Jump to content

Will TC be left behind?


Recommended Posts

There will be core updates, bug fixes, improvements for sure.

 

Collectors vehicles and DLC only if they sell more copies of the game.

 

FC was released long ago and only now they announced FC2-3

 

Tanks sims are not so popular as WW2 and WW1 flight sims, so im not expecting TC2 any time soon.

Maybe they will risk TC2 release focused on the western front to sell more copies, but im not so sure.

 

I think they will sell more DLC tanks then AA vehicles, but maybe im wrong.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I'd buy TC2 on day 1. Hopefully in time it will also get an expansion, based either in Normandy or during the Battle of the Bulge. There is plenty of Commonwealth armour to model if they chose to make an Operation Overlord campaign centered around Caen.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

When TC was „getting constant updates“ (it had to be completed such for it could be released on Steam, but hey, constant updates) and nothing was happening with FC there was lamentations about FC being abandonned. Now, as FC2 is announced, do we get all those threads back just having FC replaced by TC? 😬

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

When TC was „getting constant updates“ (it had to be completed such for it could be released on Steam, but hey, constant updates) and nothing was happening with FC there was lamentations about FC being abandonned. Now, as FC2 is announced, do we get all those threads back just having FC replaced by TC? 😬

That is an online community for you. But game developers in general are responsible for creating some of the confusion surrounding the issue though. A lot of games are released as works in progress, and depending on how active/busy a game developer is, the user base can sometimes wait extended periods of time to see updates/additional content. Its the amount of time that causes all the guessing/projecting/lamenting.... Lately, the IL2 Dev team seems to really be pumping out the work, which is a good thing for the community.

 

 But I am not convinced that the community here should be waiting for a Tank Crew2. I get the reasons for Flying Circus2. Its hard to tell from the website if the new map is 12,000 skm, or 120,000 skm, but a bigger WWI map with a more complete collection of planes. I think the map is the key though. If I understand it correctly, then the map is an enlarged version of the same WWI front. My guess is that most people will fly the original FC planes on the new FC2 map, and not the other way around. I realize that the user can fly the WWI planes on the other WWII maps, but if you are interested in the period correctness of the map, then the FC products are sort of in their own space in time.

 

Concerning all of the other modules, the Tank Crew vehicles pretty much fit on all the WWII maps. I can't help to wonder if the announcement of Tank Crew didn't mark the start of what will eventually become a very large map optimization project as the IL2 GBS becomes more then just a flight simulator. The other option to a Tank Crew2 would be to optimize/clean up the maps that are already there, and just add collector vehicles, and let the user base decide which map to use them on. Because at some point, they are going to have to resolve the issue of air and ground vehicles playing nice together

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

Concerning all of the other modules, the Tank Crew vehicles pretty much fit on all the WWII maps. I can't help to wonder if the announcement of Tank Crew didn't mark the start of what will eventually become a very large map optimization project as the IL2 GBS becomes more then just a flight simulator. The other option to a Tank Crew2 would be to optimize/clean up the maps that are already there, and just add collector vehicles, and let the user base decide which map to use them on. Because at some point, they are going to have to resolve the issue of air and ground vehicles playing nice together

Optimizing and cleaning the current flightmaps could be possible but this would take alot of resources/time and manpower since basically every meter where an tank can drive has to be tested and fixed which is an enormous task which is very time consuming, even if you do that you still have the lower quality map compared to the current Prokhorovka map which is going to increase complains/bad reviews which you want to avoid as much as possible as an niche simulator.

 

Updating all flight maps to the quality standard of Prokhorvoka could take several years for each map since you would also have to make every village/industry/yard/enz that has been ignored in the flightmaps and this would also create an new issue considering low performance of the maps.

 

Because of these reasons I just don't see any collector vehicles happening outside of Kursk till TC2 is announced, there are enough collector vehicles that can stil be done for Kursk though like the StugIII/Marder series/Wespe/M3 Lee/Churchill III/Su76/enz.

