Another vote about Tank Crew II

[Lofte]

New vote about Tank Crew II, but now more or less detailed (see spoiler)

Just for fun

 

Spoiler

 

East

 

1. Operation "Wintergewitter" (attempt to unblock Stalingrad, Eastern Front, December 1942)

 

T-34-76 (STZ)
KV-1
KV-8 (Flamenthrower)
T-70

 

Pz-IVF2
Pz-IIIL
Marder-III
StuG-IIIF

 

2.Battle of the Korsun–Cherkasy pocket (Ukraine, Eastern Front, January-February 1944)

 

SU-76M
KV-85
SU-85
Valentine IX
IS-1

 

Pz-IVG/H
Pz-VA
Pz-VIE
"Hummel"

 

3. Sandomierz bridgehead (Eastern Front, Poland, August 1944)

 

Т-34-76
Т-34-85
SU-85
IS-2

 

Pz-IVH
Pz-VA
Pz-VIE (Tiger I)
Pz-VIB (Tiger II)

 

4. Operation "Frühlingserwachen" (counter-offensive of the 6th Pz.A SS at lake Balaton, Hungary, Eastern Front, March 1945)

 

Т-34-85
IS-2
SU-85
SU-100
ISU-152

 

Pz-VG
Pz-VIE (Tiger I)
Pz-VIB (Tiger II)
Pz-IV/70
"Jagdpanther"
"Hetzer"

West

 

1. El-Alamein (Africa, october-november 1942)

 

Valentine III
M3 Stewart
M3 Grant
M4 Sherman
Crusader II
Crusader III

 

Pz.III(kurz)
Pz.IIIL
Pz.IV(kurz)
Pz.IVF2
M14/41

 

2. Tunisia 1943 (Africa, February-March 1943)

 

M3 Stewart
M3 Grant
M4 Sherman
Crusader III
M7 "Priest"

 

Pz.IIIL
Pz.IIIN
Pz.IVF2
Pz-VIH (Tiger I)
Semovente da 75/18

3. "Goodwood" (Normandy, France, July 1944)

 

Sherman V
Sherman Firefly VC
Cromwell Mk.IV
3-in. SP, Wolverine
Sexton

 

Pz-IVH
Pz-VA
Pz-VIE
Pz-VIB(Porsche turret)
"Jagdpanther"

 

4. "The Battle of the Bulge" (Ardennes, December 1944-45)

 

M8 "Greyhound"
M4A3
M4(105mm)
M4A3E8 "Super Sherman"
M18 "Hellcat"
M36 "Slugger"

М16MGMC (?)

Sd.Kfz. 234/4
Pz.IVJ
Pz.VG
Pz.VIB
Jagdpanther
Jagdpznzer IV

Werbelwind (?)

 

 

[M3Grant]

I did a similar but more general poll earlier and found that D-day won, followed by late North Africa.

While I personally prefer North Africa because I think it is more interesting and balanced, D-day is the more famous battle.

[NoelGallagher]

18 hours ago, M3Grant said:

I did a similar but more general poll earlier and found that D-day won, followed by late North Africa.

While I personally prefer North Africa because I think it is more interesting and balanced, D-day is the more famous battle.

yeah i also prefer north afrika over normandy 

normandy is just boring now 

it had been done too much

because of those movies and tv series (SPR and BOB)

Edited June 7, 2021 by NoelGallagher

[Goffik]

Agreed. I also voted Africa because it's sadly underrepresented across all media despite being a very interesting theatre. Also I think tank battles in the desert would provide far more engaging gameplay from a sim point of view than those in Normandy. (I am also thoroughly bored of that theatre these days... done to death.)

[Cybermat47]

31 minutes ago, Goffik said:

Agreed. I also voted Africa because it's sadly underrepresented across all media despite being a very interesting theatre.

Yep, it was very hard to find info on it compared to the Battle of Britain when doing DW-T. I’ve found that the only aspect of the campaign that gets widespread attention is Rommel.

