Next Tank Crew Module

[SCG_judgedeath3]

15 hours ago, CountZero said:

Said by Tiger player, what historical mission you played online ? where are historical tank numbers sides had, where are defects of thouse mighty Axis uber tanks they had in Kursk ? its easy to say one wonts historical types when he dont have to be bathered by historical enviroment they were used in, having historical types and nothing els is pure fantasy worst then what WT offer in MP, tank MP in this game is pure fantasy nothing historical about it exept tank names... good luck with new TC, oh wait there will be no more TC when only players existing here are axis Panzer and Tiger primadonas... only problems they see is airplanes are to good at finding us, where is our mighty luftwafe

We have several in scg when we play and historical accuracy in mind and systems. And tigers and panthers are easy to deal with if one know what you are doing: t-34 is 20 kmh faster offroad, have periscope so you can hide your tank behind a ridgeline and barely anything of you visible: shot the tiger or panther or ferdi in the side and its dead. If spotted: use the tanks way faster speed and get away, or go for objective and you ave it taken with 20 minutes of spare to set up a defence woth your team on tanks and flames event. Our allied team won 8-1 times against the german side in the so called uber tanks, we simply outmanouvered them and they are too slow to do anything to the allied side.

or as schleifer said: ever tried the su122 or su 152? Tigers and panthers are one shot kill from 3km range plus they dont see you when you fire as the shell has no tracer, most of the time a tiger/panther wont even notice when you miss them, if you miss that is. 

[LachenKrieg]

4 minutes ago, SCG_judgedeath3 said:

... Tigers and panthers are one shot kill from 3km range plus they dont see you when you fire as the shell has no tracer, most of the time a tiger/panther wont even notice when you miss them, if you miss that is. 

This is exactly what holds my interest in Tank Crew... very realistic.

[SCG_judgedeath3]

3 minutes ago, LachenKrieg said:

very realistic

Whats so unrealistic with SU152 destroying heavy tanks, which it did? 

 

Ferdinand hit by one at Kursk:

 

[LachenKrieg]

Nothing is unrealistic about an SU152 destroying any German tank. My point was regarding the 1-shot accuracy at 3km!

[SCG_judgedeath3]

1 minute ago, LachenKrieg said:

My point was regarding the 1-shot accuracy at 3km!

Schleifer and baryonyx can ? and some on finnish server discord. Just as hard as aiming the ferdi gun at that range. Schleifer said above its as easy as a t-34 to aim once you know how to aim. We had them as dedicated cat killers in tanks in flames tournament ?

[LachenKrieg]

6 minutes ago, SCG_judgedeath3 said:

Schleifer and baryonyx can ? and some on finnish server discord. Just as hard as aiming the ferdi gun at that range. Schleifer said above its as easy as a t-34 to aim once you know how to aim. We had them as dedicated cat killers in tanks in flames tournament ?

what does this have to do with historical accuracy?

[LachenKrieg]

1 hour ago, SCG_SchleiferGER said:

 I may be playing the game wrong then, cause I have no problem dealing with any of the big German machines. Apply 152mm HE and the deal is done. 

The SU152 is even reasonably easy to aim and very hard to spot when shooting HE from long range.

 

If you think the Tiger is an "uber tank", then you bring exactly that mentality into a game, that gets you killed fast in said "uber tanks".

 

 

I'm wondering if you aren't misreading the post you quoted? I get a hint of sarcasm when I read it, and think his use of the term "uber" was more directed at what he sees as the mentality of people who prefer playing in German tanks. I don't think he is trying to insinuate that German tanks are invincible, but quite the opposite.  

[Frinik22]

It makes me laugh when casual games like War Thunder or World of Tanks are compared to tank simulators. These games are to simulators what Battlefield of Call of Duty are to Arma 3 or Steel Beasts. They are tank shooters just a tad more refined than you android mobile phone tank shooter but that's it.

 

The truth is that war, the real war is not about balance because ti rarely happens. in the summer 1941 , German armour was out numbered by Soviet armour but prevailed because German crews were better trained and co-ordinated , had radios which most Soviet tanks did not have, had excellent tactics and quickly control of the air which made Soviet tank superiority moot. It's impossible in a game tank simulator to reproduce human factors which prevailed in real wars.  This is also why multi player tank simulators that want to be accurate will never succeed or satisfy everybody because gamers will not want to be on the losing side as not all tanks are born equal. May be modern tank simulators with Leo 2 A-6 or 7s, T90s, Abrams MA2, Challengers 2, Leclercs etc could succeed because nowadays technological difference between modern MBTs of the same generation are fairly limited and war has become much more one of  push buttons and computer guided or assisted  target trackers and who shoots first from 3000 metres gets the kill. But WW2 was much more at the human level where logistics and crew training and reflexes were still primordial as you had little technology which could make up for your mistakes.