Edited by ww2fighter20
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, ww2fighter20 said:

Optimizing and cleaning the current flightmaps could be possible but this would take alot of resources/time and manpower since basically every meter where an tank can drive has to be tested and fixed which is an enormous task which is very time consuming, even if you do that you still have the lower quality map compared to the current Prokhorovka map which is going to increase complains/bad reviews which you want to avoid as much as possible as an niche simulator.

 

Updating all flight maps to the quality standard of Prokhorvoka could take several years for each map since you would also have to make every village/industry/yard/enz that has been ignored in the flightmaps and this would also create an new issue considering low performance of the maps.

 

Because of these reasons I just don't see any collector vehicles happening outside of Kursk till TC2 is announced, there are enough collector vehicles that can stil be done for Kursk though like the StugIII/Marder series/Wespe/M3 Lee/Churchill III/Su76/enz.

I probably should have said that I am not convinced they need to make a TC2, and I agree, optimizing the current flight maps will require resources. But isn't that the business they are into, and how many man hours would have to go into making a map from scratch?

 

Optimizing the maps should be very doable though, and in fact I think the last patch actually included some minor map optimizations. In terms of having to go through every meter that a tank can drive, I am not sure that it works like that. Currently, I can already drive a ground vehicle most places on the map. So that work is already done. I can even see changes in resistance as I drive on different terrain types as represented by the max speed I can obtain. So that work is also done. There are still issues like what happens on slopped ground, or the collision models for the different objects, but a lot of the work has been done in terms of the drive able area. My understanding is that once a collision model for a tree object has been defined, then the tree will react the same way when a tank hits it regardless of where it is on the map. The job of repopulating the map with the correct tree object might be another matter though.

 

There are other issues that might also be at play like the graphics engine and whether they can get the type of performance they want/need for both air and ground vehicles on the same map. But at some point, these issues will have to be addressed if the intention is a combined arms simulator. If you noticed, the AAA vehicles are not being sold as a Tank Crew add-on. They are being marketed as an add-on to the GBS, which tells me that the intention is to eventually have air and ground vehicles working seamlessly on the same map. My point was that they already have WWII maps that could be used with collector vehicles much like the coming AAA trucks.

 

But if they were going to make a Tank Crew2, North Africa would make a lot of sense in terms of simplifying map design with large tracts of desert.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do we need an overlord?  why do we need a desert?  it would be more logical to make the eastern front in 1941, where the tanks will be more balanced.  and early tanks are more interesting than the Shermans / T-34-85 / Tiger 2, etc.  
 

For errors, all claims to google translator)


https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/143-сбор-предложений-по-игре-ил-2-бзс-бзм-бзк/?do=findComment&comment=790460 (Use a translator to understand this message)

 

This is what I am looking forward to most as a collectible - the T-35, the only serial five-turret tank in the world.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, =13NVO=Eeafanas said:

Why do we need an overlord?  why do we need a desert?  it would be more logical to make the eastern front in 1941, where the tanks will be more balanced.  and early tanks are more interesting than the Shermans / T-34-85 / Tiger 2, etc.  
 

For errors, all claims to google translator)


https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/143-сбор-предложений-по-игре-ил-2-бзс-бзм-бзк/?do=findComment&comment=790460 (Use a translator to understand this message)

 

This is what I am looking forward to most as a collectible - the T-35, the only serial five-turret tank in the world.

 

 

I dont like early war scenario. I dont like look of the early panzers IV etc.

and Germans will be struggling against t34 and KV.

Now Soviets are struggling against Panthers and Tigers.

Late in the war you can have Tiger II, JS II and Sherman Jumbo, all these tanks can take several punishment , which is in my case much more enjoyable.

I dont like engagement in which you are dead after first round. In MP its ok, you have worse vision and gunnery skill then the AI, but in SP against AI its not fun.

 

Edited by Voidhunger
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 минут назад, Voidhunger сказал:

 

I dont like early war scenario. I dont like look of the early panzers IV etc.

and Germans will be struggling against t34 and KV.

Now Soviets are struggling against Panthers and Tigers.

