Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

[the context of everything that follows is multiplayer]

 

I've critized in another thread, when the tiger came out, the design decisions regarding the 'new' UI, compared with the 'original' T34 and Pz3, which don't allow a single player to keep the turret pointing in a desired direction while jumping between gunner and commander (with the open hatch).

Now that the new T34 has come out, it's evident that this is now the UI approach for all tanks.

 

I understand (don't like, but understand) the crappyfication of the abilities of the T34 which are rooted in the real tank's actual abilities, or lack thereof. The steering is now crap, and I can only assume that this is based on research. IL-2 wants to be a simulation, so I can't argue with that.

 

By making the turret turn towards 12:00 as soon as the player jumps into the commander position, the turreted tanks are effectively being turned into stugs. I can only guess that this might be done to favor players who get together to man a tank. As someone who has no intention of doing this, I resent that intent.

 

There's a big problem for the mission designers (server admins) though: among the tankers are some which will play both sides (which I applaud), some which consider themselves blue, or red tankers. But among the blue tankers is a majority which consider themselves tiger tankers, and won't touch a Pz3 with a long stick.

 

Thus, any missions which feature very limited or no tigers on some bases, remain devoid of blue tankers (almost), until bases with plenty of tigers come into play, and then the tiger heroes all pile in. I.e. the main instrument of mission designers to even out the situation doesn't really work in practice.

 

The main reason why the red tankers were able to hold off the tiger hordes was the (maybe ahistorical) agility of the modeled T34. Now we have a weakly armored, weakly armed, un-agile tank.

 

To add to all this, the gun control on the new T34 intermittently behaves in erratic ways, veering off in the wrong direction and so on. I thought I had identified a bug, until I read in another thread that this may be a 'simulation' to approximate the overworkedness of the commander, who is also loader. If this is really the case (not a bug but a feature), then I'm horrified.

 

There are aspects of a vehicle you can and should simulate, and those which you can't reasonably do, and you shouldn't try. Who asked for this? It's widely known that for instance the driver's position in the T34 was very unergonomic, but I really don't want that simulated, or attempted.

 

There was a thread some time ago, 'why the tiger', or similar. At the time I thought that the early introduction of the tiger on the roadmap was questionable, but not such a huge problem practically, because of the agility of the modeled T34. Now this situation has changed, and the tank selection is immensely skewed.

 

If all this sounds a bit negative, it's because the update makes me doubt whether I should be spending any time on tanking at all. It's as if someone shoots you in the knee and says, here's your update.

 

Edited by stupor-mundi
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I absolutely agree that the turret should not automatically be adjusted forward again, this is a real problem. Also, should the 'Loader' not be modelled as a station? Right now you have a huge advantage in the tiger because you can watch from the top of the tank with the hatch open (as commander) and insta-snap to the gunner position in a split second and go in for the kill, while the T-34 gunner calmly closes the hatch, before entering the gunsight with the forward facing gun again.

 

 

Just now, stupor-mundi said:

 

To add to all this, the gun control on the new T34 intermittently behaves in erratic ways, veering off in the wrong direction and so on. I thought I had identified a bug, until I read in another thread that this may be a 'simulation' to approximate the overworkedness of the commander, who is also loader. If this is really the case (not a bug but a feature), then I'm horrified. 

 

 

 

This is a little odd, because the Periscope gunsight and the normal gunsight (cycle through with Shift + t) not only use opposite layout of markers but also because the periscope sight of the gun is hyper sensitive to inputs. In the normal gunsight you have the black hole which will move and it will move to the direction you are looking at. The periscope gunsight on the other hand stays centered but takes its positional aiming from the indirect aiming as in the normal gunsight, but the (invisible) mouse pointer seems to have an incredibly high angle for movement in relation to the mouse: that is why the gun sometimes reverses direction: your indirect viewpoint (only known by the game) is above 180° and so the turret reverses direction to meet the new angle.

I hope this will get adressed some time in the future.

 

But anyhow: I love the new T-34, let alone because of the smaller hatch, the periscope (although its deficiencies its really useful for hiding behind ridgelines), the higher level of detail and the many more rounds it can carry. Also looks sexy :biggrin:

Edited by 216th_Jordan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, stupor-mundi said:

[the context of everything that follows is multiplayer]

 

I've critized in another thread, when the tiger came out, the design decisions regarding the 'new' UI, compared with the 'original' T34 and Pz3, which don't allow a single player to keep the turret pointing in a desired direction while jumping between gunner and commander (with the open hatch).