 

Multi player tank simulators is like athletic competitions, a lot of participants but only a handful of winners. Do you stop competing because you don't end up on the podium? If losing frustrates you then stop playing multi. The same with competitive shooters, there are guys with better hand-to-eye co-ordination out these who will outplay you and kill you repeatedly ( some cheat others have natural skills) no matter what you do. Accept it and enjoy competition for the  thrill of it or if it's too personal just quit. I play BF games with a gaming laptop and sure I know there are guys with top-of-the-line gaming desktops who can shoot faster than I do because they have more ram, better graphic cards or cpus, faster response screens, better internet may be but Hell it only stimulates me to be more competitive. I could afford to build a top gaming desktop but it's not a priority so I accept having an inferior system ( although my laptop had once top specs) which can lead me to getting owned. It's like sport winning ain't everything, participating can be fun too!

 

Now we have AI that can beat the best (human) chess champions in the world. Imagine when that AI come sot gaming!  Humans getting their asses handed over by compute programming. ?

Edited May 5, 2022 by Frinik22

[SCG_SchleiferGER]

3 minutes ago, LachenKrieg said:

I'm wondering if you aren't misreading the post you quoted? I get a hint of sarcasm when I read it, and think his use of the term "uber" was more directed at what he sees as the mentality of people who prefer playing in German tanks. I don't think he is trying to insinuate that German tanks are invincible, but quite the opposite.  

I am very bad at detecting written sarcasm by people I do not know personally. If that is the case I am sorry.

[LachenKrieg]

1 minute ago, SCG_SchleiferGER said:

I am very bad at detecting written sarcasm by people I do not know personally. If that is the case I am sorry.

No apologies needed, I was just pointing out that he might be saying something quite different from what you understood. That is just my opinion and based on the way I read it though, so we won't know for sure unless the person responsible for the post in question chimes in to say one way, or the other.

[LachenKrieg]

9 minutes ago, Frinik22 said:

It makes me laugh when casual games like War Thunder or World of Tanks are compared to tank simulators. These games are to simulators what Battlefield of Call of Duty are to Arma 3 or Steel Beasts. They are tank shooters just a tad more refined than you android mobile phone tank shooter but that's it.

 

The truth is that war, the real war is not about balance because ti rarely happens. in the summer 1941 , German armour was out numbered by Soviet armour but prevailed because German crews were better trained and co-ordinated , had radios which most Soviet tanks did not have, had excellent tactics and quickly control of the air which made Soviet tank superiority moot. It's impossible in a game tank simulator to reproduce human factors which prevailed in real wars.  This is also why multi player tank simulators that want to be accurate will never succeed or satisfy everybody because gamers will not want to be on the losing side as not all tanks are born equal. May be modern tank simulators with Leo 2 A-6 or 7s, T90s, Abrams MA2, Challengers 2, Leclercs etc could succeed because nowadays technological difference between modern MBTs of the same generation are fairly limited and war has become much more one of  push buttons and computer guided or assisted  target trackers and who shoots first from 3000 metres gets the kill. But WW2 was much more at the human level where logistics and crew training and reflexes were still primordial as you had little technology which could make up for your mistakes.

 

Multi player tank simulators is like athletic competitions, a lot of participants but only a handful of winners. Do you stop competing because you don't end up on the podium? If losing frustrates you then stop playing multi. The same with competitive shooters, there are guys with n better hand-to-eye co-ordination who will out gun you and kill you repeatedly ( some cheat other shave natural skills) no matter what you do. Accept it and enjoy competition for the  thrill of it or if it's too personal just quit.

 

Now we have AI that can beat the best (human) chess champions in the world. Imagine when that AI come sot gaming!  Humans getting their asses handed over by compute programming. ?

The only reason anyone would compare something like WT/WoT to something like Tank Crew would be if Tank Crew was not able to live up to its intended status as a simulator. I don't think the aim of any simulator is to reproduce human factors, so I'm not sure where that concept comes from, but most simulators I know of are meant to simulate an environment that can be used to train the human factors. There might be a fine line there for some, but for most the difference is quite obvious.

 

I don't know why, but whenever the word "balance" is used on a computer game forum, it usually sends people through a loop. My guess is it might have something to do with the different contexts the word can be used in depending on how and what it is being used for, layered over top of the misconception that balance has to mean equality. Balance can be lopsided or uneven, as is the case in most military conflicts.