 

That said, I’m voting for the Battle of the Bulge for the western front. Snowy forests just seem like a more interesting environment for armoured warfare, plus there’d be a place for a Sturmpanzer IV collector’s vehicle.

 

The fact that GBS already has all the right aircraft to fly over a Bulge tank map is a definite plus, too. I’ve been loving what BoBp and BoN have been doing with the late western front, so being able to fight those same battles on the ground with tanks that are chronologically appropriate would be awesome.

[ww2fighter20]

It would be great if an option for France 1940, Barbarossa 1941 and North Africa 1941 would be added since lots of different types of tanks were used in these periods.

It also would be more suitable for the light tanks/armored cars which only had light guns/cannons (like Sdkfz 222/Panhard/PzII/enz) since many tanks in early war had much lighter armor compared to mid and especially late war.

 

Germany had many different types of tank destroyer/self-propelled tanks but not as many different types of medium/heavy tanks so best would be to avoid putting to many medium and heavy tanks into an single package so future packages can still have heavy/medium tanks (TC III/TC IV/enz).

[=AD=uumembwa]

One love, One StuG!

Let's get togethre in the StuG and feel all right!

[616Sqn_Johnny-Red]

I voted for Normandy because of the inventory it has the potential to bring to Il-2. The sim needs playable Western Allied ground content which is relevant from D-Day to VE Day.

 

Both the Eastern Front and the Med offer lots of interesting locations and situations but they don't fill the gap in playable inventory the way that a Normandy-based tank set could.

 

In an ideal world I'd much rather the content be representative of both the US and Commonwealth forces, but if it is necessary to reduce this to a specific battle, Operation Goodwood would be the best choice.

 

If there's a collector IS-2 and T-34-85 for the Eastern Front, or better still; a Valentine X or a Guards Heavy Breakthrough Churchill IV for Stalingrad and Kursk, or a Battle of Moscow era T-34 and Matilda II collector in the wings I'm all in; but there's currently a gaping hole in the Western Front narrative which really ought to be filled.

 

One of the things that brings great value to the Il-2 Great Battles franchise is the way that content can be joined up. In that respect I'm not interested seeing the main thrust of development wandering off down a side-road.

 

In addition, TC has so far trended towards an open field turkey-shoot style of gameplay.

 

Contrast the grassland meadows of the Kursk salient with the intensity of the Norman bocage: Stalking and fighting at close quarters down leafy sunken lanes, breaking line of sight amongst hedgerows and battling for control of small bridges, road junctions and high ground amid the ruins of farms, villages and small towns. Much more of a thrill than playing tank sniper out in the dunes or on the steppe.

 

For the Tank Crew product line to fulfill its potential, focus needs to shift towards cover and manoeuvre based tactical combat and away from the shooting range it too often resembles.

 

The addition of lighter armoured fighting vehicles, with an emphasis on manoeuvre rather than firepower, would also increase the potential for more tactical gameplay.

 

In joined up gameplay terms, a Normandy scenario would have the potential to make for intense gameplay, while the aircraft inventory to enrich it already exists or is in development.

 

Edited June 7, 2021 by 616Sqn_Johnny-Red

[M3Grant]

We have all the aircraft for North Africa too, Hurricane, P-39, P-40, A-20C vs. Bf-109 F, Mc-202, Fw-190, Ju-88, He-111.

I would like the Second Battle of El Alamein

My favored tank set:

Valentine

M3 Lee

Crusader

M5

Bishop and/or Priest

vs.

Panzer IV F2

Panzer IV F(1)/E

Panzer III A-J

M 14/41

Semovente da 75/18

 

Personally I hope to see a better artillery system in future modules, because it is currently difficult to click through all the different commands in the interface, and even more difficult to fire accurately. I would propose the ability to use tanks as recon vehicles, and if a tank sees an shot it marks the hit location on the map as well as better map tools like a ruler allow you to guesstimate distances or a way to measure the angle of a line.