Now that the new T34 has come out, it's evident that this is now the UI approach for all tanks.

 

I understand (don't like, but understand) the crappyfication of the abilities of the T34 which are rooted in the real tank's actual abilities, or lack thereof. The steering is now crap, and I can only assume that this is based on research. IL-2 wants to be a simulation, so I can't argue with that.

 

By making the turret turn towards 12:00 as soon as the player jumps into the commander position, the turreted tanks are effectively being turned into stugs. I can only guess that this might be done to favor players who get together to man a tank. As someone who has no intention of doing this, I resent that intent.

 

There's a big problem for the mission designers (server admins) though: among the tankers are some which will play both sides (which I applaud), some which consider themselves blue, or red tankers. But among the blue tankers is a majority which consider themselves tiger tankers, and won't touch a Pz3 with a long stick.

 

Thus, any missions which feature very limited or no tigers on some bases, remain devoid of blue tankers (almost), until bases with plenty of tigers come into play, and then the tiger heroes all pile in. I.e. the main instrument of mission designers to even out the situation doesn't really work in practice.

 

The main reason why the red tankers were able to hold off the tiger hordes was the (maybe ahistorical) agility of the modeled T34. Now we have a weakly armored, weakly armed, un-agile tank.

 

To add to all this, the gun control on the new T34 intermittently behaves in erratic ways, veering off in the wrong direction and so on. I thought I had identified a bug, until I read in another thread that this may be a 'simulation' to approximate the overworkedness of the commander, who is also loader. If this is really the case (not a bug but a feature), then I'm horrified.

 

There are aspects of a vehicle you can and should simulate, and those which you can't reasonably do, and you shouldn't try. Who asked for this? It's widely known that for instance the driver's position in the T34 was very unergonomic, but I really don't want that simulated, or attempted.

 

There was a thread some time ago, 'why the tiger', or similar. At the time I thought that the early introduction of the tiger on the roadmap was questionable, but not such a huge problem practically, because of the agility of the modeled T34. Now this situation has changed, and the tank selection is immensely skewed.

 

If all this sounds a bit negative, it's because the update makes me doubt whether I should be spending any time on tanking at all. It's as if someone shoots you in the knee and says, here's your update.

 

 

I agree with the balance thing there Mundi. Just like in the air side of Great Battles series, we currently have the Tiger-only horde destroying the MP environment. I play for both sides and always try to go for balance and understand why there are so many VVS planes in the air .... Basically, that is the only weapon we can currently use against the Tiger. I'm not complaining about how the Tiger is modeled since I'm one of those who bugged the devs to correct the absurd weakness of the 88mm we had a few patches ago and I'm all for the historical aspect of it even if that means I'll play in a weaker tank that can be blown up with a single round. I like what has been introduced with the latest patches except the turret re-centering thing when you switch position ... that is indeed annoying. The balance issue, I believe will be better once the Pz.IV comes along ... This way, IMHO, the balance will be better and the T34 will finally have a chance and tanks to shoot at (since then, I hope, Tigers will be more limited in the missions and blue players will have a tank that is more on pair with the T34 than the Pz.III is). BTW, I think the Tiger rear armor is somewhat too resistant at close range ... I find myself often shooting at Tigers at point blank range, which should disable it in a single shot, having to take 4-6 shots in order to take it out. Maybe some additional tweaks are still needed but overall I like what I see. Soon, we will have a PzIV and the Red Army will have some heavier caliber weapons as well (I heard the Su-122 and the Su-152 will also be pat of the sim) and then even if the Tiger is in the mission, we will have better tanks to counter it. Be patient my friend and soon we will see a better, more balanced, battlefield and the tears of the so-called "Tiger-only" guys.

Edited by SCG_Riksen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I agree that the turret shouldn't automatically return to 12.00 and 10 degrees up when we change seats in the tank. It's really not optimal way to operate in the tank from gameplay perspective and I would like to see a change here. I also experience the overly sensitive turret rotation at times but it doesn't happen all the time. It sometimes reverses the direction I intended to turn which is very annoying. However the more you are zoomed in the less sensitive it gets in my experience so you can mitigate the issue almost completely by zooming in a bit more rather than keeping the zoom at minimum.