 

But to help put it more into context, we have Tank Crew the WWII armor vehicle simulator. If we want to use Tank Crew to discuss some aspect of real WWII tanks, then using the term "balance" would likely have a very different meaning then if it was being used to discuss Tank Crew as an on-line computer game. 

 

But whether you like it or not, MP/competitive on-line game play demands that there be some type of balance for the sake of playability, because the outcome of the match is supposed to be decided by player skill, and not player advantage. And in that regard, I would much prefer that the Dev's stay true to the quality/accuracy of the simulator and find the balance needed for MP game play in other ways.

[moustache]

1 hour ago, Frinik22 said:

These games are to simulators what Battlefield of Call of Duty are to Arma 3 or Steel Beasts.

Mmmh, you mean TC is the "Arma of the tank game"? because I don't see what makes it possible to say that: for me, apart from the modeling of the interior of the tanks, the game does not bring much more than WT...

[Frinik22]

1 hour ago, moustache said:

Mmmh, you mean TC is the "Arma of the tank game"? because I don't see what makes it possible to say that: for me, apart from the modeling of the interior of the tanks, the game does not bring much more than WT...

No I meant to say that Arma3 has a steep curve when it comes to playing and learning the skills and getting the grip of all the various controls while being tactical rather than FPGs where gun and run and quick spawning over and over are the order of the day. If you have played the game in multi player mode in squads you'll know what I mean.

 

AS for finding balance in multiplayer , there are ways but the devs would need to up their game. For example like in real life there were 1349 Tiger I produced versus 40 000 T34s of all variety( from the 1940 model to the late 1944 T34/85 variant) Thus limit the number of Tigers available to 1 for every 5 or 6 T34/43.  Tiger I were fairly reliable but prone to suspension and transmission breakdowns if not properly and regularly maintained. Introduce  a random breakdown factor in MP, also force Tiger players to break off engagements to refuel as the Tiger I was a gas guzzler. Turret rotation was much slower than for the T34. On the other hand Soviet ammo was of uneven quality and had high rates of dud shells this should be reflected as well. Server admins can also request that players rotate.One round you get to play the German and whatever tank is available be it a Tiger a Pz III or IV or a Panther Ausf D. Next round the player is switched to a Sov. tank whichever is available.  Players also need to know their vehciles strenghts and wekanesses. The T34 is very agile and manoeuvrable but it's gun and side armour are not the best, poor optics and ergonomics and no radios . The tiger I is slower, its turret rotate slowly, needs constant maintenance and a lot of fuel. The KV has good armour and lots of ammo but is slow, poor visibility, no radio and the 76mm(F22 or F34) gun was in 1943 underpowered compared to Germans 75 and 88mm. The Sherman  and PZIV Ausf G were well matched the PZ IV had the better gun, better gunsight and lower silhouette but the Sherman had better armour protection, was faster and more agile. The PZ III and Churchill were the outliers. The Churchill was terribly slow and under gunned while the Pz III had thin armour and it Kwk39 L60 was also no longer sufficient in 1943.

[SCG_judgedeath3]

The churchill 57mm gun is quite powerfull, can pen the tiger from 500 meters and from side from 1500 meters, in north africa they gave the tigers there a match, several knocked out amongst one which is tiger 131.

https://warspot.net/156-tiger-killers/images?name=%2F000%2F001%2F765%2Fcontent%2F9-ff421e1b8adeae218cf90548009176b3.png

credits to schleifer for this find.

 

Kv-1 use the same gun as t-34 btw  

 

developer has nothing to do with multiplayer, they dont make a single server. The ones online are made by passionate fans: servermakers and they can indeed limit number of tanks or settings in their server as you want and much more.

Edited May 5, 2022 by SCG_judgedeath3

[Frinik22]

I know the developers have nothing to do with the servers but they have everything to do with the tank models they designed and created for the game. They could modify them to enter , at random, a degrading factor for the armour, mechanical components etc. The server admins can't do that.

 

I know that the various KV variants used the F22, F34 used by the T34s pre 1944 models and also the Zis 5 which was not fitted to the T34.  I said both tank models were under gunned by mid 1943.

Edited May 5, 2022 by Frinik22

[moustache]

9 minutes ago, SCG_judgedeath3 said:

The churchill 57mm gun is quite powerfull, can pen the tiger from 500 meters and from side from 1500 meters, in north africa they gave the tigers there a match, several knocked out amongst one which is tiger 131.

