Representing technical problems ?

[WildWilly]

Esp. with the Ferdinand and the Panther there had been innumerous problems causing technical breakdowns, not only in the kursk era, but also later. Is this part of the game ? Engine fire with Panther ? Problems with the petrol-electric sys of the ferdinand ? Also engine probs with Tiger ... i tested till now, but nothing occures ... would make a more realistic gameplay

[LukeFF]

No to all

[SCG_judgedeath3]

Although its easier to overheat and damage/destroy the engine of the panther tank if one dont check the temperature and driving it too hard, same for ferdinand, in comparison to tiger and panzer IV.(they can also get damaged or engines to burn if one handle them badly).

But nothing more than that at the moment.

[JG27_Steini]

10 hours ago, WildWilly said:

Esp. with the Ferdinand and the Panther there had been innumerous problems causing technical breakdowns, not only in the kursk era, but also later. Is this part of the game ? Engine fire with Panther ? Problems with the petrol-electric sys of the ferdinand ? Also engine probs with Tiger ... i tested till now, but nothing occures ... would make a more realistic gameplay

 

Do you really want to have this simulated? It would be really annoying. No game is simulating random failures. It does not make any sense in a computer game. Only the player should be responsible for problems, not a random algorithm. 

[WildWilly]

It is called simulation? Ok than it SHOULD simulate.. panthet for example wad irl a technical desaster till the end, more or less the tiget slso not to speak about ferdi...like in real life pz iv was the workhorse of the WEhrmacht and stugIII the tank with the most confirmed tank kills. Yes i want reality..thats the reason i got this game...if i want lausy bs i would go for Wot or Wt...but il2 is quality and realism. If il2 tc develops maintainance crews could be called it with button... i don t want to promote this false image that panther and tiger had been  technical mastetpieces...in fact they had been rolling problems.yes i would like such elements if game develops

[LachenKrieg]

2 hours ago, WildWilly said:

It is called simulation? Ok than it SHOULD simulate.. panthet for example wad irl a technical desaster till the end, more or less the tiget slso not to speak about ferdi...like in real life pz iv was the workhorse of the WEhrmacht and stugIII the tank with the most confirmed tank kills. Yes i want reality..thats the reason i got this game...if i want lausy bs i would go for Wot or Wt...but il2 is quality and realism. If il2 tc develops maintainance crews could be called it with button... i don t want to promote this false image that panther and tiger had been  technical mastetpieces...in fact they had been rolling problems.yes i would like such elements if game develops

I get your point and wouldn't disagree, but there might be another way to look at this.

 

You are right, it is well documented that early Panthers for example suffered a lot of mechanical problems. And when those breakdowns occurred, the vehicles were either taken out of combat and sent for service, or abandoned on the field if the unit was not recoverable.

 

Some Panthers had less problems though and saw combat duty. For the sake of game play, I accept the vehicle I am in to be a simulation of an operational tank at least as I start the mission/session. If I overheat the engine, loose a track, or take a hit that causes damage to the various mechanical systems modeled in Tank Crew, then I have to get it repaired, or abandon if that is not possible. 

 

I was in a Quick Mission last night where after having a track blown off, it took 9 minutes to get back up and running. I elected to wait out the repair time because I wanted to try and finish the mission. Luckily I was in a safe position to even do that, because quite often what follows shortly after a cut track is a trip back to the Quick Mission menu after your tank has been completely destroyed. The night before last, I was in another QM where after taking a real beating from a volley of  SU122 HE shells, I had to abandon the mission because while I could swivel my turret, I couldn't elevate the gun and had no prospects of repairing it. Of the 10 mission I did last night, 6 ended in either complete destruction, or an abandoned vehicle. That is a 60% fail rate. 

 

So IMO, what we currently have modeled in Tank Crew is already pretty decent, and I find it does add a lot of realism/variation in game play. Not to say that it couldn't be improved on, or that the Dev's should stop looking for ways to bring more realism to the damage/ballistics model, but they are off to a real good start.