 

Aside those issues I think the introduction of the new periscope of T34 and KV1S are very effective at their job. You can turn the periscope 360 degrees without rotating the turret if you set up your keybindings correctly. It is a lot faster than to turn the turret and look around. You can then assign a key for reverting the periscope into default where the gunsight is aiming as well. It is very fast and easy to do and in my opinion the new optics are superior to the M4A2 Sherman when it comes to gameplay. This tank cannot use a periscope while in the gunner seat but T34 and KV1 can now see 360 degrees (KV1 commander cupola gets in the way) while operating their guns which makes them very comfortable to use in my opinon. You don't have to switch seats anymore you can just be the gunner all game long. I effectively don't have to ever open the hatch unless I'm repairing or I need to listen and watch aircraft up in the sky.

 

 I find turning most difficult at medium speeds when the turn is long. At high speed you can still turn well if you keep them short and then let momentum go up again. I wouldn't say T34 is not mobile because it still accelerates just as fast as before and reliably climbs up smaller hills with over 30kp/h compared to other tanks that are reduced to walking speed. It is till the fastest tank in the game despite it's more ralistic turning. I do think that the one reliable tank server we have has serious balance issues that could be fixed simply by having better map design. Those maps are horrible and it makes me hurt inside to think how good the gameplay could be if they had atleast an attempt at realism. In the Prohorovka map I never had issues dealing with superior tanks even in a P3 but these maps we get in our current tank server don't allow that. I believe that server also added a hefty penalty to changing sides so helping to balance during matches isn't that simple either anymore.

 

My best advice is to use the new gear system. You can set a maximum gear whenever you want. While turning at medium speeds quickly turn the gear limit down around 3 times. To my experience the best gear to turn fast is 2 or 3. This will cause you to lose lots of momentum, but will let you turn very fast with the new T34. Same goes for every other tank. None of the tanks like prolonged turning, even the M4A2 and that thing was designed to turn while moving forward. When turning and losing too much momentum, bump down the gear limit for a few seconds, turn fast, then go maximum gear and let the 500hp diesel engine rip it's lungs out. Driving a T34 was physically very taxing irl. It was not a fun thing to drive and needed strenght to turn and a hammer help switching gear.

Edited by Torrens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, stupor-mundi said:

The main reason why the red tankers were able to hold off the tiger hordes was the (maybe ahistorical) agility of the modeled T34. Now we have a weakly armored, weakly armed, un-agile tank.

 

That’s what the SU-152 is for.

 

Yes, the SU-152 isn’t in the game yet, but surely you were aware that you were buying TC in an incomplete state? The devs explicitly stated that TC would be in early access when it first became available for purchase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally really enjoy the new T-34, as I feel it captures the historical tank nearly perfectly. I'm very much a fan of the T-34, but if it was modeled without its historical weaknesses, it would just feel wrong. 

 

It is fast, but due to the clutch-and-brake steering, it really only is agile at lower speeds. Its armor, while well laid out, is only of middling thickness by 1943 standards - the sloping will make even heavier rounds bounce of you at long distance, but at point blank, a Kwk 39 will still kill you. The awkward shift between unbuttoned "commander's view" and gunner's position captures the very real struggle of manning a two-man turret, though as you point out the automatic traversd towards 12 when unbuttoned is annoying as hell and needs to go immediately. 

 

Yeah, fighting only Tigers is pretty awful, but that is a problem with the way MP is set up, and to a certain degree with the player base (seriously, if you won't play for Blue if you can't get in a Tiger, there is something wrong with you) But it has nothing to do with the modeling of either the Tiger or the T-34, both of which now seem very good to me. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I play only as blue, and i do like the Tigers, that being said, if you use any other tank than a Tiger you can be sure it's made of glass or paper. 

Agree regarding the turret position, should not return to 12 automatically, i understand why they make it this way, however when playing MP you do not alway have 

enough players to fill all these positions, and let's be honest, you don't always have a gunner with you on a mission in a bomber either.