Mmmh, you have to see, depending on the effectiveness of the AP shells... I'm a little scared with the current model, I have the impression that the AP shells are a bit useless...

[LachenKrieg]

I would say the Dev's are very much implicated in the MP community. The software they produce runs the entire thing, which includes the vehicles, gun/armor model, damage model, game features, effects, ect, ect...

 

One problem might be that the Dev's could/should work a little closer with the server community to help build up a better game experience, but the server community itself can only put up what they are given by the Dev's.

 

There are all kinds of ways that could be used to help improve MP game play without affecting the accuracy of the SIM. 

[Frinik22]

The Tigers disabled by the 57 mm in North Africa were di/san bled by the towed version of the 57 mm not by Churchills. The tigers were abandoned by their crews one Tiger 131, currently the only fully functional tiger, had its turret ring disabled which made the tank unable to traverse it s gun. The other also was immobilized and had become a sitting duck. Hardly what I would call a tank killer. Soviet crews were very critical of the Churchill, they found it slower than the KV and felt that the KV's 76mm guns were better. However they loved the thick armour and the more spacious ergonomics inside.

 

Here's a relation of a battle involving Soviet Churchills trying to finish off the Germans near the end of the battle for Stalingrad in January 1943( the article by mistake says Jan. 1942)

https://warisboring.com/a-german-general-said-a-soviet-attack-was-like-the-middle-ages/

 

[SCG_judgedeath3]

10 minutes ago, Frinik22 said:

The Tigers disabled by the 57 mm in North Africa were di/san bled by the towed version of the 57 mm not by Churchills

Bovington tank museum disagrees:

First shell jammed it, the second penetrated it and wounded the commander and they abandoned the tank, same and worse for the rest of the german tanks in that days battle against the british 48 royal tank regiment if one read up on their action in that battle.

Edited May 5, 2022 by SCG_judgedeath3

[moustache]

anyone who is interested in tanks knows this story (true, huh, I'm not saying the opposite...), well in the end, 1 churchill, over the entire period of the tiger, succeeded in immobilizing it... not really a tank killer...

 

this tank will be a nice addition, but it's not going to be a game-changer in the full tiger games in multiplayer... sad

[ShampooX]

6 hours ago, moustache said:

anyone who is interested in tanks knows this story (true, huh, I'm not saying the opposite...), well in the end, 1 churchill, over the entire period of the tiger, succeeded in immobilizing it... not really a tank killer...

 

this tank will be a nice addition, but it's not going to be a game-changer in the full tiger games in multiplayer... sad

well i can only speak for the two multiplayer servers I play: FVP and AAS - and there the number of Tiger and Panthers allowed are very limited.  In fact in FVP you only get two of each per spawn and once they are used up, only a para drop will resupply them....and the thing here is that rarely do German FVP pilots drop paras.  So it's far from from hordes of OP Tigers and Panthers as some have said above and the SU152 can one shot all of them anyway.  So there is a good bit of balance in that regard.

[moustache]

Mmmh, please... I'll just talk about AAS (when I go to Finnish, I never meet anyone...). on AAS, it is common to face a team of 4.5 or even 6 players, full panther/tiger, or even a ferdinand... and certainly the SU 122 and 152 have their chance, but to talk about balance, we are talking about a howitzer with all the inherent defects against tanks ....

[JV44HeinzBar]

11 hours ago, ShampooActual said:

 In fact in FVP you only get two of each per spawn and once they are used up, only a para drop will resupply them....and the thing here is that rarely do German FVP pilots drop paras. 

 

S! Shampoo,

JV44Stacko did a para drop the other night to try to resupply the tank spawns. Both were out of Tigers & Panthers. The successful para drop did not resupply the  2 Tigers nor the 2 Panthers for each tank spawn in that sector. It did increase the number of tanks at those spawns, though. Could be a bug, but FVP may limit the number of Tigers/Panthers per map rotation?

 

HB

[ShampooX]

14 hours ago, JV44HeinzBar said:

 

S! Shampoo,

JV44Stacko did a para drop the other night to try to resupply the tank spawns. Both were out of Tigers & Panthers. The successful para drop did not resupply the  2 Tigers nor the 2 Panthers for each tank spawn in that sector. It did increase the number of tanks at those spawns, though. Could be a bug, but FVP may limit the number of Tigers/Panthers per map rotation?

 

HB

In fact he did two!!

[Frinik22]

I stand corrected for Tiger 131 although I was referring  to all Tigers knocked out in North Africa in my comment.