Late in the war you can have Tiger II, JS II and Sherman Jumbo, all these tanks can take several punishment , which is in my case much more enjoyable.

I dont like engagement in which you are dead after first round. In MP its ok, you have worse vision and gunnery skill then the AI, but in SP against AI its not fun.

 

No need to cite a SP as an example, everyone plays on tanks only in MP.  If you are interested in riding tanks, the images of which have become so boring for many generations, instead of being interested in really interesting tanks (1939-1941), then I'm sorry for you...

I don’t understand why the West likes the late German technique so much, it’s boring.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, =13NVO=Eeafanas said:

I don’t understand why the West likes the late German technique so much, it’s boring.

Boring for you, for me early war scenario. Its simple

 

47 minutes ago, =13NVO=Eeafanas said:

No need to cite a SP as an example, everyone plays on tanks only in MP

 

I dont think that everyone is playing TC im MP.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 минуты назад, Voidhunger сказал:

I dont think that everyone is playing TC im MP.

the game on tanks is possible only in MP.

 

3 минуты назад, Voidhunger сказал:

Boring for you, for me early war scenario. Its simple

because early tanks are really interesting, as there is little information on them in large circles of people who love tanks

25 минут назад, Enzo38 сказал:

quite new to the game, also why do we say the game will be left behind ? any concern I've missed ? thanks

just a lot of pessimists, do not take bad thoughts into your head...

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, =13NVO=Eeafanas said:

the game on tanks is possible only in MP.


No, the game ships with a T-34-76/KV-1S campaign for the Red Army and a Panzer IV/Tiger/Panzer III campaign for the Waffen-SS, as well as a minimum of one single mission for each of the 10 AFVs in the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 минут назад, [Pb]Cybermat47 сказал:


No, the game ships with a T-34-76/KV-1S campaign for the Red Army and a Panzer IV/Tiger/Panzer III campaign for the Waffen-SS, as well as a minimum of one single mission for each of the 10 AFVs in the game.

the main activity on tanks is in MP

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =13NVO=Eeafanas said:

Why do we need an overlord?  why do we need a desert?  it would be more logical to make the eastern front in 1941, where the tanks will be more balanced.  and early tanks are more interesting than the Shermans / T-34-85 / Tiger 2, etc.  
 

For errors, all claims to google translator)


https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/143-сбор-предложений-по-игре-ил-2-бзс-бзм-бзк/?do=findComment&comment=790460 (Use a translator to understand this message)

 

This is what I am looking forward to most as a collectible - the T-35, the only serial five-turret tank in the world.

 

We don't need a desert, but if you wanted to come up with another map  theme for a Tank Crew 2 that wouldn't break the bank on map design, North Africa could fit the bill. And I agree, I wouldn't mind one bit if they came out with an early Eastern Front scenario. You could even back that up a bit and move it to Poland, especially with an infantry element. But I can also think of a number of reason why I would find driving around on the Normandy/Bodenplatte maps in a Tank Crew tank very interesting.

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

I probably should have said that I am not convinced they need to make a TC2, and I agree, optimizing the current flight maps will require resources. But isn't that the business they are into, and how many man hours would have to go into making a map from scratch?

Jason once mentioned an entire package was more profitable for them compared with releasing separate collector vehicles, this was I think around the time when Normandy was announced.

 

They are an business which relies on profit to survive/making new products and while they do update/add new features to older releases, this is always limited, for example the new terrain features where devenloped for tank crew but could at the same time be added to the other maps, likely because they updated the ground textures files/added an script to it instead of manually replacing each ground texture.

 

Making an map from scratch will take longer then fixing an current one (fixing only) but an new map can be sold as an new product and an old map cannot be resold unless it's significantly different, updating the entire map to the quality standards of Prokhorovka would likely take longer then an new map because of the size of the flightmaps, this would especially be the case for Bodenplatte.

 

Another issue is that you basically are forcing tankplayers to pay for flightmodules just to use collector vehicles on maps where they were historically used, for example if they would release an tiger IIH as collector vehicle you would need to buy the Bodenplatte module where you don't get any extra tanks to use yourself, you also release an collector vehicle without having any other playable tanks to fight against, only the M4A2 from Prokhorovka was in limited service by the British (M4A4 was the most common British sherman, Usa didn't use the M4A2 in the western front).