 

That is where AI Crew comes in. I would love to see AI crew in tanks and airplanes,  in SP it is obvious, in MP it would not be so easy to make in a balanced way.

BTW the reason many players take a Tiger is because you don't blow up 3 sec after you see the enemy.

 

I know the DEVS said no to this, but still infantry would also help balance the game out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this would be helped a lot if you use the gunner's secondary observation periscope rather than turning out once you're in potential engagement range. Sure it limits your view more, but you can observe while not locking the the turret in road march position, and much more quickly lay the gun on to target after acquiring one, and even engage using this as a backup gunsight if required. One thing I'd very much like to see, however, is to have the observation periscope on a separate key press, rather than having to cycle from out of gun sight view-primary direct vision sight-secondary sight, or at least have your view go to the secondary sight first. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, thenorm said:

I think this would be helped a lot if you use the gunner's secondary observation periscope rather than turning out once you're in potential engagement range. Sure it limits your view more, but you can observe while not locking the the turret in road march position, and much more quickly lay the gun on to target after acquiring one, and even engage using this as a backup gunsight if required. One thing I'd very much like to see, however, is to have the observation periscope on a separate key press, rather than having to cycle from out of gun sight view-primary direct vision sight-secondary sight, or at least have your view go to the secondary sight first. 

 

 

Definitely. 

 

Fully functional periscopes are a must. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the ones on the T-34 mod.42 UTZ and KV-1s are pretty well implemented already, which is great. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Finkeren said:

I personally really enjoy the new T-34, as I feel it captures the historical tank nearly perfectly. I'm very much a fan of the T-34, but if it was modeled without its historical weaknesses, it would just feel wrong. 

 

It is fast, but due to the clutch-and-brake steering, it really only is agile at lower speeds. Its armor, while well laid out, is only of middling thickness by 1943 standards - the sloping will make even heavier rounds bounce of you at long distance, but at point blank, a Kwk 39 will still kill you. The awkward shift between unbuttoned "commander's view" and gunner's position captures the very real struggle of manning a two-man turret, though as you point out the automatic traversd towards 12 when unbuttoned is annoying as hell and needs to go immediately. 

 

Yeah, fighting only Tigers is pretty awful, but that is a problem with the way MP is set up, and to a certain degree with the player base (seriously, if you won't play for Blue if you can't get in a Tiger, there is something wrong with you) But it has nothing to do with the modeling of either the Tiger or the T-34, both of which now seem very good to me. 

 

Not only at point blank ranges, the tiger guns is more than capable of penetrating the t34 at long ranges at the right angles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SCG_Riksen said:

 

Not only at point blank ranges, the tiger guns is more than capable of penetrating the t34 at long ranges at the right angles.

 

Yes ofc, but I was talking about the Kwk 39 of the Panzer III. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that they made the T-34 more realistic and cant anymore be buttoned up as a commander and aim and shot at the same time anymore but has to do the same as we in panzer III: Close the hatch and switch to gunner and then into the sight, taking 1-2 seconds before one can start open fire. But when playing with a friend one can be gunner and the other driver/commander and then it goes faster :P All fair to me and the T-34 commander also has to be commander, loader and gunner so it should take even longer before he/she can fire.

Its a tank simulator game, heck I find the repairs a bit too unrealistic, but at least it takes longer time than in warthunder.....

 

And hell yeah I will always be an axis player, fur das vaterland! But you cant place me amongst the Tiger horde players: I play the Panzer III gladly, and if they add Stug III and Panther and Panzer IV you will see me in those too :P Tiger is my least fave tank to use, but sometimes I want to try it out and see if the game has it realistic to reality or not, so far its good and like in real life so all fine.
The problem with Panzer III is that its completely useless against T-34s and Shermans frontally, cant pen at all unless one get to the side, for us the T-34s are like Tigers.... But panzer IV should be an even match  :)

I find it frustrating when all russian players are in airplanes and I get bombed and never get to see an enemy tank -.-

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2019 at 12:13 AM, 216th_Jordan said:

Right now you have a huge advantage in the tiger because you can watch from the top of the tank with the hatch open (as commander) and insta-snap to the gunner position in a split second and go in for the kill, while the T-34 gunner calmly closes the hatch, before entering the gunsight with the forward facing gun again.