Edited June 7, 2021 by M3Grant

[M3Grant]

For North African AA I would enjoy using the No. 4 Z-Battery Rocket system or possibly a vehicle that can tow and use multiple weapons on the side of the allies vs. the Lancia mounted cannone da 90/53 AAA gun

[Lofte]

On 6/8/2021 at 1:05 AM, Eeafanas said:

1) Battle of Dubno-Lutsk-Brody junction June 1941

2) Occupation of France 1940

I do not like Dubno-Brody because of the paradoxical situation when one side has much better tanks than the other (albeit on paper), but it suffers a catastrophic defeat. I don't wish this dissonance, especially online. No one will take away armor-piercing shells from the red side, create artificial breakdowns, slow down loading, or give the blue side 88-mm anti-aircraft guns. As a result, the dominance of the red side will take place, while in reality everything was exactly the opposite. In short, this option has a poor balance in the "tank vs. tank" game and is therefore not considered in the vote. The same with France-40 + is added by the fact that there is practically nowhere else to use French tanks in the game (while "Sherman", T-34 or Pz-IV in one form or another can be used on any map of the project).

 

My personal choice is "Wintergewitter" for East and Ardennes for West.

My rasons for "Wintergewitter"

1) Highly concentrated "tank vs tank" battle on mostly tank-available snowy terrain. Perfect for all kinds of tank maneuvers with no stable frontline.
2) IMO well balanced tankset with Pz-IIIL, 76-mm Marder-III, StuG-III and Pz-IVF2 vs T-70, T-34s and KVs

3) Epic historical background. Both sides understood what was at stake (Stalingrad) and fighted to the death.

4) We already have all aircrafts for this and even low-detailed map, IMHO easier to do high-detailed map.

5) Some personal matters (I'm from former Stalingrad (Volgograd now), heard about it since childhood)

 

About Ardennes I have no special reasons. I just like this desperate hopeless offensive that showed to Allies that they didn't win yet.
Also late tank set is pretty intersting.

Edited June 22, 2021 by Lofte

[LachenKrieg]

This was a really well thought out vote for TCv2. I voted for Wintergewitter for mostly the same reasons, and of course El-Alamein. I think a N.Africa TC would be epic, and to balance the use of air power over an open desert map, the set could also include more potent Triple-A units.

[SCG_judgedeath3]

T-35 with its thinn armour plus being huge and impossible to hide and will be hard to use with all its turrets, and slow, even if multixcrewed it wont be effective in combat and I pity the commander who need to give orders and make all players in it to work together xD I would fear more the kv-1 to be honest, even better armoured than the kv-1s we have in the game now.

 

myself would like to see:

battle of france, I love the challenge of facing somua s35 and char b1s with early panzer 3 or panzerjäger 1 ?

 

north africa: just so one can play earlier panzer IV versions and crusader tanks and quite interesting landscapes.

 

barbarossa: same here: face few kv-1s and t-34s with panzer 3 armed with 37mm gun or short 50mm gun and find it very hard to take those out, but soviets would mostly have t-26s and bt 5 or bt 7 tanks. Love the early war tanks.

Edited June 9, 2021 by SCG_judgedeath3

[ShampooX]

Interesting to see the Bulge taking the lead over Normandy.  Snow maps can make tanks stick out like a sore thumb from the air.  It'd be tough to have a whole game full of them in combaned arms play - but still fun from the historical perspective.

Edited June 9, 2021 by Shampoo_Actual

[Lofte]

On 6/9/2021 at 1:52 PM, SCG_judgedeath3 said:

barbarossa

one more time? No, thanx)

[Monostripezebra]

For me, the most sensible addition would not be battle focused, but vehicle focused

 

By that I mean that overall we use TC on all maps and actually filling some vehicle gaps that fit several timeframes and scenarios would be the most versatile way.

