How are TC campaigns?

[Rei-sen]

Are they good or it's better to wait for some updates? 

[TJ_TAS]

So far so bad. They seem to have been made by someone who doesn't have a clue about tank warfare.

[Cybermat47]

7 minutes ago, TJ_TAS said:

So far so bad. They seem to have been made by someone who doesn't have a clue about tank warfare.

Care to elaborate?

[TJ_TAS]

Fundamentally incorrect use of assets and tactics.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

8 minutes ago, TJ_TAS said:

Fundamentally incorrect use of assets and tactics.

 

That's still vague enough to be almost meaningless.

[TJ_TAS]

OK for an example. First German mission:-

 

Firstly the enemy tanks attack en masse from the front. They simply drive forward to their death. A better plan for the red tanks would be to have a smaller force act as a fixing force from the front, adopting hull down positions on the ridge. The rest of the tanks would be better to attack from the right flank up through the low ground in a flanking move able to get within close range of the enemy. Doing this would also allow them to be covered by the AT guns further back. Rule number 1 for an attacking force:- Flow like water!.

 

Secondly the AT guns are place also in a frontal attack position and are exposed in front of a woodline. This is utter nonsense. If AT guns were there they would be in the woodline, camouflaged and the first thing you would know about them would be when they opened fire. The Russians were very good in the use of AT weapons and they were the most feared weapon by panzer crews (Read Tigers in the mud or any of the other accounts of tank warfare on the eastern front).

 

Thirdly the AT guns are badly positioned. You do not want to engage tanks from the front. They would be better positioned in the woodlines on the flanks (camouflaged as previously noted). AT guns work best when you can engage the enemy from the sides where their armour is weaker.

 

Fourthly, The AT guns in the town are badly positioned. They would be better placed in the back area of the town covering the roads so they can engage with keyhole shots as the tanks move forward. They would also be better used in combination with the above mentioned AT guns in a mutual cover layout. This means when the tanks move forward to engage one of the groups of guns they expose themselves to the other group.

 

This is tactics 101 and the russians knew their craft. By 1943 they had been at war with the germans for 2 years.

[saldy]

I liked the second mission

 

 

[TJ_TAS]

Just as bad as the first one. Made by someone who does not understand the subject. If the enemy has the 2 forces you first encounter the second force should be attacking into your flank while the first force fixes you in place. Also whoever made them doesn't understand the use of hull down battle positions. In the 1st 2 actions both battle positions are on top of hills with the platoon fully exposed. This is not how you fight with a tank platoon. They should stop short and then move up until they are hull down. In the second action there is a much better position to the right of where your platoon stops which offers and excellent hull down position.

[Gambit21]

@TJ_TAS

 

The builder of these missions has logic and AI parameters to work within that you're not aware of.

Further, there might be some adjustments/changes he could make within those limitations if he was POLITELY made aware of them, rather than you're "doesn't have a clue' tone.

I can tell you as a mission builder, it's not an easy task and sometimes logic fights you.

 

There's a way to go about things.

I would suggest some edits, and some constructive suggestions - lend your insight and help the product improve rather than putting down the creator of the missions, who I happen to be aware put a lot of sweat and effort these campaigns.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

31 minutes ago, TJ_TAS said:

Just as bad as the first one. Made by someone who does not understand the subject.

 

That's a really ridiculous claim.

 

The mission designer is trying to recreate historical events under the constraints of game mechanics. Some things just aren't practical with the limited number of units and simple game logic.

 

Furthermore, what should have happened under a good commander with hindsight is often very different from what actually happened in a battle, for obvious reasons.

 

If you had played through both campaigns, you'd know that there are multiple instances of flanking instead of frontal assaults.

[JG27_Steini]

Biggest problem for me is that those campaigns are completly anonymous. Dont call it a campaign. You just play some missions with different tanks. I am very disappointed, i hoped to play a complete campaign in a choosen tank (division). Now i can play 2-3 missions with my favourite tank and thats all? Very disappointed. I really hope that there will be more. Otherwise i dont know what to do with this simulation.

[Cybermat47]

6 hours ago, saldy said:

I liked the second mission

Is that how you use the German tank gunsight? I’m confused about wether I put the target inside the triangle or just above it.

[Yogiflight]

8 hours ago, TJ_TAS said:

Firstly the enemy tanks attack en masse from the front. They simply drive forward to their death. A better plan for the red tanks would be to have a smaller force act as a fixing force from the front, adopting hull down positions on the ridge. The rest of the tanks would be better to attack from the right flank up through the low ground in a flanking move able to get within close range of the enemy. Doing this would also allow them to be covered by the AT guns further back. Rule number 1 for an attacking force:- Flow like water!.