 

4 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

Optimizing the maps should be very doable though, and in fact I think the last patch actually included some minor map optimizations. In terms of having to go through every meter that a tank can drive, I am not sure that it works like that. Currently, I can already drive a ground vehicle most places on the map. So that work is already done. I can even see changes in resistance as I drive on different terrain types as represented by the max speed I can obtain. So that work is also done. There are still issues like what happens on slopped ground, or the collision models for the different objects, but a lot of the work has been done in terms of the drive able area. My understanding is that once a collision model for a tree object has been defined, then the tree will react the same way when a tank hits it regardless of where it is on the map. The job of repopulating the map with the correct tree object might be another matter though.

About the tree/object collision issue, it depends if the collision model is part of/attached to the model or if it's it's own seperate object, for the first case updating the collision model would fix that for that model but for the second case each area where the model is used has to be checked manually.

Issues with sloped ground are related to the heightmap, this would require meter by meter testing in many cases.

 

4 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

There are other issues that might also be at play like the graphics engine and whether they can get the type of performance they want/need for both air and ground vehicles on the same map. But at some point, these issues will have to be addressed if the intention is a combined arms simulator. If you noticed, the AAA vehicles are not being sold as a Tank Crew add-on. They are being marketed as an add-on to the GBS, which tells me that the intention is to eventually have air and ground vehicles working seamlessly on the same map. My point was that they already have WWII maps that could be used with collector vehicles much like the coming AAA trucks.

The engine/performance would be an problem if you update the entire flightmap on the same quality level as Prokhorovka , an smaller combined map for tanks (like Prokhorovka) is possible.

 

Prokhorovka was from the start already designed as an combined arms map since you have an area designed for tank combat (19x23km) while the rest of the map is primarily for aircraft (this seems to be an desision for multiplayer though since you don't get any aircraft with tank crew), the other maps were designed for aircraft and the devs/testers even mention this from time to time which shows it's unlikely it's going to be updated in the future.

 

The 2 AA vehicles (which where originally supposed to be delivered as part of the tank crew package) were both used at Kursk but can also be used at airfields or on other maps which in general are more detailed/optimized for ground vehicles (since aircraft are using the ground by taxing/landing/taking off) compared to the rest of the map.

There are also more different historical targets aa vehicle have (compared to an Tiger IIH) and pilot players are more likely to buy aa vehicles for use in multiplayer compared to tanks, for example to clear the skies on an airfield.

All of these are reasons why it can be sold as an general collector vehicle.

 

4 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

But if they were going to make a Tank Crew2, North Africa would make a lot of sense in terms of simplifying map design with large tracts of desert.

They don't have to make an map from scratch for TC2, the Bodenplatte and Normandy map could be used as an basis for creating an smaller tank map similar to Phokhorovka, this would be cheaper/less time to produce.

For example on the Normandy map they could cut 1 big area (for example 100x100km) so each side has some airfields and on an smaller section of that map choose an area (like 20x20km) like Falaise Pocket and fully modify it for tank combat, this could be released as an new product together with 10 new tanks.

Another option, same as previous example but instead of 1 large area for tanks they could create 2/3 smaller maps, for example Falaise Pocket/Saint Lo/Villers Bocage while the rest is for aircraft.

 

North Africa could be an option like El Alamein which indeed would be easier mapwise to create but it's more likely going to be late war since it's more popular among tank fans. (Both Battles and Tank types used).

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ww2fighter20 said:

Jason once mentioned an entire package was more profitable for them compared with releasing separate collector vehicles, this was I think around the time when Normandy was announced.

 

They are an business which relies on profit to survive/making new products and while they do update/add new features to older releases, this is always limited, for example the new terrain features where devenloped for tank crew but could at the same time be added to the other maps, likely because they updated the ground textures files/added an script to it instead of manually replacing each ground texture.