 

Vehicles that I think are really missing:

 

-STUGs

I am not much of a tank guy, but every WW2 scenario with the germans needs a Stug. That is an undisputable fact! ;=P

So maybe the G as most numerous variant (only wikipedia knowlege I got) ?

 

-More Sherman variants.

because with lend lease they can be eastern or western front use

 

-more late war capable AAA able to escort tanks;

Wirbelwind and M-17 gun carriage (because used by brits, soviets and US)

 

and maybe some more "lighter" vehicles that have mobility and firepower instead of amor like the Sd.Kfz. 234

[BlitzPig_EL]

North Africa.  I don't care which time period.  The desert calls me.

 

[LachenKrieg]

On 6/10/2021 at 12:56 PM, Monostripezebra said:

For me, the most sensible addition would not be battle focused, but vehicle focused

 

By that I mean that overall we use TC on all maps and actually filling some vehicle gaps that fit several timeframes and scenarios would be the most versatile way.

 

Vehicles that I think are really missing:

 

-STUGs

I am not much of a tank guy, but every WW2 scenario with the germans needs a Stug. That is an undisputable fact! ;=P

So maybe the G as most numerous variant (only wikipedia knowlege I got) ?

 

-More Sherman variants.

because with lend lease they can be eastern or western front use

 

-more late war capable AAA able to escort tanks;

Wirbelwind and M-17 gun carriage (because used by brits, soviets and US)

 

and maybe some more "lighter" vehicles that have mobility and firepower instead of amor like the Sd.Kfz. 234

I totally agree! I think they could get a lot of mileage out of the current maps (Normandy included) with just collector vehicles and improved sound/graphics of bomb blasts/crater marks for the time being. And while there are a lot of great battle scenes that could be used as the backdrop for a TC2, I would still love to see a N.Africa campaign.

 

But going back to the point being made by MSZ, The current maps included in the GBS are a lot more detailed then I originally thought, and are more than capable of providing the scenery for some of the most epic battles on the Eastern front.

 

For example, I love the BOS map and spend a fair bit of time on it. Out of curiosity, I once tried to retrace the 4th Armies tracks and was surprised that I was able to find most of the relevant rivers/towns/roads leading up to where its attempted breakthrough was halted. Anyone into using the ME to make their own missions for tanks, try the BOS map at sunset if you want to see some really beautiful scenery amidst all the cannon fire. 

 

 

[Avimimus]

Oddly... my tendency is to ask for a T-60/T-70 or Matilda (early war) or a Jadgpanther or Hetzer (late war).

 

That said, I do see the potential benefits to making some use of the Normandy map (even with a half-sized vehicle pack).

Edited June 12, 2021 by Avimimus

[LachenKrieg]

How often do you tend to request that?...

 

If Normandy works like all the other maps, we already have a number of vehicles that could be used on it in addition to anything they might decide to add.

 

Don't tell anyone just yet, but I heard they are working on a Jagdpanther with wings.

Edited June 12, 2021 by LachenKrieg

[Hanu]

The one with StuG IIIG. Thats about it.

[LachenKrieg]

@moustache, what else is new!!

[moustache]

2 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

Jagdpanther with wings.

 

... WTF ?!?... (if it's a joke, sorry, don't understand it...)

[LachenKrieg]

@moustache, Why are you so triggered all the time? Yes it was a joke. A pilot that doesn't own TC was requesting Russian tanks for the Normandy map, so I was agreeing with your confused state... because his request doesn't make a lot of sense. But then again, I don't think it was supposed to.

Edited June 12, 2021 by LachenKrieg

[moustache]

arf... i'm stupid, too much beer... I think I have too much hope for news on a new vehicle... I thought to myself that maybe a translator's error? a jadgpanther ...

Edited June 13, 2021 by moustache

[No_Face]

I did not vote for anything because it has a lot of things that make you want to. ?
 