This is exactly how the Russians attacked. You see it from how we use to handle it, but historically it is correct when Russian tanks attack frontally.

8 hours ago, TJ_TAS said:

Secondly the AT guns are place also in a frontal attack position and are exposed in front of a woodline. This is utter nonsense. If AT guns were there they would be in the woodline, camouflaged and the first thing you would know about them would be when they opened fire. The Russians were very good in the use of AT weapons and they were the most feared weapon by panzer crews (Read Tigers in the mud or any of the other accounts of tank warfare on the eastern front).

 

Yes, that is correct, nothing to add.

8 hours ago, TJ_TAS said:

Thirdly the AT guns are badly positioned. You do not want to engage tanks from the front. They would be better positioned in the woodlines on the flanks (camouflaged as previously noted). AT guns work best when you can engage the enemy from the sides where their armour is weaker.

 

TBH, I am not sure about that. We definitely would try to do that, but I honestly don't know if it was, what the Russians did.

8 hours ago, TJ_TAS said:

Fourthly, The AT guns in the town are badly positioned. They would be better placed in the back area of the town covering the roads so they can engage with keyhole shots as the tanks move forward. They would also be better used in combination with the above mentioned AT guns in a mutual cover layout. This means when the tanks move forward to engage one of the groups of guns they expose themselves to the other group.

I would leave out fighting through towns anyway, as it has nothing to do with how this worked IRL. Tanks were only supporting the infantry, that did the main fighting in towns. This is why there were not that many tank battles in towns. But for that reason the AT guns were positioned at the front of the towns, to try to keep the enemy out of the town.

[Yogiflight]

6 hours ago, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:

Is that how you use the German tank gunsight? I’m confused about wether I put the target inside the triangle or just above it.

The top of the triangle is the aiming point. You put the target inside to measure the mils for getting the correct distance. But important is, how you hit the target.

But as I posted already in other threads, the gunsight should be zoomed in further, until the revearsed triangle on top meets the top of the screen. Anyhow, I don't understand, why you can zoom when in gunsight view, you can't zoom when in bombsight view of a bomber. Make it that it is historically correct and forget this foolish zooming. This is called a simulation, what I see is an arcade game.

[BP_Lizard]

After almost a year of playing nothing but the repetitive TC QMB and the sparsely forum-made missions, this is the best thing that ever happened to TC since sliced bread (or a Tiger-sliced T-34, whichever you prefer.)

[Gambit21]

5 hours ago, BP_Lizard said:

After almost a year of playing nothing but the repetitive TC QMB and the sparsely forum-made missions, this is the best thing that ever happened to TC since sliced bread (or a Tiger-sliced T-34, whichever you prefer.)

 

The ‘forum’ makes missions?

Tank Commander has sliced bread?

 

I would like to know more about both of these items.

 

 

 

I will support this title, but expect a Normandy/hedgerow map at some point.

 

[Thad]

13 hours ago, JG27_Steini said:

Biggest problem for me is that those campaigns are completly anonymous. Dont call it a campaign. You just play some missions with different tanks. I am very disappointed, i hoped to play a complete campaign in a choosen tank (division). Now i can play 2-3 missions with my favourite tank and thats all? Very disappointed. I really hope that there will be more. Otherwise i dont know what to do with this simulation.

 

You do realize that Tank Crew is not a finished product? It is a work in progress. The current included mission were just added.

 

The developers will continue to add to and improve TC.

[I.JG3_CDRSEABEE]

2 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

 

I will support this title, but expect a Normandy/hedgerow map at some point.

 

2 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Bulge too!!

[Gambit21]

Just now, CDRSEABEE said:

 

Bulge too!!

 

Yep

[Yogiflight]

3 hours ago, Thad said:

17 hours ago, JG27_Steini said:

Biggest problem for me is that those campaigns are completly anonymous. Dont call it a campaign. You just play some missions with different tanks. I am very disappointed, i hoped to play a complete campaign in a choosen tank (division). Now i can play 2-3 missions with my favourite tank and thats all? Very disappointed. I really hope that there will be more. Otherwise i dont know what to do with this simulation.

 

You do realize that Tank Crew is not a finished product? It is a work in progress. The current included mission were just added

But how I understand it, the campaigns are finished. I don't think it is planned to change anything of them. IIRC TC is mainly for MP playing, the campaigns just a little adding for SP.

