Jump to content
Jason_Williams

Discussion of GAZ-MM 72-K and Sd.Kfz. 10/5 Flak 38 Vehicle Mounted AAA Pre-Orders

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:


In my response, I very specifically precluded aircraft development.


then you responded to the wrong post, because I clearly was specifically referring to aircraft.

Share this post


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

 

You do have a Licenses page in your profile. But maybe we will add this, if it's possible.

 

Jason

+1 for the request.
Each time there is a sale I need to run the game and go to QMB to check what I already have and what planes I need to purchase. :russian_ru:

BTW if one page can show the purchase then its a matter of sql query to show it in other page (inner join I would guess).

 

 

About the vehicles. I am a single player guy, not sure what type of missions you can do with AA, even Armed Assault series added 1 or two missions per game in the series..

But in multiplayer I can see how it can be popular. Maybe it can force me to finally play MP 😜

Edited by Zeev

Share this post


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


How did you reach the conclusion that the development of trucks with guns bolted to them would affect the development of aircraft?


Re-read your post. You asked where this module could affect the development of aircraft. Since aircraft have to be developed, tested and then inserted into the sim, we have an opportunity cost issue.

 

I made this point specifically by differentiating between 3rd parties who create the module and core team that enable its inclusion in the sim.
 

Thus the combined work of inserting an AA vehicle as a developed and playable entity into the sim affects the insertion of a developed and playable aircraft into the sim. The 3rd party work for a vehicle and aircraft can be concurrent and simultaneous with zero mutual impact. The integration is more of a priority and focus of effort within a small team.
 

Thus there is an opportunity cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

This is a fantastic way to bridge TC and BoX Planes together. I'm excited about what this might add to the multiplayer environment.

Whilst the price point is a little too high for me, this will be on my radar when I'm richer or a sales comes.

I hope many other people buy it so I can shoot them from my attack aircraft.

 

The Yak-9T is another attempt at a bridge.  A squadron of tanks covered by AA trucks vs a gaggle Yak-9T defending whatever the tanks are attacking.  Meanwhile the standard air battle stuff is going on, with the Yak-9Ts being escorted by one side and being targeted by the other.  The Il-2s even have a solid role in attacking the AA trucks, leaving the Yak-9Ts to worry only about the tanks.  Bomber play could be incorporated into the flow as well, most easily for the side that is attacking I would think. Im not sure if both sides have all of the necessary tools, but its close.  It's a solid idea for sure.   Getting enough players in all roles to consistently actualize such a battle is another problem all together.  

Edited by dprumph33
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its a nice addition to the game and Im expecting excellent in game 3d model like in TC, but  I dont play MP so I have to skip it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dprumph33 said:

 

The Yak-9T is another attempt at a bridge.  A squadron of tanks covered by AA trucks vs a gaggle Yak-9T defending whatever the tanks are attacking.  Meanwhile the standard air battle stuff is going on, with the Yak-9Ts being escorted by one side and being targeted by the other.  It's a solid idea for sure.  Getting enough players in all roles to consistently actualize such a battle is another problem all together.  

 

flight organization is the weakest link in the IL2 series. You can blame lack of in-game VoIP with assignable squads, the myriad of discord 'servers' for dedicated MP servers, TeamSpeak clients, SRS, etc etc.

 

Plus, you're outline a very specific battle scenario, which limits the player's attention span/interest if he/she doesn't have that particular plane, or simply not interested in flying it.

 

Hence all of the MP servers are in to:

a) historical war (with large plane selection, target areas for everyone's taste 

b) ahistorical war (same as above but with larger and ahistorical planeset)

c) fantasy (everything is allowed period)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting addition. Needless to say, I would have preferred a WW1 flak unit...😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:


Re-read your post. You asked where this module could affect the development of aircraft. Since aircraft have to be developed, tested and then inserted into the sim, we have an opportunity cost issue.

 


Yes, I specifically referred to aircraft.  You then responded with a post that specifically precluded aircraft.  So you responded to the wrong person.  
 

In any case, let’s assume there is some sort of “opportunity cost” issue here.  If only there was a group of people with access to the finances and presumably in possession of sales research who could make an informed decision about whether this is worth the cost.  Let me know if you think of anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh look, this is turning into yet another "anything the developers do that doesn't match my personal priorities is wrong" thread. Sometimes I wonder why Jason and the team don't pack it all in, and start making fruit-matching games for iPhones instead.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


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


Yes, I specifically referred to aircraft.  You then responded with a post that specifically precluded aircraft.  So you responded to the wrong person.  
 