 

In anticipation of the upcoming AAA vehicles, I think it would be a real bonus if the Devs included the ability to use the AAA trucks as RRR zones in addition to their anti-air role. This would really add to the players role, and the popularity of wanting to use it IMO. Even just as anti-air vehicles, they will make an excellent addition to the GBS, but it would be great if they could double as a mobile support crew.

Edited December 10, 2020 by LachenKrieg

[JG27_Steini]

3 hours ago, WildWilly said:

It is called simulation? Ok than it SHOULD simulate.. panthet for example wad irl a technical desaster till the end, more or less the tiget slso not to speak about ferdi...like in real life pz iv was the workhorse of the WEhrmacht and stugIII the tank with the most confirmed tank kills. Yes i want reality..thats the reason i got this game...if i want lausy bs i would go for Wot or Wt...but il2 is quality and realism. If il2 tc develops maintainance crews could be called it with button... i don t want to promote this false image that panther and tiger had been  technical mastetpieces...in fact they had been rolling problems.yes i would like such elements if game develops

 

A simulation can not simulate all. This is dump. Image engine failure with a plane. Pilot dead. Great. Also it would change many aspects massive because you can not just break equipement on a single vehicle. You need to do it FOR EVERYTHING then. Destroying german Ferdinand engine would mean you have to jam allied machine guns as it happened reguarly. Where should that end? How do you do the alghorithm, because everyting can break. Especially the russian tanks where not that great as there are in the game, no the russian mechanics where master in bringing the tanks back to service. Especially the gear shift had problems and it was very cold it. The german tanker had other big problems like missing head security. Do you want that to be modelled too? You can not give a player disadvantages, because the vehicle had problems earlier. No player would use this vehicle anymore and it would massively change the current balance (depending on the year and side). Do you really think german player would buy a game when the equipment will crash constantly? How do you sell a Me 262 when it will finish your career constantly. German equipment hat its problems, no doubt, but when you have problems with it now, it might be your fault.

Edited December 10, 2020 by JG27_Steini

[WildWilly]

13 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

I get your point and wouldn't disagree, but there might be another way to look at this.

 

You are right, it is well documented that early Panthers for example suffered a lot of mechanical problems. And when those breakdowns occurred, the vehicles were either taken out of combat and sent for service, or abandoned on the field if the unit was not recoverable.

 

Some Panthers had less problems though and saw combat duty. For the sake of game play, I accept the vehicle I am in to be a simulation of an operational tank at least as I start the mission/session. If I overheat the engine, loose a track, or take a hit that causes damage to the various mechanical systems modeled in Tank Crew, then I have to get it repaired, or abandon if that is not possible. 

 

I was in a Quick Mission last night where after having a track blown off, it took 9 minutes to get back up and running. I elected to wait out the repair time because I wanted to try and finish the mission. Luckily I was in a safe position to even do that, because quite often what follows shortly after a cut track is a trip back to the Quick Mission menu after your tank has been completely destroyed. The night before last, I was in another QM where after taking a real beating from a volley of  SU122 HE shells, I had to abandon the mission because while I could swivel my turret, I couldn't elevate the gun and had no prospects of repairing it. Of the 10 mission I did last night, 6 ended in either complete destruction, or an abandoned vehicle. That is a 60% fail rate. 

 

So IMO, what we currently have modeled in Tank Crew is already pretty decent, and I find it does add a lot of realism/variation in game play. Not to say that it couldn't be improved on, or that the Dev's should stop looking for ways to bring more realism to the damage/ballistics model, but they are off to a real good start.

 

In anticipation of the upcoming AAA vehicles, I think it would be a real bonus if the Devs included the ability to use the AAA trucks as RRR zones in addition to their anti-air role. This would really add to the players role, and the popularity of wanting to use it IMO. Even just as anti-air vehicles, they will make an excellent addition to the GBS, but it would be great if they could double as a mobile support crew.