 

The SU 152 is a horrible vehicle. IT's a powerful howitzer to take out defensive p[position from afar but as an armour fighting vehicle it's a rolling grave, slow reload ( 40 seconds in real life). limited traverse, poor ergonomics and visibility, no mg for protection against infantry, no radios, low ammo count( 18 shells each weighing 44 kgs). The only pros were  low silhouette and powerful HE shells which could inflict tremendous damage if the SU 152 had a  chance  to line a shot.

[SCG_judgedeath3]

Dunno, even the soviets used them as heavy tank destroyer and quite effective:

The SU-152 in action

According to its combat designation, the SU-152 could be either a heavy tank destroyer or a heavy assault gun, and indeed, in practice, it was discovered the 152 mm (5.98 in) muzzle velocity and the heavy high explosive rounds had surprising, unsuspected qualities against German armor. This was the origin of its popular nickname of "beast fighter" in reference to the German Tigers, Elefants and Panthers encountered at Kursk. Although, in practice, the 152 mm (5.98 in) round did not penetrate the thick armor of these tanks, the excessive shock of the explosion on impact was enough to jam a turret, gun mantlet, blast tracks or do other significant damage. Tests performed on captured Tiger tanks early in 1943 had shown that the SU-152 was able of "decapitating" them (blasting the turret off) at any range, with a good degree of reliability. At that time, this was the only Russian tank capable of doing so. The consequence of this was that the SU-152 operationally functioned within regular mobile artillery units, which could be used as ersatz heavy tank destroyer battalions on demand.

The SU-152 saw its combat debut in the summer of 1943 at the Battle of Kursk, where it was proven to be equally effective against German tanks and an excellent self-propelled gun. The most active units of SU-152s saw action during the second half of 1943 and early 1944, but their numbers steadily decreased as a result of combat losses, severe deterioration of the chassis, engine and transmission. This was because of a still relatively crude manufacturing quality, very intensive use and lack of maintenance. Also, its replacement by the ISU-152, more largely produced, accelerated the process. The last offensive where SU-152s were committed en masse (alongside ISU-152s) was during Operation Bagration in June 1944. A small number of SPGs managed to survive until the end of the war and served in the postwar years until 1954, when these were decommissioned, scrapped, and the remainder sold (to Syria and Egypt). Only four are still in existence today.

Edited May 8, 2022 by SCG_judgedeath3

[LachenKrieg]

I dunno either. Try expanding your google searches beyond the Tank Encyclopedia to get a better feel for whatever topic your researching. I found a lot of information there to be either copy-paste from other sources, or unreliable in general.

 

But the link below looks more closely at the actual accuracy of the gun itself. If you notice at the beginning of the post the author mentions that the SU-152 had a reputation for not being able to hit the broad side of a barn before showing what he thinks is proof to the contrary. The reputation of the SU-152's gun accuracy is something that has definitely been discussed elsewhere.

 

Also realize the 1000 m trial showing a little better grouping reused the same target for a two test grouping. There is little doubt that the tighter grouping could have been aided by this.

 

The important point is that dispersion starts to spread noticeably beyond 800 m. In the heat of battle you probably wouldn't have time to take 13 test shots from 2-3 km away to sight your gun in without having the guy who is looking back at you with a much more accurate gun taking a shot.

 

http://www.tankarchives.ca/2022/05/su-152-practical-accuracy.html

Edited May 8, 2022 by LachenKrieg

[chrisarmyknife]

I think TC2 is a question of When, not if. 

Personally i think Normandy is a safe bet, given the work already being put into the Normandy Module and the bulk of armor in Normandy being based off of Armor Already in TC, it would lessen the load all-around for the creators. Normandy is also my personal dream TC setting , terrain would lend itself well to diverse engagements , where you aren't firing at a enemy tank a mile away in a open field but are fighting in areas where you have lots of soft cover and can easily break line of sight , but rounds can still hit you from anywhere due to the lack of hard cover.

 

While Infantry is a big want in TC, IIRC the devs have given a hard no to infantry in TC 1 at least , possibly all future TCs as-well. 

[moustache]

Wow, aren't we too old to believe in Santa Claus? I'm kidding...

 

already, the sales of the 1st TC must be sufficient to "motivate" the developers...
then, I'm afraid that with this current physical engine, a TC Normandie will be very disappointing:

 

- the absence of infantry, in the battles of the Norman bocage, where they were a major threat because very close to the tanks, risks being disappointing

 

- the management of the vegetation, especially at long distance where it partially disappears: it will hurt, and the eyes, and our graphics card, I think...