In any case, let’s assume there is some sort of “opportunity cost” issue here.  If only there was a group of people with access to the finances and presumably in possession of sales research who could make an informed decision about whether this is worth the cost.  Let me know if you think of anyone.


No, I precluded the 3rd party developers of a given module - please try to keep up.

 

I am not ‘assuming‘: there IS an opportunity cost as there exist for most things in life. I did not slaughter and pluck the chicken that I had for lunch nor mill the flour for my cake (3rd party suppliers FTW), but to create palatable food out of each, I - as a ‘small team’ - could not undertake simultaneously. That is ‘opportunity cost’.

 

I do not have access to said sales research - and neither do you - but I would wager heavily that a sim called Il-2 and focussed on aircraft is unlikely to be sustained by the release of a rather niche ground vehicle.

 

If the team decided that this was worthwhile then I hope it was. But I suspect that those excited to buy it vs. those hoping for an aircraft were about 1 to 5.

 

It is new revenue and if it sustains their effort then all to the good, but whatever you say there will be energy directed away from core BoN optimisation and integration owing to the need for inclusion of a new ground vehicle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, JG51_Beazil said:

Just want to point out that Jason stated this was the work of a third-party that was contracted to deliver this project.  The cost of each module is (for me) $9.99 CAD.

That's it.

Each addition to the overall project is just that; an addition.  The work of a third party fulfilling a contractual obligation has nothing to do with the work of others in different areas of Great Battles development.  Why are we talking about other areas of work and getting ourselves upset about it?  

Planes?  Great!  Tanks?  Cool!  Mobile AA vehicles?  Cool!  

If past is indicative of the future, we know this team will work on all areas of our sim in an ongoing fashion like they always have.  I have faith in this team and its vision.

Petrovich, Jason and in DD's were said many times that 3rd party is doing 3d models only while Petrovuch himself commented he was working on FC FM  for example, so it does have to do with 1C/777 team splitting work with 3rd party studios, and have impact on aeral ww2 development.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 минут назад, BlitzPig_EL сказал:

As someone that regularly maintains and drives Model A Fords for my customers, the GAZ AA will be an instant buy, as will the German vehicle.

The shot of the cab of the GAZ AA is spot on for a Model A or AA Ford.

 

So cool.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

flight organization is the weakest link in the IL2 series. You can blame lack of in-game VoIP with assignable squads, the myriad of discord 'servers' for dedicated MP servers, TeamSpeak clients, SRS, etc etc.

 

Plus, you're outline a very specific battle scenario, which limits the player's attention span/interest if he/she doesn't have that particular plane, or simply not interested in flying it.

 

Hence all of the MP servers are in to:

a) historical war (with large plane selection, target areas for everyone's taste 

b) ahistorical war (same as above but with larger and ahistorical planeset)

c) fantasy (everything is allowed period)

 

 

 

Yeah this is true, but it does seem like making a combined arms battle platform is sort of a goal for the sim.  Whether or not this well ever truly be realized is another thing all together.  There are probably a lot of things that are needed first to make it really possible.  The evidence is there.  We have had ground attack planes forever, but now for the first time we have a player controlled "ground target" that is not a tank, and unlike a tank, this one can fight back.  Tanks were the first player controlled ground target, traditional ground attack planes, IL-2, did attack them and succeed, the Yak-9T (designed to kill tanks) suspiciously appeared in the sim shortly after the tanks.  It makes sense to me that they are on some trying to create a large combined arms battle a reality because they keep giving us additional tools to do so.

Edited by dprumph33
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, 216th_Cat said:

Well I like the idea of having a player-controlled AA gun. Much more than I do the idea of driving a tank around in a flight sim. To me TC feels like a totally separate game, albeit a fairly interesting one at that. The two original driveable tanks were ok to muck about in, but driveable and player-controlled ack-ack seems much more integrated with the flying side of things and will probably get much more use. From me at least. Looking forward to giving it a go.

Cheers.

Grab the chaps, when these come, we drive in formation to a priced target. And train deflection shooting. 🤗🤗😬

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great stuff! I was beginning to worry that these ones were not coming at all! Excellent addition to both Tank Crew and IL-2 BoX series!

 

Now all I need is StuG III (There are several in driving condition in Finnish tank museum if you need resources, wink, wink 😉) and perhaps IS-2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

I did not slaughter and pluck the chicken that I had for lunch nor mill the flour for my cake (3rd party suppliers FTW), but to create palatable food out of each, I - as a ‘small team’ - could not undertake simultaneously. That is ‘opportunity cost’.

 

It's possible that the 3D models aren't arriving quickly enough to saturate the personnel responsible for integrating them into the game (you can't bake the cake if you're waiting for the flour).