Hello, i do agree with some of your points. And maybe it would be too complex. maybe some of the hidden obstacles can represent the technical issues the panther had till the end of it s " carreer". It NEVER EVER was that successfull tank.. of course it was superior to a sherman, t34 at distance due to the excellent main gun. but it lacks mobility and reliability. the problem with the so called " Vorgelege" never had been solved. Engine fires happened even in 1945... like the tiger, king tiger it was more or less a GUNPLATFORM , firefight at distance. of course i know, that there should be a compromise realism-playable. if they could improve the sound a bit, i can accept :-)...  many poeple have a " propaganda " view on Panther and Tiger, espec. King Tiger ( which has had awful problems with jamming turrets and was terrible underpowered ). In fact the mai battles had been faught by Panzer IV and Stug III, later has the highest number of confirmed tank kills. 

13 hours ago, JG27_Steini said:

 

A simulation can not simulate all. This is dump. Image engine failure with a plane. Pilot dead. Great. Also it would change many aspects massive because you can not just break equipement on a single vehicle. You need to do it FOR EVERYTHING then. Destroying german Ferdinand engine would mean you have to jam allied machine guns as it happened reguarly. Where should that end? How do you do the alghorithm, because everyting can break. Especially the russian tanks where not that great as there are in the game, no the russian mechanics where master in bringing the tanks back to service. Especially the gear shift had problems and it was very cold it. The german tanker had other big problems like missing head security. Do you want that to be modelled too? You can not give a player disadvantages, because the vehicle had problems earlier. No player would use this vehicle anymore and it would massively change the current balance (depending on the year and side). Do you really think german player would buy a game when the equipment will crash constantly? How do you sell a Me 262 when it will finish your career constantly. German equipment hat its problems, no doubt, but when you have problems with it now, it might be your fault.

Hmm i don t get ur point. Complete technical breakdown and jammed MG ? Sorry, never heard that a PzIV was taken out by a cal 30 or 50... the russian tanks, especially the t34 was the FIRST EVER EXISTING TANK which deserved that name, others had been gunplatforms on tracks. the power to weight ratio, the armament, the shape excellent, excellent mobility. and in fact, the t34 was the tank which won the eastern war... modern tankwarfare has to co combine firepower and mobility armor sooner or later of minor importance due to the development of higheffective tank ammo... any tank of today f.e is taken out by a javeline. the t34 was produced in masses, with sometimes awful quality, but in fact the panther was the try of germany to get something on tracks, which can counter efficiant.  but in fact this ios not the place to discuss the horrible german doctrine of armored warfare ( thanks god it was horrible )in the late war... f.e the daimler benz idea of a t34 was a much better idea. and some of your points are a bit childish. if u bump ur head in the tank will not cause a breakdown of the engine. but if a tank has a horrible designed mechanical layout, this has a direct impact to mobile warfare. horrible fuel consumption... and a bit you behave like a typical WoT forum member. i mayself placed an idea, and i realy don t have any probs with anything, cause still it is a game. maybe my only fault was to read your comment and answer ?  maybe we can keep the forum somehow polite ? You have your idea, u talk aboput selling. i did not buy a me 262, i bought bodenplatte... :-) if u buy vehicles to ride crosscountry with the idiotic german " panzerlied " on earphones thinking that there is nothing which can stop you, maybe thats your fault ? :-) anyway, enjoy gaming and perhaps think about the meaning of the word " tolerance ".. i am old enough to tell you, that my father was staff officer in the 14th. pzdiv, and many thing i therefore know by first hand... have a nice day

[JG27_Steini]

6 hours ago, WildWilly said:

Hello, i do agree with some of your points. And maybe it would be too complex. maybe some of the hidden obstacles can represent the technical issues the panther had till the end of it s " carreer". It NEVER EVER was that successfull tank.. of course it was superior to a sherman, t34 at distance due to the excellent main gun. but it lacks mobility and reliability. the problem with the so called " Vorgelege" never had been solved. Engine fires happened even in 1945... like the tiger, king tiger it was more or less a GUNPLATFORM , firefight at distance. of course i know, that there should be a compromise realism-playable. if they could improve the sound a bit, i can accept :-)...  many poeple have a " propaganda " view on Panther and Tiger, espec. King Tiger ( which has had awful problems with jamming turrets and was terrible underpowered ). In fact the mai battles had been faught by Panzer IV and Stug III, later has the highest number of confirmed tank kills. 