 

Yup. If the overworkedness of the commander/loader has to be modeled by giving the T-34 a slow reload time, fair enough. But, the way I see it, when I pilot a tank as a single player, I'm all of the stations and should be able to jump between them instantly. Why does it have to be the gunner who opens the hatch? Sure, the new visor is nice, but I regard the crippling of the station jumping as unjustified.

 

Now that I've played around more with jumping between the 2 sight-types... the exagerrated mouse sensitivity when using the periscope sight is really what turns the new tank into a death trap. No 'realism' argument works for this UI failure.

 

The new gear limiter functionality is nice, and recovers some steerability, but involves being noisy. The old ability to steer at a medium speed, say in a forest, at low rpm, i.e. stealthily, is certainly gone.

 

What I forgot to mention in my original post is how the engines are now even more prone to breaking, when bumping into invisible trees at low speed. Basically glass engines. Since ages I've been harping on about how they should fix the invisible trees, and instead we get even more easily broken engines. A feature I brought up months ago, having 'soft' collisions with objects such as trees, would also help making the interaction with organic objects like trees, more realistic, more, let's say, tank like.

 

OTOH, a feature some new players have only very recently been asking for, in-mission repairs (no doubt originating from other tank games), has been implemented, and isn't remotely realistic. The in-sim time is meant to be real time, not accellerated time like in some strategy games. Thus, a 1 or 2 minute track repair, or 5 minute engine repair, is a joke.

 

The irony is that we break our unrealistic glass engines when we bump into unrealistic invisible trees, and then we are thankful for an unrealistic 5 minute engine repair.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's hope they are going to tweak out the numbers on all this and make these new implementations more realistic.  Having said that....I like the direction they are going with these new features.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One question: Lately I've seen a lot of references to the "commander/loader" being the overworked position in the T-34, both here and in online sources. However, I have always been under the impression, that it was the gunner, not the loader, who had to double as commander? It certainly would make the most sense, since both of them would have roughly the same optics, and the loader would spend a fair deal of his time during combat down on the floor of the tank digging out fresh shells.  Also I've read, that due to the low quality (and early on outright absense) of the intercom system, the commander would give instructions to the driver by tapping his shoulders with his feet, which you can only really do from the gunner's position, and when intercom was present, the loader was usually disconnected from this for ergonomic reasons and would receive instructions from the gunner via hand signals (closed fist for AP, fingers spread out for HE) - seems strange to have the commander not being on the intercom. On the very late T-34-76s with a cupola, the cupola is also placed above the gunner's seat, not the loader's.

 

Are we absolutely sure, that it was the loader who functioned as commander?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

the commander would give instructions to the driver by tapping his shoulders with his feet, which you can only really do from the gunner's position

Exactly. That's what every soviet veteran-tanker tells. But in T-34-85 that already was impossible, commander was a separate place like in german tanks

 

T-34-76

76.thumb.jpg.559c90f6c4b01c511b0124ffdb427300.jpg 

 

T-34-85

CEL-1WlUIAARgb0.jpg.095dc3599f910ddc7b4a7506dd5ed978.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lofte said:

Exactly. That's what every soviet veteran-tanker tells. But in T-34-85 that already was impossible, commander was a separate place like in german tanks

 

T-34-76

76.thumb.jpg.559c90f6c4b01c511b0124ffdb427300.jpg 

 

T-34-85

CEL-1WlUIAARgb0.jpg.095dc3599f910ddc7b4a7506dd5ed978.jpg

 

But with the T-34-85 intercom was standard (and I have heard some say: vastly improved over earlier tanks), so it wouldn't have been as necessary.

 

Also, look at the loader in the first picture in what was probably his normal work position: Are we really to believe, that he was supposed to command the tank from that position?

Share this post


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

Also, look at the loader in the first picture in what was probably his normal work position: Are we really to believe, that he was supposed to command the tank from that position?

Loader-commander? That's was impossible. Never heard/read about that.

Share this post


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

Loader-commander? That's was impossible. Never heard/read about that.

 

That's what I'm getting at, but I have heard the term commander/loader thrown around so much about the T-34, that I was starting to have doubts. I've seen it used in documentaries, assorted Youtube videos, especially the ones made by the Bovington Museum guys (but then again, one of them also claimed, that the T-34-85 had a turret basket, even as he was standing right next to one, apparently he never once looked inside it), and even seen it written in articles. Yet, to me it makes absolutely no sense.

