time slot and the same resources could also be directed towards drivable AI vehicles further in development once time permits. 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

No one thinks the game is perfect... You've gone delusional again

 

It is the fact that there are so many imperfections that wasting dev  time on fluff is bad idea (currently) 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

Edited by Dakpilot
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Geronimo553 said:

 

Some indeed have, yes. Others not to so much as they want irrelevant information from the topic to aid their argumental agenda about how the game is already perfect and vastly disagree with anyone or anything that distracts from the topic of new planes. It is always the same handful of names causing this uproar and it is not worth the time to answer their endless questioning and bickering in every thread when someone proposes a suggestion or outlines a problem in the game. Which will just lead to more irrelevant questions from such individuals as they become easily confused it seems and derail each topic they disagree with. Thus resulting in many otherwise productive threads becoming locked/deleted because they provoke negative outrage and which is their goal of each thread. Perhaps they cannot pathom games need to be maintained with updates and corrections as that is part of game development itself. Instead they will argue about slowing of development for new planes or associated nickel and dime costs. Such information obviously can only be stated by the developers themselves which is why they even bring up the subject as no one beyond the developers can answer it correctly, so it is a trap question at best. Sadly, that is the type of person that keeps the forums from being productive and constructive.

 

Game developers already have personnel dedicated to such tasks at any rate because part of a team makes new content and the other part continues improves old content or game systems. Yes, that applies to small dev teams as well. The best part is however, new planes already have their own dedicated developers to solely continue production of new planes so fixing the game does not slow down new plane development in the least. Which makes such arguments from select "the game is perfect" individuals very moot at best. While on the other hand, there are also developers dedicated to adjusting the game itself and those are developers that game improvement threads are directed towards. But these argumentative individuals want a pie chart, the full yearly salary of each developer, and estimated production delays included in every answer to satisfy their endless questions. To be frank they cannot be satisfied and are a waste of anyone's time. It is very unfortunate we have to contend with them continually blowing up the forums with such arrogance and that I have to even explain the issue at all in this thread. As the evidence is very much visible across multiple threads where the same individuals have derailed the topic at hand. 

Hopefully more people will join the discourse so we can finally move on from having to entertain such meaningless arguments trying to turn the thread into friviless bickering. The developers are already working on AI vehicles in this time slot and the same resources could also be directed towards drivable AI vehicles further in development once time permits. 

 

You should make your own game. EuroTruck Sim 1942. Players could drive trucks for endless hours from supply depots to the front line with the random chance of being killed in an air attack. 

 

PS the term “drivable AI vehicles” doesn’t make sense. If they are player controlled then they aren’t AI

Edited by SharpeXB
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Send few cartons of wodka to Moscow and programmers might do drivable GAZ for you as drinking party challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Brano said:

Send few cartons of wodka to Moscow and programmers might do drivable GAZ for you as drinking party challenge.

 

The idea is so bold that it might work. We should send a small crate at once! lol

Share this post


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

Feel free to share your additional ideas or input. 😃

 

It ain't happening, dude. Let it go.

9 hours ago, Geronimo553 said:

We should not try to limit the developer's creativity and should be thinking of what new audiences could be brought into iL-2 by new aspects of WW2 simulation.

 

And drivable jeeps and trucks isn't part of that.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

 

Some indeed have, yes. Others not to so much as they want irrelevant information from the topic

 

Commenting on the dumpster fire of a poll that you set up is not irrelevant.  The poll was kinda the point of this thread.

 

As for the idea of making more vehicles drive-able, I'm all for it.  As long as those vehicles have guns and can kill tanks or aircraft.  I have no interest in a supply truck sim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I expected, Geronimo553's response to my simple questions regarding where the resources for these proposals are to come from has met with nothing but ad hominems , gross misrepresentations concerning valid comments on the topic, and a complete failure to understand the complexities of game development. On that basis, I would advise anyone not to bother engaging with him further. The developers are quite capable of seeing how misguided his understanding of the development process is, and of assessing the merits of adding badly-modelled half-baked content to a game in order to attract the War Thunder crowd. If they should ever decide to expand the player ground-level experience beyond its existing scope, I am sure they will do so on the basis that such content needs to be paid for if it is not to detract from the series as a whole.  That is the only viable path to go down. It is the path they have followed in the past, and so far it has worked. The game clearly has scope for improvement, and quite possibly for expansion beyond its existing scope, but dumping more work on the developers and delaying already-paid-for material  in order to attract a hypothetical audience with low-quality content for free makes no business sense. For this project to continue it has to be profitable. That is the reality of the world we live in. Not everyone may agree with the merits of making profitability the sole driving force in the world (I certainly don't) but that is the way it is now. Developers have to earn wages to live, and such wages ultimately depend on content being sold. Not given away in a misguided attempt to attract hypothetical 'customers' from other existing games. If people want a free-to-play, pay-through-the-nose-to-avoid-grind everything-WW2 simulation, they already have War Thunder.

 

The best games have clearly-defined scope, and consistent standards of customer experience. The worst have neither.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

(a): How are you proposing that this extended scope be funded.

(b) How are the development resources (i.e. programmers time etc) to be found for this proposal, without imposing delays on already-paid-for parts of the project.

 

I'll add a third question: what new gameplay experience would drivable jeeps and trucks add to the game, and what makes you think this will be popular with players?