 

Making an map from scratch will take longer then fixing an current one (fixing only) but an new map can be sold as an new product and an old map cannot be resold unless it's significantly different, updating the entire map to the quality standards of Prokhorovka would likely take longer then an new map because of the size of the flightmaps, this would especially be the case for Bodenplatte.

 

Another issue is that you basically are forcing tankplayers to pay for flightmodules just to use collector vehicles on maps where they were historically used, for example if they would release an tiger IIH as collector vehicle you would need to buy the Bodenplatte module where you don't get any extra tanks to use yourself, you also release an collector vehicle without having any other playable tanks to fight against, only the M4A2 from Prokhorovka was in limited service by the British (M4A4 was the most common British sherman, Usa didn't use the M4A2 in the western front).

 

About the tree/object collision issue, it depends if the collision model is part of/attached to the model or if it's it's own seperate object, for the first case updating the collision model would fix that for that model but for the second case each area where the model is used has to be checked manually.

Issues with sloped ground are related to the heightmap, this would require meter by meter testing in many cases.

 

The engine/performance would be an problem if you update the entire flightmap on the same quality level as Prokhorovka , an smaller combined map for tanks (like Prokhorovka) is possible.

 

Prokhorovka was from the start already designed as an combined arms map since you have an area designed for tank combat (19x23km) while the rest of the map is primarily for aircraft (this seems to be an desision for multiplayer though since you don't get any aircraft with tank crew), the other maps were designed for aircraft and the devs/testers even mention this from time to time which shows it's unlikely it's going to be updated in the future.

 

The 2 AA vehicles (which where originally supposed to be delivered as part of the tank crew package) were both used at Kursk but can also be used at airfields or on other maps which in general are more detailed/optimized for ground vehicles (since aircraft are using the ground by taxing/landing/taking off) compared to the rest of the map.

There are also more different historical targets aa vehicle have (compared to an Tiger IIH) and pilot players are more likely to buy aa vehicles for use in multiplayer compared to tanks, for example to clear the skies on an airfield.

All of these are reasons why it can be sold as an general collector vehicle.

 

They don't have to make an map from scratch for TC2, the Bodenplatte and Normandy map could be used as an basis for creating an smaller tank map similar to Phokhorovka, this would be cheaper/less time to produce.

For example on the Normandy map they could cut 1 big area (for example 100x100km) so each side has some airfields and on an smaller section of that map choose an area (like 20x20km) like Falaise Pocket and fully modify it for tank combat, this could be released as an new product together with 10 new tanks.

Another option, same as previous example but instead of 1 large area for tanks they could create 2/3 smaller maps, for example Falaise Pocket/Saint Lo/Villers Bocage while the rest is for aircraft.

 

North Africa could be an option like El Alamein which indeed would be easier mapwise to create but it's more likely going to be late war since it's more popular among tank fans. (Both Battles and Tank types used).

I agree, I don't think they need to make a map from scratch at this point, all they would have to do is optimize/clean the current maps up for now.

 

No one said they would have to upgrade the entire BOBP map to the same resolution as the Prokhorovka map. Not even the entire Prokhorovka map is upgraded to this resolution. The increased resolution is actually only a tiny portion of the whole map. TBH, I would trade the higher grass resolution in the fields on Prokhorovak for improved explosions of artillery/tank rounds landing near my tank in the fields around Stalingrad. In fact, if I was given the option to buy the current Stalingrad map with improved ground explosions, or the current Prokhorovka map with increased grass resolution, BOS map would win hands down for me. 

 

And as a business model, It really shouldn't change the bottom line why a customer buys the map, as long as people buy it. I bought the BOBP map to use with my Tank Crew vehicles without anyone forcing me. And believe it or not, the current maps can be improved for Tank Crews without hurting the game performance of pilots.