I'd love to play tanks in Normandy, @616Sqn_Johnny-Red did a great job explaining why. Combat in the bocage must be something intense. It allows players who are not snipers to still have fun. The engagement distances mean that armor doesn't really matter anymore (I'm exaggerating a bit but you get the idea). The danger can be behind every hedge, you have to spend your time hearing engine noises nearby and stressing.
 

Oh, and I'm from Normandy, so maybe that's a bit of a factor.

On the other hand, the vegetation is not very beautiful in game but it would be the occasion to improve it. ?

Africa does not interest me at all. I'm really afraid that it's just long range shooting but maybe I'm wrong, after all, there can be big dunes as well as cities.
But Africa would have the advantage of bringing diversity, there is something for everyone.

On the other hand I like the light/medium tanks and the tank hunters. The Wintergewitter list is very appealing to me.


But finally, if there is a Stug I will be happy, even more if there is also a Puma. ?

[moustache]

Totally agree... I think the Battle of the Bulge would be nicer for both camps: the region has relief, so we can move from cover to cover, we can stand at the top of a hill and spot from afar ... numerous forest and small village, conducive to ambush ... for me, it would really allow each tank to have a role according to its weakness and strength.

[Irishratticus72]

No, 

I don't want no Stugs, 

A Stug is a gun that can get no love from me, 

Hanging out the passenger side,

of his best friend's ride, 

Tryin' to holler at me. 

[Splinty]

I would be really interested in doing Normandy from the British POV. There were some really serious tank battles around Caen and a really good mix of American, British and German armor involved.

[Froddi_VR]

I really want them to model other tanks than the usual set up British tanks would be fun and maybe Italian also. What i want most of all is an M24 Chaffe! I have loved that tank since i was a kid.

[616Sqn_Johnny-Red]

Normandy was an attritional battle in which both sides committed significant armoured force. Stroke and counterstroke were halted by armour losses, or carried with the support of armoured firepower:

 

Casualties were significantly high, with the exchange lasting for several weeks and armour often directly engaging armour:

 

3 hours ago, Splinty said:

here were some really serious tank battles around Caen and a really good mix of American, British and German armor involved.

 

Normandy would cover British Commonwealth and US armour which was representative of Western Allied material in use right up to the end of the war.

 

A lot of brave souls fought and died in North Africa, and I won't insult them by calling the campaign a side show: For me the reasons not to go to North Africa are based on a desire for cover-based tactical gameplay and the wish to build a more useful and representative inventory.

 

[Thad]

On 6/12/2021 at 3:05 PM, LachenKrieg said:

Don't tell anyone just yet, but I heard they are working on a Jagdpanther with wings.

The Russians already have a flying tank.... the IL2. ?

[M3Grant]

2 hours ago, 616Sqn_Johnny-Red said:

more useful and representative inventory.

The M3 Lee/Grant was used in North Africa, Russia, and the Pacific.

The Valentine was used in both North Africa and the USSR

The M3 was used in North Africa and the USSR

The M5 was used throughout the war in the Western and Pacific Theatres.

Multiple types of early Cruiser tanks  fought in France and North Africa

Don't forget that the German tanks were used in all theatres where the German fought, and Italian tanks fought in Italy too.

You might say that the Normandy campaign would add a more "useful and representative inventory" but what you're going to get is the Sherman Fireflys, Sherman 75s, Cromwell,  vs. King Tigers, Tigers, Panthers, Panzer IVs and StuG III/IV. The  can generally fight Panzer IVs and StuGs on equal or more than equal terms. The Firefly could kill Panthers and Tigers, but the King Tiger would be very hard to kill. 

In Multiplayer you are going to have a good portion of people using King Tigers, and only a certain few using the worse tanks. The Allies already often have trouble defeating Tigers and Panthers, at least from what i've seen, and King Tigers would be even worse

While balance shouldn't be the main focus of a simulator, it would be nice to have for multiplayer, and since Tank Crew currently lacks a lot of single player content, at least a little attention should be payed to it.