Hmm i don t get ur point. Complete technical breakdown and jammed MG ? Sorry, never heard that a PzIV was taken out by a cal 30 or 50... the russian tanks, especially the t34 was the FIRST EVER EXISTING TANK which deserved that name, others had been gunplatforms on tracks. the power to weight ratio, the armament, the shape excellent, excellent mobility. and in fact, the t34 was the tank which won the eastern war... modern tankwarfare has to co combine firepower and mobility armor sooner or later of minor importance due to the development of higheffective tank ammo... any tank of today f.e is taken out by a javeline. the t34 was produced in masses, with sometimes awful quality, but in fact the panther was the try of germany to get something on tracks, which can counter efficiant.  but in fact this ios not the place to discuss the horrible german doctrine of armored warfare ( thanks god it was horrible )in the late war... f.e the daimler benz idea of a t34 was a much better idea. and some of your points are a bit childish. if u bump ur head in the tank will not cause a breakdown of the engine. but if a tank has a horrible designed mechanical layout, this has a direct impact to mobile warfare. horrible fuel consumption... and a bit you behave like a typical WoT forum member. i mayself placed an idea, and i realy don t have any probs with anything, cause still it is a game. maybe my only fault was to read your comment and answer ?  maybe we can keep the forum somehow polite ? You have your idea, u talk aboput selling. i did not buy a me 262, i bought bodenplatte... ? if u buy vehicles to ride crosscountry with the idiotic german " panzerlied " on earphones thinking that there is nothing which can stop you, maybe thats your fault ? ? anyway, enjoy gaming and perhaps think about the meaning of the word " tolerance ".. i am old enough to tell you, that my father was staff officer in the 14th. pzdiv, and many thing i therefore know by first hand... have a nice day

 

It will never happen that a game compane punish the player by choosing the wrong vehicle. Dont forget that it is IL2 great battle not tank crew alone. If you build a random algorithm destroing vehicles you have to do it for all tanks, planes. Because all vehicles had it problems. You would have to set a failure percentage by vehicle and component. Some component would get broken earlier than other. You can not just implement this function for a single vehicle because you read that in a book. Thats my only point.

[LachenKrieg]

6 hours ago, WildWilly said:

Hello, i do agree with some of your points. And maybe it would be too complex. maybe some of the hidden obstacles can represent the technical issues the panther had till the end of it s " carreer". It NEVER EVER was that successfull tank.. of course it was superior to a sherman, t34 at distance due to the excellent main gun. but it lacks mobility and reliability. the problem with the so called " Vorgelege" never had been solved. Engine fires happened even in 1945... like the tiger, king tiger it was more or less a GUNPLATFORM , firefight at distance. of course i know, that there should be a compromise realism-playable. if they could improve the sound a bit, i can accept :-)...  many poeple have a " propaganda " view on Panther and Tiger, espec. King Tiger ( which has had awful problems with jamming turrets and was terrible underpowered ). In fact the mai battles had been faught by Panzer IV and Stug III, later has the highest number of confirmed tank kills...

Hi and thanks for your reply.

 

I think the point you are raising in this thread is very important to both Tank Crew and the entire GBS. I also think it is no secret that companies like 1C GS/DCS are constantly trying to improve on damage models and the visual effects that are attached to them, and believe it is an absolute requirement that they do if the aim is to improve the SIM's level of realism.

 

And I get that you are a fan of the Russian vehicles in Tank Crew. I can think of a number of good reasons why you would be. The T34 was probably the most influential tank of the war because it was the first to successfully demonstrate on the battle field two very important innovations. Those being the value of sloped armor, and reduced ground pressure, which was in part taken from an earlier, but less proven American design. The other important feature was that it was relatively cheap to make, and could therefore be made in large numbers.

 

But I am wondering if you aren't mixing two separate issues here to reach a single point. You have made your point quite clear, you would like to see changes/improvements in the damage model. And while we probably all have our own wish list for what we would like to see added to the SIM, the only way to get the idea out there is to voice it like you have already done.