 

So the question is, can TC sales continue to grow, or do we already need a TC2? I am of the opinion that TC still has a lot of room to grow. If the addition of collector vehicles/map optimizations would increase interest in the current Tank Crew module, then it would have the potential to affect TC module sales, collector vehicles sales, and additional maps sales. Like the AAA trucks, collector tanks could be released/announced in opposing pairs, and they could also be attached to the Tank Crew module itself so that you need TC to begin with. There are numerous versions of each tank to provide plenty of material for both collector vehicles and a TC2 later on. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, =13NVO=Eeafanas said:

Why do we need an overlord?  why do we need a desert?  it would be more logical to make the eastern front in 1941, where the tanks will be more balanced.  and early tanks are more interesting than the Shermans / T-34-85 / Tiger 2, etc.  
 

 

I have to disagree. 1941 would not be balanced. German tanks had no chance against KW and early T34. It would be the same situation now, only on different sides. 1943 (and later) is a better year because all sides had great tanks. 1941 only russians had good tanks. You might explain to us what is balanced for you when a strong KW faces a Panzer II or Panzer III. A single KW was able to hold off strong german forces and only planes or an 8,8 flak was capable to destroy it. Does not sound balanced for me 😉

3 hours ago, =13NVO=Eeafanas said:

I am for any front until 1942.  give me company in poland, give me an offensive on France 1940, give me operation barbarossa!

 

All sounds good, but you can not balance it. German tanks where superior to polish tanks, french and russian tanks where superior to germans. For me it must not be balanced, but would always be a problem in multiplayer.

Edited by JG27_Steini
  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 час назад, JG27_Steini сказал:

 

I have to disagree. 1941 would not be balanced. German tanks had no chance against KW and early T34. It would be the same situation now, only on different sides. 1943 (and later) is a better year because all sides had great tanks. 1941 only russians had good tanks. You might explain to us what is balanced for you when a strong KW faces a Panzer II or Panzer III. A single KW was able to hold off strong german forces and only planes or an 8,8 flak was capable to destroy it. Does not sound balanced for me 😉

 

apparently someone badly taught the history of the eastern front) It is a myth that the KV and T-34 were invulnerable.  The Germans had for this purpose sub-caliber shells that pierced the armor of these tanks from 400 meters.  1943 is the worst year, since the Red Army does not have tanks that can oppose something against a horde of western players on tigers / panthers / Ferdinands (SU-122/152 does not count, this is artillery and not armored vehicles)

 (25:10, english subtitles)

Скрытый текст

The reaction of the overwhelming majority of Western players to actions with German tanks:

* tigers destroy all life on their way * - this must be understood, it was so in reality ...

KV-1 destroy PZ-3 and PZ-4 (early) - AAAAA!  Our beloved German tanks humiliate!  it should not be!!!

 

what is this joke for?  and to the fact that I do not understand the reasons for such a love of Western players for German tanks.

 

Edited by =13NVO=Eeafanas
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, =13NVO=Eeafanas said:

1943 is the worst year, since the Red Army does not have tanks that can oppose something against a horde of western players on tigers / panthers / Ferdinands (SU-122/152 does not count, this is artillery and not armored vehicles)

yep, so we have to move forward to 1944😉

Anyway western front 1944 will be much more profitable then early years and i would be very surprised if we dont get TC2 at the time period of 1944.

A lot of people would like to have Tiger II, Jagdpanther , Sherman 76 or Firefly, Stalin tank, T34-85, SU-100 etc. such iconic vehicles! Jagdpanzer IV, Hertzer etc.

Map with Villers bocage.... there are so many Hartmans and of course wittmans too. 😀 just my two cents

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 минуту назад, Voidhunger сказал:

there are so many Hartmans and of course wittmans too. 😀 just my two cents

These are just tank commanders whose achievements have been inflated by propaganda.
 

Скрытый текст

 

In the winter of 1943-1944, the German tanker Michael Wittmann announced that during the battle in Ukraine, he alone with his crew destroyed more than 70 (!) Soviet tanks.  He was awarded many awards, quickly rose in rank, and propaganda promoted his feat to a universal scale, made the image of a hero.
 