The Second Battle of El Alamein has roughly equivalent tanks, the only heavy tank present would be the Valentine, and while it has somewhat strong armor, it has a terrible gun. 

The M3 Lee and the Panzer IV F2 are the most powerfully armed tanks of each side, the M3 having both a 37mm and a 75mm gun, and the Panzer IV F2 also having a 75 mm gun. 

The Panzer IV F1 has a lower velocity 75 mm gun

The M 14/41 and Panzer III have weaker guns and armor but would be roughly equivalent to the M3/M5 and Crusaider

Your point about cover is valid though, North Africa is fairly empty. Hopefully they implement smoke!

[616Sqn_Johnny-Red]

 

10 hours ago, M3Grant said:

You might say that the Normandy campaign would add a more "useful and representative inventory" but what you're going to get is the Sherman Fireflys, Sherman 75s, Cromwell,  vs. King Tigers, Tigers, Panthers, Panzer IVs and StuG III/IV. The  can generally fight Panzer IVs and StuGs on equal or more than equal terms. The Firefly could kill Panthers and Tigers, but the King Tiger would be very hard to kill. 

In Multiplayer you are going to have a good portion of people using King Tigers, and only a certain few using the worse tanks. The Allies already often have trouble defeating Tigers and Panthers, at least from what i've seen, and King Tigers would be even worse

While balance shouldn't be the main focus of a simulator, it would be nice to have for multiplayer, and since Tank Crew currently lacks a lot of single player content, at least a little attention should be payed to it.

 

It's interesting that you cite the point about about TC being played online by big-gun addicts, but it's the responsibility of server owners to control tank availability at the point of mission design. That's the point at which the server stands or falls on playability and fairness.

 

Regarding differences in inventory; the Wehrmacht hit its technological high-water mark versus the Allies at Kursk - tank for tank they were considerably advantaged (especially if we negate the fact that 40% of their offensive armour was StuGs):

 

At Kursk the Germans lost because it wasn't as simple as lining up an equal number of tanks on both sides. They were outnumbered by a well dug-in enemy who's strength and disposition they had failed to ascertain. The terrain was packed with layers of defence lines, each promising to be the last before the hoped-for breakthrough into the enemy's rear (where unknown to the attackers, massive reserves had been amassed by the Soviets for a counter attack).

 

Online we currently have a culture of sniperism in which Panzer Elite players simply dig in an shoot because the tactical incentive and risk-to-reward benefit for manoeuvre is non-existent.

 

Put plainly the Allies need their historical parity in arms, the Axis needs objective based game play which is challenging and rewarding, and both sides need terrain that favours more diverse activity, while the whole game needs inventory which joins up with pre-existing resouces (including plane sets, maps and AI units).

 

I'm less interested in inventory which "can" be played on other fronts; I'd rather see the work-horses of both faction's armed forces.

 

Western Allied mainstays would enable both Allies and Axis to tell their story in gameplay on the Rhineland and Channel Front maps from D-Day to the end: Sherman variants, including the 75 with Duplex Drive, 76 and Firefly, the Churchill IV/V/VI and the Cromwell IV should be included, as should the ubiquitous StuG and Jagdpanzer IV. I have no objection whatsoever to the King Tiger, late variant Panther or Jagdpanther. I'd like to meet them all in the bocage; while the Churchill IV and StuG would fit perfectly with the mid-war Eastern Front inventory.

 

I would genuinely love to see all the action of the Second World War represented in TC (including North Africa and Italy CBI, and the South Pacific), but at the rate new content is developed I think it's sensible to take a strategic approach to what content you cheer for.

 

 

[LachenKrieg]

23 minutes ago, 616Sqn_Johnny-Red said:

 

 

It's interesting that you cite the point about about TC being played online by big-gun addicts, but it's the responsibility of server owners to control tank availability at the point of mission design. That's the point at which the server stands or falls on playability and fairness.