[BP_Lizard]

On 11/12/2019 at 11:29 AM, Gambit21 said:

 

The ‘forum’ makes missions?

Tank Commander has sliced bread?

 

I would like to know more about both of these items.

 

 

 

I will support this title, but expect a Normandy/hedgerow map at some point.

 

?

 

“Forumer-made”

 

”this is the best thing that ever happened since sliced bread”

 

It was late at night and my meds were kicking in. Leave me alone.

 

Edited August 24, 2020 by BP_Lizard

[Gambit21]

lol

[andres43]

I've just finnished the german campaing.... an a large and excellently drawn map just for fast clash at very small areas?? where are the armored movements up to the front, refueling and ammunition? such a large map just to use a small fraction. I hope it is developed some career mode ( altrough it is not historically correct) to exploit the full potential of the map and tanks possibilities.

 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2019 by andres43

[Gambit21]

4 minutes ago, andres43 said:

I've just finnished the german campaing.... an a large and excellently drawn map just for fast clash at very small areas?? where are the armored movements up to the front, refueling and ammunition? such a large map just to use a small fraction. I hope it is developed some career mode ( altrough it is not historically correct) to exploit the full potential of the map and tanks possibilities.

 

 

 

 

It takes a long time and a big effort to create what you experienced...one guy.

So be patient, more will come along, from the devs and other mission makers.

[Sputnik77]

Just finished German campaign and one word: disappointment. 

In all 10 missions I died 2 times. The tasks are trivial - follow the first platoon and kill everything on sight.  The open spaces are vast and empty. There are no trenches, no minefields, no anti tank barriers, defending AT guns and tanks usually simply just stay in open field.

AT guns are super easy to spot with their bright colour and usually your friendly tanks will open fire at them first. 

In general the leading tank platoon wipes almost all enemies on their own.

 

In last mission I didn't even kill a single target. After initial attack my driver just decided to take me for 5km sight seeing straight to last mission waypoint. On my way there, the leading company was apparently involved in some fighting and they won however it was in totally different place and I didn't even participate. 

 

Ughhh.... is this what I have been waiting for 2 years? Maybe I had too high expectations hoping for a game equal or better than Steel Fury with multiplayer. 

 

A pity.

Edited November 13, 2019 by Sputnik77

[Cybermat47]

10 minutes ago, andres43 said:

I've just finnished the german campaing.... an a large and excellently drawn map just for fast clash at very small areas??

A quick look at the historical battle shows that the battles did take place in those “very small areas”.

[JG27_Steini]

11 hours ago, Thad said:

 

You do realize that Tank Crew is not a finished product? It is a work in progress. The current included mission were just added.

 

The developers will continue to add to and improve TC.

 

I really hope they do. I also really hoped to get an campaion in IL2-BOS, but we had to wait further 3 years till Kuban. TC was announced right after Kuban release. You understand that we thought of an campaign similar to IL2, not just some missions. Untill now there was no word about divisions, choosen tanks or a tank crew. 

[Voidhunger]

On 11/12/2019 at 7:23 AM, JG27_Steini said:

Biggest problem for me is that those campaigns are completly anonymous. Dont call it a campaign. You just play some missions with different tanks. I am very disappointed, i hoped to play a complete campaign in a choosen tank (division). Now i can play 2-3 missions with my favourite tank and thats all? Very disappointed. I really hope that there will be more. Otherwise i dont know what to do with this simulation.

Yep something like in Panzer elite would be nice.

Right now its totally anonymous and extremely short.

Single player content is now very weak.

Also in QMB you can only engage older 3d models of the tanks. QMB as a whole is very bad for TC.

[TJ_TAS]

On 11/12/2019 at 7:28 PM, Yogiflight said:

This is exactly how the Russians attacked. You see it from how we use to handle it, but historically it is correct when Russian tanks attack frontally.

 

You would be incorrect in this assumption. I suggest you read about soviet tank tactics. They would use frontal attacks but this would be a fixing force while other units flanked into or around defending units.

[BP_Lizard]

5 hours ago, Voidhunger said:

Single player content is now very weak.

Also in QMB you can only engage older 3d models of the tanks. QMB as a whole is very bad for TC.

Not entirely true. I was able to engage Tigers in the Rhineland map.

[Sputnik77]

Starter soviet campaign and must say it is a lot more interesting IMO than German one. 

[Yogiflight]

4 hours ago, BP_Lizard said:

Not entirely true. I was able to engage Tigers in the Rhineland map.

Yes, you are right. I had Sherman tanks as enemies on the Rhineland map, when I did my tests in QMB after the last update.