 

But was the Panther's inability to change the course of the war more closely related to mechanical failure, or human error? In other words, the measuring stick being used to determine whether the Panther was a good, a bad, or an excellent tank seems to be strongly attached to the fact that Germany lost the war. My point here is that while the Panther did have its share of early teething problems, the historical relevance of those problems is often over exaggerated by the circumstances it was put in. Show me a weapons system, past or present, that is placed in the scenario where it is heavily outnumbered with little to no logistical support, and I will show you a bad weapons system.

 

Now lets come back to the damage model in IL2's Tank Crew. If you want to simulate what actually happened, start a Quick Mission in a single Panther, and put yourself against 4, or 5 T34's all loaded with AP rounds. Depending on the map, you can still maintain the upper hand in the Panther if you can keep the fight at a distance and effectively leverage the value of your gun. But if you get surrounded by overwhelming numbers in close quarters combat thousands of miles from home with barely enough fuel and supplies to keep your tank running, then yeah the outcome should be pretty obvious... It must have been a mechanical failure.

 

It might be easier to simulate the lunatic fringe and the effect of spreading very limited resources across multiple continents to opening multiple fronts at the same time in the Quick Mission Builder then it would be to ask the Dev team to simulate it in the damage model. But I completely agree with you, it turns out that probably tens of millions of people are lucky the guy at the top had next to no clue what he was doing.    

[Noisemaker]

On 12/10/2020 at 12:57 PM, JG27_Steini said:

 

Do you really want to have this simulated? It would be really annoying. No game is simulating random failures. It does not make any sense in a computer game. Only the player should be responsible for problems, not a random algorithm. 

WW2 sub sims have been simulating random torpedo failures since forever.  Just sayin...

[RedeyeStorm]

True they have but you have more then one torpedo and you don’t sink if one fails. In TC it is game over and start again. The first I can live with the second creates a game I am not going to waste my time on because I have to restart the mission repeatedly until I get a tank that performs well throughout the mission.
 

I wouldn’t mind it if the failure could be fixed in mission but that would be unrealistic too. I do not know if engine swaps in the field where done in WO II but it would take a couple of hours to do. I don’t think anyone of us is going to sit behind the screen for hours not doing anything. 
 

My two cents, leave as is. It’s more realistic then the alternative.

[SCG_Neun]

On 12/11/2020 at 1:06 AM, WildWilly said:

 if u buy vehicles to ride crosscountry with the idiotic german " panzerlied " on earphones thinking that there is nothing which can stop you, maybe thats your fault ? ? anyway, enjoy gaming and perhaps think about the meaning of the word " tolerance ".. i am old enough to tell you, that my father was staff officer in the 14th. pzdiv, and many thing i therefore know by first hand... have a nice day

I understand your point but I don’t know anyone who listens to panzerlied thinking the German tank is invincible.  Serious simmers know their history and many of us, like you, have fathers that were in the war, mine as well armored, with plenty of first hand information.  There are just so many more important things to add to this game besides something like this.  Besides, if I’m understanding this, to make it work a single player would start up a game, have his tank breakdown and if you want to be so hardcore, just stop playing for the day?  Would it be “realistic” for him to just try again, and again to get a solid tank and go on with the mission?  So how realistic would that be? In a simulations niche such as ours we want more players not less, with these kinds of options and even if it was a difficulty setting I don’t know many of us willing to drive our tank for an hour just to have it breakdown.  Now, I would suggest the game already has this feature and we call it in Invisible trees.....just as painful....

 

We have a setting for our engines to warm up, and we never use it....we could, but time is very precious theses days. I have a German panzer unit and none of us think the German tanks are invulnerable.  We don’t have such nonsense among our members and when we play American or Russian we know our limitations as well.  But in the end it’s a game and it has to appeal to a wide audience for us to be able to have adversaries to play against and teammates to give us the biggest realistic advantage over single player which is human tactics with formations, communication and air assets.  Tanks breaking down are just not a big deal for most people.  

Edited December 12, 2020 by SCG_Neun