 

- let's add to that the invisible objects that "spawn" regularly in the forests... no more forest, no more invisible objects, no more repair stops because you hit an object at 10Km/H with your tank...

 

- the management of collisions (with the famous Rhino tanks...) and the "easy" damage it creates

 

- the presence of villages and cities more important than in the Russian steppe, and the pathfinding/the AI of the tanks, which want to hug the scenery more than follow you...

 

- not sure that the engine can create a terrain resembling the Normandy terrain, with its hedges and all its small channels between the hedges (we have no trenches on Kursk, even anti-tank, when they were one of the main defense means of the battle...)

 

(attention, I would be very happy if there is a normandy TC (the sherman firefly, finally!!!!...), but I think it would be better if it already improves the current TC, improves the gameplay and the simulation and fix current bugs...)

[JG27_Steini]

2 hours ago, chrisarmyknife said:

I think TC2 is a question of When, not if. 

Personally i think Normandy is a safe bet, given the work already being put into the Normandy Module and the bulk of armor in Normandy being based off of Armor Already in TC, it would lessen the load all-around for the creators. Normandy is also my personal dream TC setting , terrain would lend itself well to diverse engagements , where you aren't firing at a enemy tank a mile away in a open field but are fighting in areas where you have lots of soft cover and can easily break line of sight , but rounds can still hit you from anywhere due to the lack of hard cover.

 

While Infantry is a big want in TC, IIRC the devs have given a hard no to infantry in TC 1 at least , possibly all future TCs as-well. 

 

Currently the team develops Normandy and FC II. Next IL2 BoX will and FC III are following. Where do you see any resource for TC II? We have not seen any announcement or improvement for TC since several months. I hope i am wrong, but i highly doubt a next TC II.

[Yogiflight]

3 hours ago, JG27_Steini said:

 

Currently the team develops Normandy and FC II. Next IL2 BoX will and FC III are following. Where do you see any resource for TC II? We have not seen any announcement or improvement for TC since several months. I hope i am wrong, but i highly doubt a next TC II.

Not to forget, that, if they develop a TC 2, then certainly not on a flight map like the Normandy map. Those maps don't fit the needs of a tank map. There will certainly be an own map for the tank game alone,with houses with better DM than the houses of the flight maps, like the Prokhorovka map has in the main battle area. They might take a part of the map, though, and give it some improvements to make it usable for a TC 2.

I would be more for an earlier time span, with the German side having the Panzer IV F2 (early G with the 7.5cm KwK 40 L/43) as most powerful tank, but I understand, that it needs a western front scenario as next expansion to satisfy American, British and Canadian players.

[LachenKrieg]

3 hours ago, moustache said:

Wow, aren't we too old to believe in Santa Claus? I'm kidding...

 

already, the sales of the 1st TC must be sufficient to "motivate" the developers...
then, I'm afraid that with this current physical engine, a TC Normandie will be very disappointing:

 

- the absence of infantry, in the battles of the Norman bocage, where they were a major threat because very close to the tanks, risks being disappointing

 

- the management of the vegetation, especially at long distance where it partially disappears: it will hurt, and the eyes, and our graphics card, I think...

 

- let's add to that the invisible objects that "spawn" regularly in the forests... no more forest, no more invisible objects, no more repair stops because you hit an object at 10Km/H with your tank...

 

- the management of collisions (with the famous Rhino tanks...) and the "easy" damage it creates

 

- the presence of villages and cities more important than in the Russian steppe, and the pathfinding/the AI of the tanks, which want to hug the scenery more than follow you...

 

- not sure that the engine can create a terrain resembling the Normandy terrain, with its hedges and all its small channels between the hedges (we have no trenches on Kursk, even anti-tank, when they were one of the main defense means of the battle...)

 

(attention, I would be very happy if there is a normandy TC (the sherman firefly, finally!!!!...), but I think it would be better if it already improves the current TC, improves the gameplay and the simulation and fix current bugs...)

Very well said, and I couldn't agree more.

 

I don't think the problem is/was the number of people interested in TC.

 

Clearly the upcoming and highly anticipated Normandy campaign is going to be a major boon to the GBS, and if done right would also make an excellent theater to plan the next Tank Crew in. But as @moustache already pointed out, there are a lot of current issues that make it very hard to believe that the upcoming Normandy will/could be the backdrop for TC2. Regarding the invisible objects thing though, it is always possible that they are using newer map technology to create the Normandy map and that this won't be a problem for ground vehicles, but only time will tell.