Share this post


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

 

I'll add a third question: what new gameplay experience would drivable jeeps and trucks add to the game, and what makes you think this will be popular with players?

 

The proposed suggestion is about the ability to operate a multitude of vehicles and positions such as AAA as well as the addition of pure transport vehicles I have already outlined the concepts multiple times. Plus having a scout car option could aid into future commanding of assets as is being tested currently by the developers. 

Edited by Geronimo553

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anything in the way of evidence that the driveable vehicles In Cliffs of Dover did anything to attract significant numbers of new players?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

Is there anything in the way of evidence that the driveable vehicles In Cliffs of Dover did anything to attract significant numbers of new players?

No. I’m sure nobody used them and it was a big waste of time that contributed to the poor state of the game. Let’s not have the same thing happen here. 

Share this post


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

Plus having a scout car option could aid into future commanding of assets as is being tested currently by the developers. 

 

Tank platoon / company commanders rode around in tanks, so adding a scout car would add nothing new but a tin can easily destroyed by enemy fire.

 

3 hours ago, Geronimo553 said:

The proposed suggestion is about the ability to operate a multitude of vehicles and positions such as AAA as well as the addition of pure transport vehicles I have already outlined the concepts multiple times.

 

You're avoiding the question, so I'll ask again: what would a drivable jeep or truck add to the game? How would it be used in SP? Why would people want to use it in MP? 

Share this post


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

 

 How would it be used in SP?

 

As an Ai entity , I'd like to see it incorporated at the start or end of mission as one of these.   Being player controlled in my opinion would be a waste of Dev resources.

 

0624-Jeep-2.jpg

Share this post


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

You're avoiding the question, so I'll ask again: what would a drivable jeep or truck add to the game? How would it be used in SP? Why would people want to use it in MP? 


"what would a drivable jeep or truck add to the game?"

Like I thoroughly explained on the first page, a transport vehicle can be used for player driven cargo/transport missions. Tank/AAA units could also carry forward with missions separately or assist in keeping the transports alive. Drivable transports add additional flexibility to mission makers, add new coordinated event options, as well as offer an avenue for players without all DLC to participate in time periods against the latest aircraft as they try to reach their destination. There are plenty of people who enjoy doing cargo missions with the JU52 and having the ability to use such transports would add a non combat option for those who enjoy solely the tank crew aspect as well. Plus this would reduce the predictability of current mission types. No longer would transports just be on X path or X circle region of the map. Instead a team would need to work together in spotting the transports and stopping them before they reach their destination. Which this team aspect would play into Jason's command system he is currently developing for the game as the transports need to be directed and so do the defensive/offenses forces.

 

"How would it be used in SP?"
Possible, defend a location using AAA or flak from attacking aircraft or tanks. Though the idea more based towards large scale multiplayer.   

 

"Why would people want to use it in MP?"
Using all the vehicles available in the game would further expand the WW2 and realism of battle aspects of the simulation. Instead of fighting predictable AI units, people could choose if they would like to defend locations or transport materials to a location to further their team's points/supplies in a large direct way. If players could also use the less detailed AI tank models then tankers could also have more matches filled with players instead of lazer AI shooting through trees and would make the tank team pvp more viable. So people who have not purchased tank crew would be able to choose from a larger pool of free tanks making the battlefield more realistic and tank crew owners could also pick from the larger pool of options if they wished.

Now for my final point, everyone already has the AI vehicles in their game and currently the game's populations online is low as well as stagnated apart. Giving control to unused vehicles already in the game could be used as a means for players with the base game to assist in filling servers. Such as these players are able to take control of tanks, mobile AAA units, and transports to add an improved experience. New players who do not own all the great battles still want to join servers where others do own all the content and these players would still be able to do something to help the team. Additionally this would allow people to become involved with the iL-2 experience in a light version way and perhaps it is a form of try it before you buy it incentive. Like an extended version of the two free tanks already offered in the game though back to their original detail level they possessed for so many years. Of course there would be a disclaimer stating these vehicles are not of full detail and serve more as means to get people involved in the overall experience etc etc. But the idea is to get more people online and participating in the game itself using as little additional developer resources as possible because the assets have already been created.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that mean you believe that a large part of the players who - for what ever reason - right now choose not to participate in MP with the combat aircraft / vehicles they could use already, would start to play multiplayer when they are given the opportunity to drive around in halfdone simplified defenseless trucks?

 

I would not...

Share this post


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

 

-snip-

 

Okay, but I’m still unclear on the most important part.

 

If I’m given the choice between the infamous Bf-109, one of the most legendary aircraft of all time, which I can take into pulse-pounding simulated aerial combat, or an Opel Blitz truck that I can drive around and carefully follow the road rules in, why would I choose the truck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Geronimo553 I would love to get a  truck with cargo loadout, and a fast bike with an mg42 on the side car.

That is what I am dreaming for sometimes... riding and delivering in the new gorgeous detailed map.

 

Yes the devs have priorities, yes blah blah, but that does not prevent me to dream... 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe someday Tank Crew and Great Battles will be merged.

 

In the mean time,

 

Share this post


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

Maybe someday Tank Crew and Great Battles will be merged.

 

You mean they’ll merge in the same way BoS and BoM will?

 

That’s already happened. TC has always been a part of GBS.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...