[BP_Lizard]

8 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

Yes, you are right. I had Sherman tanks as enemies on the Rhineland map, when I did my tests in QMB after the last update.

Yup. And the Jagdpanzers, too.

[Voidhunger]

Just tested Rhineland map against Shermans and they have no damage decals.

 

Anyway enemy AI still see through forest and in one occasion I was destroyed through the building and the building was without damage.

[Thad]

28 minutes ago, Voidhunger said:

Anyway enemy AI still see through forest and in one occasion I was destroyed through the building and the building was without damage.

 

Salutations tankers, 

 

Yes, this gameplay situation remains a problem. Although the developers have improved things, in this area, there is still much that should be done about it (if they can).

To present a first rate ground battle simulation, terrain and other solid objects must provide obstruction to (lines of sight LOS) and therefore interfere with weapon fire. 

[LLv24_SukkaVR]

It would be really great if you could play these missions with your friend in the same tank.

[Voidhunger]

On 11/14/2019 at 6:37 PM, Thad said:

 

Salutations tankers, 

 

Yes, this gameplay situation remains a problem. Although the developers have improved things, in this area, there is still much that should be done about it (if they can).

To present a first rate ground battle simulation, terrain and other solid objects must provide obstruction to (lines of sight LOS) and therefore interfere with weapon fire. 

 

This was surprise to me Only recorded track showed me what happened

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/12255-graphics-models-and-maps/?do=findComment&comment=854206

[vlad_8011]

Sovet mission - counterattack - mission never ends, tried 6 times and it have no end.

[SCG_Neun]

Still a work in progress, but I've seen some really neat improvements along the way.  I make missions and usually play online with our squad running mission objective based missions in conjunction with some of our air wing members and I have to tell you, it just keeps getting better and better with each new patch.  I understand the frustration with the newly released campaign but give it some time.  Line of site, issues are a pain and care has to be taken to position assets to reduce this problem as much as possible.  Hull down positioning is a trial and error process for me and very time consuming.  

[Blitzen]

On 11/12/2019 at 5:11 PM, Sputnik77 said:

Just finished German campaign and one word: disappointment. 

In all 10 missions I died 2 times. The tasks are trivial - follow the first platoon and kill everything on sight.  The open spaces are vast and empty. There are no trenches, no minefields, no anti tank barriers, defending AT guns and tanks usually simply just stay in open field.

AT guns are super easy to spot with their bright colour and usually your friendly tanks will open fire at them first. 

In general the leading tank platoon wipes almost all enemies on their own.

 

In last mission I didn't even kill a single target. After initial attack my driver just decided to take me for 5km sight seeing straight to last mission waypoint. On my way there, the leading company was apparently involved in some fighting and they won however it was in totally different place and I didn't even participate. 

 

Ughhh.... is this what I have been waiting for 2 years? Maybe I had too high expectations hoping for a game equal or better than Steel Fury with multiplayer. 

 

A pity.

I think I actually did hit a mine on the second mission that brewed up my Tiger pretty quickly.I was rumbling around just exploring the empty countryside after all the Russians had been done away with & then BOOM no more tiger and not by an AT gun either...they were all gone....I think ...

May I say this about the missions in progress state.I have my fingers crossed for a lot more.I like the tools we have possible ( tanks , vehicles ,aircraft) but I had somewhat unrealistically thought TC would be so much more.I say this as a sort life long historical fan of the Battle of Kursk.In my mind i pictured the lines of Russian defensive works , the panorama of the battleground , the packs of opposing tanks on the horizon with the ever present drama of do the Russians hold or do the Germans break thru this time? At the very least I thought that we'd see real ( perhaps small portions...)portions of the battlefield as they were on the 4th SS Panzer Army's death ride north perhaps day by day, and by our presence perhaps change the results..maybe? I should have known better, I guess.After all with the exception of the maps & the equipment in BoS BoM, & BoB we don't have anything that indicates what was really happening to the actually air forces involved even on a small scale. there is no day to day that reflects successes, losses, attrition, infantry,weather effects etc..

I know from reading the above that its probably too much to ask either of the game's engine or the hard working developers. The same might be said initially of Clod until the man at Desastersoft did 3rd party campaigns that really came closer to the battle of Britain day by day, at least the illusion of missions on a calendar basis. Sadly those no longer work..

 Back to TC- Playing it in VR makes up for alot of the disappointment.I would have never guessed I could be commanding my own Tiger following a Schwerpunkt of other tigers across the Russian steppe, but there I am, and that's pretty cool...or is it hot?