Edited by Finkeren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T-34/76

Командир танка - tank commander was sitting to the left of the gun, one of the tasks in combat was firing the main gun and coax.

 

Командир башни -turret commander was sitting to the right of the gun, one of the main tasks in combat was reloading of main gun and coax. He was in general responsible for correct functions of all weapons, ammunition and mantaining general order inside and outside of the tank.

 

Механик-водитель - mechanic-driver

Sitting front left.Driving the tank and mantaining everything around power unit, fuel, oil, spare parts and repairing.

 

Радиотелеграфист-пулеметчик- radio operator-machinegunner

Sitting front right. Operating and maintaining radio+ bow MG.

 

More details here:

http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWII/T34/inbattle/?page=3

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

T-34/76

Командир танка - tank commander was sitting to the left of the gun, one of the tasks in combat was firing the main gun and coax.

 

Командир башни -turret commander was sitting to the right of the gun, one of the main tasks in combat was reloading of main gun and coax. He was in general responsible for correct functions of all weapons, ammunition and mantaining general order inside and outside of the tank.

 

Механик-водитель - mechanic-driver

Sitting front left.Driving the tank and mantaining everything around power unit, fuel, oil, spare parts and repairing.

 

Радиотелеграфист-пулеметчик- radio operator-machinegunner

Sitting front right. Operating and maintaining radio+ bow MG.

 

More details here:

http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWII/T34/inbattle/?page=3

 

 

Great. That corresponds with, what I have always read. It must be the term "turret commander" that is throwing some people off, making them think the loader is actually supposed to be the tank commander, where in reality, he's more like janitor.

 

Can we please stop using the term "commander/loader" then?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The link is a web version of official soviet manual " Tank T-34 in combat" issued by ГАбТУ КА = Главное автобронетанковое управление Красной Армии , smtg like a head administration/directorate responsible for all things around army mechanised units and their equipment (tanks, artillery tractors...)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

turret commander

Word "commander" has no sense in this case. Don't know why it was used in the manual (maybe for some prestige reasons?).
This "commander" had no subordinate persons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2019 at 1:13 AM, 216th_Jordan said:

Right now you have a huge advantage in the tiger because you can watch from the top of the tank with the hatch open (as commander) and insta-snap to the gunner position in a split second and go in for the kill, while the T-34 gunner calmly closes the hatch, before entering the gunsight with the forward facing gun again.

I don't get it. Where is the problem? It's not devs fault that T34 had commander and gunner as one guy. If german tank has seperated loader, gunner and commander then that's how it should be. 3 people can do more things faster than 2. Unless you meant that reseting main gun is the problem, then yea i guess it is.

Share this post


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

I don't get it. Where is the problem? It's not devs fault that T34 had commander and gunner as one guy. If german tank has seperated loader, gunner and commander then that's how it should be. 3 people can do more things faster than 2. Unless you meant that reseting main gun is the problem, then yea i guess it is.

There really is nothing wrong with this. It is exactly as it should be, but the T-34 does have a bit of a disadvantage: Currently, we can't use the rotating periscope sight, the way it is supposed to, and when buttoned up, you can only really look around by traversing the turret. Ideally, you should be able to fire the gun down the sight, observe where it lands, then shift to periscope to have a look around without taking the gun off the target, while the loader readies the next round and then return to the main sight to give off the next shot.

 

 

Edited by Finkeren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Lofte said:

Word "commander" has no sense in this case. Don't know why it was used in the manual (maybe for some prestige reasons?).
This "commander" had no subordinate persons.