 

I personally think that Tank Crew has a lot of life left in it and other than adding more collector vehicles to expand its appeal, what is much more urgent than a TC2 would be to fix the one we have now. Adding infantry would be a pretty major upgrade, but that also wouldn't require a TC2.

[chrisarmyknife]

4 hours ago, moustache said:

Wow, aren't we too old to believe in Santa Claus?

What, you mean he isn't??

 

To further explain my point incase it wasn't clear (general reply not directed at anyone in particular) , I'm not saying they should/would use the flight map from Normandy, I'm saying that they have assets regarding Normandy so it would, in theory, be slightly easier to make a Normandy TC expansion over another setting, but yes there are a large list of issues with making Normandy fun in TC. Normandy is my dream TC setting but most likely TC 2 will be a more open setting, it is a shame TC is limited by the engine of IL-2, if it weren't it maybe it would be a more true to life tanker experience.

 

I have a hard time thinking of a setting for TC 2 other than Normandy or Western Europe, North Africa is possible but personally i wouldn't find it too interesting, Early war in Russia or Poland might be a interesting idea, but in the case of Poland they might have trouble filling out a roster of tanks.

[SCG_Neun]

Wouldn't it be neat if they had a high res map area within the Normandy Map like they currently do in Prokhorovka, with topographic readouts and towns and roadways more intricately laid out?  A place to square off and do ground battle with the increased quality of better terrain features would be a welcomed addition to the new map. 

 

As far as infantry, well we know it's not coming to the level that most of you would like, but perhaps some infantry modules to give some semblance of small hand held AT positions would be a great addition.  One thing, I'd like to see in the single player missions, and perhaps this is already there in some of them, but some subtitle popups or voice, simulating ground units advising armor that enemy positions are immediately ahead, such as AT or enemy tanks, etc. 

 

The immersion of not seeing mass waves of simulated soldiers is really something that you can get used to when playing the game, it's the historical reality that ground troops provided so much recon value to advancing tanks that I find missing.  I place some warnings in my personal MP missions to simulate this, and I feel like it does help.  We also use some forward observer positions that we simulate that if you knock out, the artillery bombardment will stop, things like that are good work arounds.

 

I really feel like with the right tanks and just a few tweaks that TC is going to be a blast to play some 1944-45 ground battles just like we can play right now, especially in our closed servers with missions designed to get the most out of the game.  I know that for some, and some that don't even play the game really, TC will never reach the desired level of detail, and this is just the nature of gaming products.  Most simulations have give and take and do things better in some areas and kind of fall short in others.

 

You can either fish....or cut bait, either play it or just talk about what's wrong with it.  If I waited for perfection, I'd have missed hours and hours of fun with my friends sharing some history together and having a blast in the process.  

 

 

Edited May 9, 2022 by SCG_Neun

[moustache]

45 minutes ago, SCG_Neun said:

Wouldn't it be neat if they had a high res map area within the Normandy Map like they currently do in Prokhorovka, with topographic readouts and towns and roadways more intricately laid out?  A place to square off and do ground battle with the increased quality of better terrain features would be a welcomed addition to the new map. 

who said that?

I don't see people refusing a Normandy TC... we are just saying that the result, given the current capacities, would not be very beautiful, heavy, and far from reality (simulating a number of small rivers, villages and towns, and the Normandy bocage...)

 

47 minutes ago, SCG_Neun said:

The immersion of not seeing mass waves of simulated soldiers is really something that you can get used to when playing the game, it's the historical reality that ground troops provided so much recon value to advancing tanks that I find missing.

we did not ask that they simulate the entire Russian army... but AT teams equipped with PTRS/PTRD rifles would be welcome...

 

49 minutes ago, SCG_Neun said:

a few tweaks

...

 

51 minutes ago, SCG_Neun said:

TC will never reach the desired level of detail, and this is just the nature of gaming products.  Most simulations have give and take and do things better in some areas and kind of fall short in others.

there may be a difference between some adjustment and presenting a game as a simulation when all we have more than WT is a model from the inside...

[SCG_Neun]

Moustache, you are reading too much into my post, but I'm sure if you and I could talk together we'd probably agree on a lot of the same things.  Not sure where you get that people are refusing a Normandy TC...I was just saying, wouldn't it be neat if the map had that feature.  I never said anything about the entire Russian Army, but just commenting on how not having all those troops doesn't effect the game as much as the recon feedback that infantry would bring to the game, but that there are ways to work this into the game as well with some recon subtitles.  And finally, you and I will just have to differ on whether this is a simulation or a game.