Almost immediately after the awards, it turned out that in this sector of the front, the Red Army did not have tanks at all, and all that Wittmann destroyed was two Soviet-made T-34 tanks, which were captured and served with the Wehrmacht.  In the dark, Wittmann did not see the identification marks on the turrets of his tanks, reasonably mistaking them for Soviet ones.E7375CF6-B355-4E77-9790-3B3FEFFCC438.jpeg

Which way are you, ****, fighting for?

Скрытый текст

 

Here are the real heroes:

Dmitry Fedorovich Lavrinenko - 52 enemy tanks; 

1B3AD253-73C7-415A-87E2-B536D4CF48C0.jpeg
 

Zinovy Grigorievich Kolobanov - 22 wrecked tanks in one (!) Battle

DCD95FD9-F189-4D8C-BCD6-65E5E7A3EA7B.jpeg

 

 

Edited by =13NVO=Eeafanas
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =13NVO=Eeafanas said:

apparently someone badly taught the history of the eastern front) It is a myth that the KV and T-34 were invulnerable.  The Germans had for this purpose sub-caliber shells that pierced the armor of these tanks from 400 meters.  1943 is the worst year, since the Red Army does not have tanks that can oppose something against a horde of western players on tigers / panthers / Ferdinands (SU-122/152 does not count, this is artillery and not armored vehicles)

 

KW were not invulnerable, nobody sad, i only react after your balancing request. I believe balancing is not your wish, you only want other theatres. Balance you will never have. Only the T34 vs Panzer IV is balanced somehow. Russia had better tanks at the start of war, germany had better tanks from middle till end of war (in small numbers). So i understand your demand, but dont talk about balance when german tanks would be slaughtered by russian early war heavy tanks. You can only say that russia should have a theatre were the situation is another then it is right now. This would be ok for me, but dont talk about balance. 

Edited by JG27_Steini
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 минут назад, JG27_Steini сказал:

 

KW were not invulnerable, nobody sad, i only react after your balancing request. I believe balancing is not your wish, you only want other theatres. Balance you will never have. Only the T34 vs Panzer IV is balanced somehow. Russia had better tanks at the start of war, germany had better tanks from middle till end of war (in small numbers). So i understand your demand, but dont talk about balance when german tanks would be slaughtered by russian early war heavy tanks. You can only say that russia should have a theatre were the situation is another then it is right now. This would be ok for me, but dont talk about balance. 

You are talking about the small number of good tanks in Germany.  But in IL-2 very few people take PZ 4 or PZ 3, I even began to observe such a phenomenon, when Western players see that their favorite panthers, tigers and ferdinands are not on the server, then they immediately leave.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =13NVO=Eeafanas said:

These are just tank commanders whose achievements have been inflated by propaganda.
 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

In the winter of 1943-1944, the German tanker Michael Wittmann announced that during the battle in Ukraine, he alone with his crew destroyed more than 70 (!) Soviet tanks.  He was awarded many awards, quickly rose in rank, and propaganda promoted his feat to a universal scale, made the image of a hero.
 

Almost immediately after the awards, it turned out that in this sector of the front, the Red Army did not have tanks at all, and all that Wittmann destroyed was two Soviet-made T-34 tanks, which were captured and served with the Wehrmacht.  In the dark, Wittmann did not see the identification marks on the turrets of his tanks, reasonably mistaking them for Soviet ones.E7375CF6-B355-4E77-9790-3B3FEFFCC438.jpeg

Which way are you, ****, fighting for?

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Here are the real heroes:

Dmitry Fedorovich Lavrinenko - 52 enemy tanks; 

1B3AD253-73C7-415A-87E2-B536D4CF48C0.jpeg
 

Zinovy Grigorievich Kolobanov - 22 wrecked tanks in one (!) Battle

DCD95FD9-F189-4D8C-BCD6-65E5E7A3EA7B.jpeg

 

 

that was not my point and propaganda worked on both sides 😉

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 минут назад, SCG_judgedeath3 сказал:

Depends on the server, tanknspank and finnish server we often play with panzer III and IV. And in our scg group its very often panzer iiis at the moment. Been ages since I used tiger on the multiplayer servers xD 

 

Quite the opposite situation on the E-front

10 минут назад, Voidhunger сказал:

that was not my point and propaganda worked on both sides 😉

If the Soviet tankers have everything documented (since the Red Army was very strict in relation to reports on combat operations) then the Germans are very vague

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, =13NVO=Eeafanas said:

You are talking about the small number of good tanks in Germany.  But in IL-2 very few people take PZ 4 or PZ 3, I even began to observe such a phenomenon, when Western players see that their favorite panthers, tigers and ferdinands are not on the server, then they immediately leave.