 

Without internal information, it's difficult to determine whether Normandy development is impacted in any significant way. In the past, the team did have three large projects underway simultaneously (BOBP, TC, and FC).

Edited by Mitthrawnuruodo
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Oh look, this is turning into yet another "anything the developers do that doesn't match my personal priorities is wrong" thread. Sometimes I wonder why Jason and the team don't pack it all in, and start making fruit-matching games for iPhones instead.

 


I never said ‘wrong’, I merely opined that there was a wider development cost. If Op Cost < RoI then the team is clearly doing something right.

 

But I still would have preferred a Hurricane 😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just in to our News Desk:

 

By way of warning:  Hump Day has been shown to increase the risk of 'Our GAZ-MM'.

 

You've been warned.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

but whatever you say there will be energy directed away from core BoN optimisation and integration owing to the need for inclusion of a new ground vehicle.


But it definitely won’t affect aircraft development, and I was specifically referring to that.  So go bother someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dprumph33 said:

 

Yeah this is true, but it does seem like making a combined arms battle platform is sort of a goal for the sim.  Whether or not this well ever truly be realized is another thing all together.  There are probably a lot of things that are needed first to make it really possible.  The evidence is there.  We have had ground attack planes forever, but now for the first time we have a player controlled "ground target" that is not a tank, and unlike a tank, this one can fight back.  Tanks were the first player controlled ground target, traditional ground attack planes, IL-2, did attack them and succeed, the Yak-9T (designed to kill tanks) suspiciously appeared in the sim shortly after the tanks.  It makes sense to me that they are on some trying to create a large combined arms battle a reality because they keep giving us additional tools to do so.

 

yes, it's a nice dream, albeit a pipe dream at best for general MP. :)  I can see it as a possibility for a large and organized squad that hosts a locked down server for its squad members only, or again in a private coop. But for the general public MP servers it's a distant fantasy. 😄 

Share this post


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


But it definitely won’t affect aircraft development, and I was specifically referring to that.  So go bother someone else.


That is quite the sulky and bizarrely conceited response. You ‘definitely’ have 100% accurate information on this claim? I began with a premise that focus on ‘x’ is generally detrimental to ‘y’. You appear to have run out of argument.

 

Meanwhile, Grand Admiral Thrawn made a very sensible point that I had not considered: that the core team used effort on this because of the relative development in the supply chain. Kudos to Thrawn.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, EAF19_Marsh said:


That is quite the sulky and bizarrely conceited response. You ‘definitely’ have 100% accurate information on this claim? I began with a premise that focus on ‘x’ is generally detrimental to ‘y’. You appear to have run out of argument.

 


Let me know when you figure out who has access to the best data to determine if this is probably worth the cost.

Share this post


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

 

yes, it's a nice dream, albeit a pipe dream at best for general MP. :)  I can see it as a possibility for a large and organized squad that hosts a locked down server for its squad members only, or again in a private coop. But for the general public MP servers it's a distant fantasy. 😄 

 

Its up to the community to make it happen.  The devs just have to make it possible, and they seem to be trying to do so.  In this case we have to be forward thinking because if we look back and say "oh this is how its always been so it always will be" then we never get anywhere.  Look at the state of the sim in 2014, 2016, and even all the way up until the announcement of TC, there was no reason to expect this type of combined arms battle.  Now 3 years later, TC is actually about to finish EA and they are adding in AA trucks so maybe there is.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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


Let me know when you figure out who has access to the best data to determine if this is probably worth the cost.


You claimed ‘definitely’, it therefore falls upon your shoulders to gather the data: you must thusly defend your claim. I only postulated that marginal effort on the AA vehicle was detrimental to team time and resources for integration of other assets. This is generally true across all industries. But Thrawn made a good point so I surrender the argument to him.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dprumph33 said:

 

Its up to the community to make it happen.  The devs just have to make it possible, and they seem to be trying to do so.  In this case we have to be forward thinking because if we look back and say "oh this is how its always been so it always will be" then we never get anywhere.  Look at the state of the sim in 2014, 2016, and even all the way up until the announcement of TC, there was no reason to expect this type of combined arms battle.  Now 3 years later, TC is actually about to finish EA and they are adding in AA trucks so maybe there is.