Well, such was the nomenclature of the time. He was subordinate of tank commander, of course. Probably as he was responsible also for keeping complete tank nice and tidy from inside-out, they couldn't name him "бабушка дежурная" 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Commander" in this case just means "in charge of", I think. And the loader indeed was in charge of the turret and all the weapons and equipment therein. And "keeping and maintaining order and tidiness" inside the tank was a job of paramount importance, especially in a T-34. There was no system to collect spent shell casings, and most of the ammunition was stored in boxes underneath mats that made up the turret floor, meaning that within the first few minutes of combat, the "floor" on which the loader was standing would become a tangled mess of empty 76.2mm casings, bunched up rubber mats and open boxes. Because of the lack of a turret basket, he would have to keep his footing in this chaos while loading heavy shells into the breech and contorting his body to avoid getting crushed by something, when the turret traversed (and under power the T-34's turret is famous for traversing quite fast) When finally there was a lull in the fighting (or at least the shooting), the loader would need to spend every available second cleaning up the mess, closing boxes, throwing spent shells overboard and straightening the mats while also reloading the ready racks with new shells and assisting the commander in looking out for potential targets. Sometimes he'd have to do this while the tank was driving across rough terrain.

 

The "turret commander" had by far the hardest, most uncomfortable job inside the tank and was at the greatest risk of non-combat injury. I think we need to appreciate this, and we can afford to let him have his title of commander.

Share this post


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

I don't get it. Where is the problem? It's not devs fault that T34 had commander and gunner as one guy. If german tank has seperated loader, gunner and commander then that's how it should be. 3 people can do more things faster than 2. Unless you meant that reseting main gun is the problem, then yea i guess it is.

 

The problem is that in an emergency situation I'd drop down inside the tank in a second while the animated commander/gunner takes 4-5 to get to the gunsight. 

The loader also has a hatch on his side, though which he could peek out while the turret is not operated, something that would be handy in said situation. 

 

4-5 seconds is just too long, really. 

Edited by 216th_Jordan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Finkeren are you talking about the Mod.42 STZ, or the Mod. 43 UTZ when it comes to not being able to use the periscope? Because it works great on the UTZ, swap to the periscope via the same key command as the gunsight (second keypress, as the cycle goes 1 interior view 2 primary sight 3 observation periscope) and you can traverse the scope using the adjust visor left/right commands (right shift , and / if I remember right) and re-set it with another key (right shift ' I think) and this periscope elevates/depresses with the gun, so you can engage with it too. Same goes for the KV-1S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

TNX, I did not know I can operate the periscopes in the T34. I now used the pilot cam left/right to the visor right/left. Now the cam follows the periscope (more or less) that makes the T34 more fun to play. I wonder if there are more hidden features.

 

Sorry, I must have been sleeping, I did this for the Sherman. Can not find a rotating periscoop in the T34's or KV1S 

Edited by pa4tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Spawn in T-34 or KV-1S

2. Change to gunner's seat. 

3. Press LShift-T once, you are now in the primary gunsight. 

4. Press Lshift-T a second time, you are now in the periscope. You can now traverse the periscope using the same keys as in the M4A2. 
5 Press Lshift-T you are now back out of the gunsight view in the tank. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thanks, this works (after doing a lot of reassigning). I really need some sort of manual from the devs on this for TC. They know what they used for what and what they use for tanks from the plane controls. 

 

Also weird, in the Tiger I need to use the mouse because it does not allow the joystick when nesteled. And I must move it a lot to get some aiming, but that is great to have accuracy in aiming. With a pov key the head turns to fast, I only see black most of the time.

 

Strange enough this seeing black while aiming does not happen to the T34 UVZ, but here the mouse is hyper and it is very hard to aim precise unless you zoom max. Also a bit strange, here the periscope is nestled so the gunner turns together with the periscope like he would do in real life. 

 

But then the periscope in the M4A2. The sight turns separate from the crew member so I have to move the crew-member also around because you can not nestel it. So this costs an extra axis and makes it hard to use.

 

The KV1 periscope gives the picture of the gunsight, the gunsight that of the periscope, Or I do something very wrong.... 

 

The Tiger has a driver periscope but that only looks liker it can turn. It is pretty useless this way.

There was also a tank (KV1) where the periscope is used for aiming and  to look around. This makes it important that if you want to shoot you first reset this axis to align the periscope with the gun.  There was so much more wrong, to much for my memory, I then must it write up while testing. 

 

To be short, it seems to be working complete different per tank, if it works.

 

They really must take a good look at the tank controls and/or better document them, before they are going to loose players over it.

Edited by pa4tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Finkeren The Soviet tank that had a loader/commander was the KV-1 (the non-S models). The turret was three manned, but the third guy behind the gun was a mechanic assistant apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In light of the revelations (to me anyway) on the nature of the commander of the T34, vs the loader, I won't insist that it would be appropriate to be able to instantly jump into the loader's open hatch position. I admit that would be silly.