 

I do not talk about anything but you can not demand balance in 41 when there is none. You are pissed by Tiger and Panthers and now you wanna slaughter Pz II and Pz III, this not balance, it is revenge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, =13NVO=Eeafanas said:

Quite the opposite situation on the E-front

If the Soviet tankers have everything documented (since the Red Army was very strict in relation to reports on combat operations) then the Germans are very vague

if you think so...

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JG27_Steini said:

 

KW were not invulnerable, nobody sad, i only react after your balancing request. I believe balancing is not your wish, you only want other theatres. Balance you will never have. Only the T34 vs Panzer IV is balanced somehow. Russia had better tanks at the start of war, germany had better tanks from middle till end of war (in small numbers). So i understand your demand, but dont talk about balance when german tanks would be slaughtered by russian early war heavy tanks. You can only say that russia should have a theatre were the situation is another then it is right now. This would be ok for me, but dont talk about balance. 

Very well said. A common problem in 2021 with hanging around internet forums related to WWII themed games is that people often confuse the outcome of historical events with the performance capabilities of the equipment used.

 

Does the fact that the Titanic is now laying at the bottom of the Atlantic make it a bad boat, or does a company's irresponsible decision to make New York in record time have anything to do with it?

 

There is seldom balance in war. Most battles are decided by the imbalances between two sides. But Tank Crew is meant to be a simulator. As a community, we should try to refrain from arguing about which tank was the best, and which war hero told the most lies.

b

If anyone wants to recreate the historical balance that was at the battle of Prokhorovka, then simply limit the fuel and ammunition available in the German vehicles, and have them outnumbered 4:1 in the mission editor.

 

My interest in Tank Crew is not about balancing the game mechanics so that people in T34's are happy when they face a Tiger, or the other way around. My concern is that there is already quite a lot of this going on in Tank Crew and it shouldn't be. The question being asked by the OP here is whether or not Tank Crew will survive. I think it has a much better chance of survival if it stays true to its  purpose. If and when it is time to release a TC2, it really wont matter what it will be based off of if you are looking for balance, because in 1939 it was steel machines mowing down horse flesh, and in 1945 one of the biggest threats to German armor was air power.

 

 

2 hours ago, Voidhunger said:

yep, so we have to move forward to 1944😉

Anyway western front 1944 will be much more profitable then early years and i would be very surprised if we dont get TC2 at the time period of 1944.

A lot of people would like to have Tiger II, Jagdpanther , Sherman 76 or Firefly, Stalin tank, T34-85, SU-100 etc. such iconic vehicles! Jagdpanzer IV, Hertzer etc.

Map with Villers bocage.... there are so many Hartmans and of course wittmans too. 😀 just my two cents

And there are enough variations to most of those vehicles that I am really hoping we see a few of them as collectors vehicles.

Edited by LachenKrieg
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SCG_judgedeath3 said:

Depends on the server, tanknspank and finnish server we often play with panzer III and IV. And in our scg group its very often panzer iiis at the moment. Been ages since I used tiger on the multiplayer servers xD 

 

 

This. I hardly ever play with the Tiger. Almost exclusively the PzIV and III. If I had a StuG I wouldn't touch anything else.

Eafanas' assumptions aren't supported by much other than his own issues with the game.

Edited by randybutternubs
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 минуты назад, randybutternubs сказал:

Eafanas' assumptions aren't supported by much other than his own issues with the game.

What problems? We need to start with the tanks of 1941, as it will be more logical. Isn't that right?

 

 

 

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...