 

Regarding differences in inventory; the Wehrmacht hit its technological high-water mark versus the Allies at Kursk - tank for tank they were considerably advantaged (especially if we negate the fact that 40% of their offensive armour was StuGs):

 

At Kursk the Germans lost because it wasn't as simple as lining up an equal number of tanks on both sides. They were outnumbered by a well dug-in enemy who's strength and disposition they had failed to ascertain. The terrain was packed with layers of defence lines, each promising to be the last before the hoped-for breakthrough into the enemy's rear (where unknown to the attackers, massive reserves had been amassed by the Soviets for a counter attack).

 

Online we currently have a culture of sniperism in which Panzer Elite players simply dig in an shoot because the tactical incentive and risk-to-reward benefit for manoeuvre is non-existent.

 

Put plainly the Allies need their historical parity in arms, the Axis needs objective based game play which is challenging and rewarding, and both sides need terrain that favours more diverse activity, while the whole game needs inventory which joins up with pre-existing resouces (including plane sets, maps and AI units).

 

I'm less interested in inventory which "can" be played on other fronts; I'd rather see the work-horses of both faction's armed forces.

 

Western Allied mainstays would enable both Allies and Axis to tell their story in gameplay on the Rhineland and Channel Front maps from D-Day to the end: Sherman variants, including the 75 with Duplex Drive, 76 and Firefly, the Churchill IV/V/VI and the Cromwell IV should be included, as should the ubiquitous StuG and Jagdpanzer IV. I have no objection whatsoever to the King Tiger, late variant Panther or Jagdpanther. I'd like to meet them all in the bocage; while the Churchill IV and StuG would fit perfectly with the mid-war Eastern Front inventory.

 

I would genuinely love to see all the action of the Second World War represented in TC (including North Africa and Italy CBI, and the South Pacific), but at the rate new content is developed I think it's sensible to take a strategic approach to what content you cheer for.

 

 

What a well written post

[M3Grant]

Both the Germans and the Allies will have nearly the same amount of forces, I haven't seen players decide to join the allies, often I find that the teams are mostly equivalent. So a parity in arms would be nice to at least allow some equivalence in teams. You can't really assume that an allied team will have enough coordination to destroy the King Tiger/ Tigers/ Panthers.

4 hours ago, 616Sqn_Johnny-Red said:

Western Allied mainstays

 

4 hours ago, 616Sqn_Johnny-Red said:

I'd rather see the work-horses of both faction's armed forces.

The mainstay of a country or alliance changes over time. The M3 Lee was a a mainstay of the Allies for the early part of the war, and was still used as the Shermans started to arrive. The M5 Stuart was also a mainstay of the Western Allies, being the main light tank right up to the very very end of the war. The early Panzer IVs and Panzer IIIs were also mainstays of 1941-42 era German armed forces. You seem to think that the mainstay tanks were mainly the tanks used in the late war. Tanks like the Sherman DDs, Churchill IVs, and Sherman 76s.

4 hours ago, 616Sqn_Johnny-Red said:

Online we currently have a culture of sniperism in which Panzer Elite players simply dig in an shoot because the tactical incentive and risk-to-reward benefit for manoeuvre is non-existent.

 

Put plainly the Allies need their historical parity in arms, the Axis needs objective based game play which is challenging and rewarding, and both sides need terrain that favours more diverse activity.

This and anything else I didn't mention I agree with. I would like better incentives for attacking and moving around. I don't think a North Africa map would prevent diverse activity, however. A desert isn't completely flat and empty. There will be hills, mountains, ridgelines, towns, trees, and shrubbery. 

Edited June 14, 2021 by M3Grant

[616Sqn_Johnny-Red]

@M3Grant To be clear, I don't want to exclude anything from Tank Crew content. I'm not arguing against North Africa, but I am arguing for dev priority to go to the Western Front:

 

I'm a mission builder. The more diversity and content we have, the more stories we can tell.