However, regarding the slow movement between the open hatch position of the gunner, and the on-sight position, I think that, even though the switch feels slow, opening or closing a heavy hatch will take that time, but it would be very helpful to have the option to more quickly jump inside, to the sight, without closing the hatch.

Regarding the lethal mouse overreactiveness when in the periscope sight position, I've played around with that position in the KV a bit now, and it's much more manageble. It appears as if the new functionality was developed/optimized for the KV and some parameters just haven't been adapted/dialled in for the T34. It would be nice if that could get fixed. Since I've begun trying out the new T34 this mouse issue has been my #1 cause of death.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, stupor-mundi said:

In light of the revelations (to me anyway) on the nature of the commander of the T34, vs the loader, I won't insist that it would be appropriate to be able to instantly jump into the loader's open hatch position. I admit that would be silly.

However, regarding the slow movement between the open hatch position of the gunner, and the on-sight position, I think that, even though the switch feels slow, opening or closing a heavy hatch will take that time, but it would be very helpful to have the option to more quickly jump inside, to the sight, without closing the hatch.

 

 

Agreed, that would be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Having spent some more time with the new T-34, I can add some detail.

 

* The mouse sensitivity when in perscope sight. I noticed I had in-game set a low mouse sensitivity, so I checked what would happen if I bumped it up there and lowered the sensitivity in my mouse software. Suspecting that maybe one of the sight positions was affected by the setting and the other not. But not so. Nothing changed.

I understand the reason why the direction reversal happens when in the periscope sight, the mouse being excessively sensitive, and lacking the visual feedback that the regular sight gives. I see no reason why the interface should be like this.

Fine, when NOT having the eyes on a sight, it's nice to be able to look around more than 180 deg. , but when ON a sight, why even have that at all? Why have that big black globe of useless blackness (of visual angles), in which there is a tiny useful view pyramid? Sights don't work like that.

Even when using the normal gunsight, this is a stupid unnecessary problem for a single player who's had his turret *unnecessarily* move to 12 oclock, jumps back onto the sight, and now has to hunt in the black globe for the useful view-part. None of that difficulty is "simulating" anything.

 

* On a related note, what add's to this is that now the vertical gun movement is quite slow. I got killed a gazillion times trying to get the gun adjusted vertically and have it reverse direction multiple times before being able to calm the bloody thing down. I.e. the exact same issue that happens in the horizontal, but aggravated because the vertical gun movement is slower.

 

* A point I forgot to mention I think, with the 'old' , ahistorical, T-34, you had the fast turret movement with the engine off. Now of course with the engine off it's suuuper slow, which I guess makes sense. This has a huge impact on how we are able to fight in an environment with lots of cover, where you wait behind something and ambush the tiger, relying on being able to get it perpendicularly from the side, at very close range. Now we have to turn the engine on for this, quite often. Gives your position away and the tiger hears you, turns towards you, you're dead. Like all the non-UI points I've made, I'm not criticising this change (assuming it reflects reality), I'm criticising the lineup. There are so many aspects of the situation that aren't historical, the exagerrated importance of anti tank aircraft, the ludicrous "repair" system (which is fun admittedly), AI shooting through forests, stalinium saplings, carts, wells and buckets, that all kill your engine when you bump into them, yada yada yada. But the tank lineup has to be Kursk. And because of that blue get the turreted super tanks, and red get un-turret large caliber tanks? Yet blue are missing their less-capable un-turreted tanks...

It would have been nice if a less strictly historical approach were taken, where red gets let's say T-34-85, so that mission designers, if they so choose, can put together an "ahistorical", but more balanced, mission, where red don't have to rely on either larger numbers, or aircraft.

 

Edited by stupor-mundi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The re-centering of the turret could have a key command, like reset trim for aircraft.  Leave it to the operators to decide when and if to re-center.

 

 

EDIT:  Would it make sense to have a turret command on an axis that could be turned independent of which position you are currently in?  I have a Virpil throttle and the A1 & A2 knobs would work good.

 

Edited by VBF-12_Stick-95
  • Like 2

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

×
×
  • Create New...