 

i'm as hopeful as you are, bud, but i'm a realist when I see what happens on MP servers day after day for the past 3 years. 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Here’s the thing, I understand why some people won’t like this.  They want planes.  That’s it.  But saying that you don’t like it because of “lost opportunity”, that makes no sense.  We don’t know anything about the costs or the opportunity.  This might be a slam dunk book Jason a 6 month vacation in Tahiti opportunity.  We have no idea.  I assume the dev time has some idea, or they wouldn’t do it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, this should've been announced on April 1st. What a joke, trucks for a ridiculous price. Unbelievable.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gambit21 said:

 

I love the idea of adding these vehicles just like I did re-arm/refuel. Added functionality. I know you were supportive of rearm/refuel as well for reasons you outline here.


No, I don’t like it because I don’t think it was worth any cost.  I don’t like arcade features.  These AA trucks are not arcade feature.

2 minutes ago, Arthur-A said:

Lol, this should've been announced on April 1st. What a joke, trucks for a ridiculous price. Unbelievable.


They’re not trucks.  They’re trucks with big guns bolted to them.  Totally different.

Share this post


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


Here’s the thing, I understand why some people won’t like this.  They want planes.  That’s it.  But saying that you don’t like it because of “lost opportunity”, that makes no sense.  We don’t know anything about the costs or the opportunity.  This might be a slam dunk book Jason a 6 month vacation in Tahiti opportunity.  We have no idea.  I assume the dev time has some idea, or they wouldn’t do it.


That is quite the back-pedalling. I explained - very carefully -  my reasons why I opined (and it was only an opinion) that this represented an opportunity cost. I so not ‘like’ this module and will not buy it but I have and will likely continue to buy most of what the team provides.

 

The team has their roadmap and their allocation of scarce resources. Unless the have developed (pun?) a perpetual motion machine in the meantime then the effort sunk into this module might have been focussed on other items. I never claimed special insight nor any right to direct what the team should do. I certainly never claimed - unlike yourself - that anything was ‘definite’.
 

Anything else?

Share this post


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

lol HAPPY HUMP DAY EVERYONE


That’s just what I said to the wife...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:


That is quite the back-pedalling. 


It’s nothing of the sort.  You don’t like adding AA trucks.  I think it’s a great idea.  I thought it was a great idea back when TC was first announced.  I’ll buy them both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So wait...

 

No Battle of France? No Spanish Civil War?

 

Can we at least get enhanced binocs for the AAA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:


That’s just what I said to the wife...

At least you'll get some comfort after this announcement!😂

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Arthur-A said:

Lol, this should've been announced on April 1st. What a joke, trucks for a ridiculous price. Unbelievable.

 

I wouldn't call a half-track a truck. If you're not interested don't buy them, but there will be plenty who do. These have zero effect on our aircraft plans and nothing was delayed because of them. And these were announced two years ago, so they should not be a surprise to anyone. If I can build more planes I will, our history is full of many planes being built and you have 9 more flyable coming for Normandy still. 

 

And those complaining about the price - I know that the majority of users have no paid full retail for any of our products. Who else around here discounts products as often or as much as we do? Early Adopters pay a bit more and help us defer the initial build cost. Later on discounts bring in more sales. Our formula works and that's partly why we are still here all these years later.

 

Jason

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 25

Share this post


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


It’s nothing of the sort.  You don’t like adding AA trucks.  I think it’s a great idea.  I thought it was a great idea back when TC was first announced.  I’ll buy them both.


Applauding this or not was never a point of contention. You could equally argue prioritising the Hurricane was an opportunity cost to an AA vehicle.


Though I have my preferences, this was a disinterested debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a single and multiplayer perspective, does one need to own a specific BoX product and/or Tank Crew in order to deploy these during a game?

 

I assume the server needs to enable them. But then as a player, do I just pick a mobile AAA truck instead of a plane, and away I go? Or perhaps I have to pick a forward position (not an airfield) to select a vehicle? 

 

I am interested in this as an additional gameplay layer, but unclear how I can use it in a game. Any details/scenarios welcome :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have visions of someone sitting many Km away from the enemy field lobbing shells onto their spawn point based on a spotter helping them get the range and direction.  Sure the enemy might find the spotter and shoot it down but it could probably remain quite high and far away and still do the job and once the gun is zero'd in it would not care if the spotter has gone.   Finding a single truck in a treeline 2.5Km away could prove to be near impossible.

Edited by 56RAF_Roblex
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

From a single and multiplayer perspective, does one need to own a specific BoX product and/or Tank Crew in order to deploy these during a game?

 

I assume the server needs to enable them. But then as a player, do I just pick a mobile AAA truck instead of a plane, and away I go? Or perhaps I have to pick a forward position (not an airfield) to select a vehicle? 

 

I am interested in this as an additional gameplay layer, but unclear how I can use it in a game. Any details/scenarios welcome :)

 

It’s no different than an aircraft. :)

You need to own it, it needs to exist in the mission.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...