 

Here's the situation with the the the Rhineland (and Channel Front) maps:

 

 

Germany:

 

The Wehrmacht used largely the same material on both Eastern and Western Fronts, albeit in varying proportions of overall force composition.

 

The Tank Crew's Pz IV, V, VI can all be played on the Western Front maps without breaking historical immersion. Going from memory (and I'd be happy to take correction on this if it's wrong): 1944 is getting very late for the Pz III and I wouldn't expect to see it much outside the role of unarmed command tank; and as for the Elefant, I really don't know. I defer comment to German armour experts.

 

Most Axis AI ground units originally developed for the Eastern Front can also be incorporated into mission building on the Western Front.

 

The same principle is borne out for planes on the Western front: All German material from the FW190A-5 and Bf109G-6 onwards should be a familiar sight during the timescale of the Chanel Front and Rhineland maps. The people who helped research the pilot careers would have the last word on the subject of what was where. Again, not my specialism.

 

In general most Axis AI and playable material is useable on the Western Front maps.

 

Western Allies (USA, UK, Canada, Poland and France et al):

 

The Western Allies do not have the luxuary of being able to represent their AI ground units with Soviet units. This would be immersion-shattering for both Axis and Allies and consequently it's a non-option.

 

This represented a significant hole in Western Front ground content; and in this respect the developer has recently made a huge effort to plug the gap, with the standard of finished AI assets being really commendable.

 

For plane sets, the devopers have done an outstanding job, and I couldn't wish for a more healthy and representative collection of iconic Axis and Western Allied planes (unless is included a few more of the stars of 1943 for the Normandy map in development).

 

The gap in content for the Western Front maps is now in playable tanks and other playable fighting vehicles. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. The Western Allies have the Sherman and nothing more. If you're looking for a wrong to right, it's right there. The North African campaign material is out of timeframe, with all suggested playable elements being absolete by the time of Overloard; the Battle of the Bulge set is not as representative of fighting that characterised the Western Front throughout the campaign, and the Soviet material, awesome as it might be is completely incompatible with teh Western Front.

 

 

_________

 

I hate to talk down what other people like, but that's not why I posted:

 

I'm not arguing for what I want, I'm arguing for what (objectively) is most useful for building historical and engaging gameplay over the widest possible terrain.

 

_________

 

My favourite tank barely gets a mention here.

 

I'm advocating the greatest breadth of gameplay experience for the greatest number of players.

 

With regard to your own preferences, the M3 is an awesome looking tank and would probably be one of the most fun to multi-crew due to having two big guns, but it's not relevant for the maps which have greatest need for content.

 

The late body type M5 is found everywhere on the Western Front maps (Normandy and Rhineland) as the scouting element of armoured divisions (making up about 25% of strength in both US and GB Commonwealth). For that reason I'd be delighted to see it added to the game.

 

 

Edited June 15, 2021 by 616Sqn_Johnny-Red

[No_Face]

Concerning Africa, we have to remember that we are talking about Tank Crew, and not about a new module Battle of "Africa" (it's just for the example). What I mean by that is that Tank Crew is supposed to offer, in addition to tanks, a detailed map for tank combat.

 

If some people want Africa for a desert landscape, dunes etc, then the map doesn't need a high level of detail and a Battle of "Africa" module designed for planes will still be sufficient for tanks. (Just as we can use our tanks on all maps, not just Prokhorovka))

 

In these cases it would be a shame to miss the opportunity to have a detailed map for tank combat.

 

So it's not only the list of tank fighters that counts for a TC2 but also the map. In other words: "If the developers have to create a map with a higher level of detail than for the planes modules, which map would you like it to be".

 

Of course, Africa is more than just deserts, but I think it was important to make that point.

Still on the subject of the map, perhaps the Battle of Normandy module will offer an already nice play area and will not require devoting resources for more detail.