[moustache]

my mistake, I misunderstood... but I think it would be a bad idea in the sense that the game engine is clearly incapable of reproducing the Norman terrain: it's much more filled with trees, vegetation, even the terrain is more complex... with all the faults and bugs of the game, it would just be a map that burned our graphics cards and would become frustrating...

 

and for the simulation side, apart from the simulation of the shot and the penetration (what WT does, apart from the problems of netcode/connection...), we don't all have the rest of what is the "management" of 'a tank: here, there is only combat... except, navigation, planning, taking information... all that is part of the fight... someone last made a kind of rapprochement with ARMA ... there, it's a simulation: shooting is 5%, see 10% of a game, the rest is preparation, scouting, walking... everything that is done really in the army, among the infantrymen... there we have a simulation

Edited May 9, 2022 by moustache

[LachenKrieg]

9 hours ago, SCG_Neun said:

...You can either fish....or cut bait, either play it or just talk about what's wrong with it.  If I waited for perfection, I'd have missed hours and hours of fun with my friends sharing some history together and having a blast in the process.  

 

 

Or you could enjoy a drink, or two, or three... while you wait for the fishing to get real.

 

For me its unfortunate, because even though Tank Crew had its issues, I thought it was pretty close to what I was looking for in the first 12 months or so. But I would hardly call expecting a reasonable gun/armor model in an armored vehicle simulator waiting for perfection. In my view, there isn't much point to a tank simulation if it doesn't model the gun well.

 

But I get how your group is able to find a lot of enjoyment with TC. Judging by the videos you put up and the forum discussions you share, it looks/sounds like you and the group put an awful lot into the missions to make them interesting. I think that's great, and its only natural that anyone involved would be able to appreciate all that hard work after playing the missions, which I think is the primary source of the fun factor.

 

In my case I bought Tank Crew to learn more about the actual tanks, and how they were used against one another. It has essentially become impossible for me to use TC in the way I intended. But in your case, I think your doing it right. You are happy to use Tank Crew the way it is without being bothered by the details. Nothing wrong with that. 

[SCG_Neun]

2 hours ago, moustache said:

my mistake, I misunderstood... but I think it would be a bad idea in the sense that the game engine is clearly incapable of reproducing the Norman terrain: it's much more filled with trees, vegetation, even the terrain is more complex... with all the faults and bugs of the game, it would just be a map that burned our graphics cards and would become frustrating...

 

and for the simulation side, apart from the simulation of the shot and the penetration (what WT does, apart from the problems of netcode/connection...), we don't all have the rest of what is the "management" of 'a tank: here, there is only combat... except, navigation, planning, taking information... all that is part of the fight... someone last made a kind of rapprochement with ARMA ... there, it's a simulation: shooting is 5%, see 10% of a game, the rest is preparation, scouting, walking... everything that is done really in the army, among the infantrymen... there we have a simulation

You are forgetting a really important plus with Tank Crew, which especially for Normandy map is essential for simulation purposes and that is the air component of the game. We've had some really neat missions with some of our SCG air wing in the skies above us doing what Great Battles does so well, air and ground strike combat capabilities.  Besides our unit there are some others out there as well, enjoying this sim along the same lines that I've mentioned here. 

 

It's not only well modeled tanks but let's face it aircraft that makes the game shine.  I have to agree with you the maps could be better for ground combat, which is why I mentioned how neat it would be for a high res battle area within the Normandy map, with more detail.  Can't argue with some of the games limitations.  I guess I was just trying to say...there are some workarounds, and so much that can be done to offset the limitations.  It does take time and some work.  Let's face it the MP side of the game wouldn't be a success without the unbelievable mission skills of the big name dedicated servers out there.

 

For us the dual capability of the game, ground and air combat give some of our guys the chance to shuffle between the two to relieve the burnout that sometimes occurs with the same ole same ole.  I've even been doing some offline flying enjoying some of the campaigns out there.  I don't play TC in the single player mode because I just do not like the interface...

Edited May 10, 2022 by SCG_Neun

[moustache]

7 hours ago, SCG_Neun said:

You are forgetting a really important plus with Tank Crew, which especially for Normandy map is essential for simulation purposes and that is the air component of the game.

nope, i agree with you... but be careful, I'm not saying that there aren't good things in TC, and the fact that there are planes is one of them... the (unfortunately) rare times when certain pilots agreed to go down to the level of the daisies to do CAS in multi were superb... 

 

but unfortunately, the rest is too limited to claim a real tank simulation... it's a light simulation, (0% fat)

Edited May 10, 2022 by moustache