Next Tank Crew Module

[LachenKrieg]

12 hours ago, SCG_Neun said:

...It's not only well modeled tanks but let's face it aircraft that makes the game shine... 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...

I think your right and this is a really good point, but it turns out to be a major source of disappointment for me.

 

I think it is clear and obvious that the emphasis here is on the flying part of IL2. And so it should be given the large number of pilots that make up the user base. I mean lets face it, the flying group is much bigger and is really the bread-n-butter here.

 

But while attention is given to add realism to the flying part, its not given to the same level for the armor vehicle part, and it leaves me with the impression that real player tanks are more or less meant to add immersion for pilots.

 

In other words if the flying community complained that a specific Spitfire variant was OP against a specific 109 variant, the issue would be looked into/addressed if enough players were affected. But I don't think we can say the same for complaints about the accuracy of combat effectiveness between ground vehicles.

 

I think the Dev's put a big portion of their development energy/time into ensuring pilots on both sides get a good realistic simulation experience, but there is no reason they couldn't do that for ground vehicles as well.  

Edited May 10, 2022 by LachenKrieg

[SCG_Neun]

Yes, I understand your point on this LachenKrieg.

[Thad]

2 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

I think the Dev's put a big portion of their development energy/time into ensuring pilots on both sides get a good simulation experience, but there is no reason they couldn't do that for ground vehicles as well.  

 

Salutations,

 

I agree with this assessment generally. Tank Crew was basically a nice addon to the Great Battles Flight simulation. It is probably correct to assert that TC is not the number one priority of the developers. They are currently neck deep the Normandy module development.

 

 I fear that the Normandy map will also be presented to serve our aircraft just like most of the currently available maps (save one). It will not give us the ground detail needed for realistic tank warfare. I'll be very surprised if it does.

 

Finally, I still have faith in the developers. When they get Normandy completed and deal with most of the inevitable bugs and problems it will present, they will be able to put more attention into tank crew. I look forward to future TC development.

 

[LachenKrieg]

Hey Thad it's been awhile. Good to see your still enjoying your coffee like I do. I have more recently been adding extra large quantities of Irish cream to mine though, but hey, what ever keeps the sun up.

 

I sort of want to disagree with you on the Normandy map comment, or at least hope your wrong. I'm sure you must have read the blog from April 22? Unless that was a joke, I would say that the plan(e) is very much to include the use of ground vehicles. They certainly haven't indicated that there will be an area with more detail like the Prokhorovka map, but I would really be surprised if you continue seeing the invisible tree thing there.

 

But yes I do agree, that is certainly the hope for me as well. They have a lot on their plate at the moment with Normandy, and hopefully once that is done, they can get back to concentrating on fixing the broken wheels.

 

Edited May 10, 2022 by LachenKrieg

[Thad]

Curious..... will it be AI control only? If so, disappointing.

[LachenKrieg]

I was wondering the same thing, but basically other than the fact that it appears to go beyond the usual detail of Ai assets, they would have announced it as a collector vehicle if it was meant to be player controlled. But yeah, I will probably just start adding a little coffee to the Irish cream bottle instead.

[Thad]

If it is a player vehicle... I'd buy it. Very nice model.

[SCG_judgedeath3]

Those ground veichles are ai only, not for players. Similair to b-25, v-1 etc they add for normandy.

[moustache]

1 hour ago, Thad said:

When they get Normandy completed and deal with most of the inevitable bugs and problems it will present, they will be able to put more attention into tank crew

 

not sure that the average life expectancy of a human allows us to see that, unfortunately...

[Thad]

I hope you are wrong. I turn 72 this November. ?

[moustache]

6 minutes ago, Thad said:

hope you are wrong. I turn 72 this November. ?

Wow no, it wasn't for you especially, I was just joking...

[Thad]

No problem. I'm not worried about it.

[PA_Keko_]

5 hours ago, Thad said:

 

Salutations,

 

I agree with this assessment generally. Tank Crew was basically a nice addon to the Great Battles Flight simulation. It is probably correct to assert that TC is not the number one priority of the developers. They are currently neck deep the Normandy module development.

 

 I fear that the Normandy map will also be presented to serve our aircraft just like most of the currently available maps (save one). It will not give us the ground detail needed for realistic tank warfare. I'll be very surprised if it does.

 

Finally, I still have faith in the developers. When they get Normandy completed and deal with most of the inevitable bugs and problems it will present, they will be able to put more attention into tank crew. I look forward to future TC development.

 

I agree with you in that. for me will be nice to see in the future  the early battles  like Winter war  or france .

Cheers!

[ickylevel]

On 5/10/2022 at 4:05 PM, LachenKrieg said:

Hey Thad it's been awhile. Good to see your still enjoying your coffee like I do. I have more recently been adding extra large quantities of Irish cream to mine though, but hey, what ever keeps the sun up.

 

I sort of want to disagree with you on the Normandy map comment, or at least hope your wrong. I'm sure you must have read the blog from April 22? Unless that was a joke, I would say that the plan(e) is very much to include the use of ground vehicles. They certainly haven't indicated that there will be an area with more detail like the Prokhorovka map, but I would really be surprised if you continue seeing the invisible tree thing there.

 

But yes I do agree, that is certainly the hope for me as well. They have a lot on their plate at the moment with Normandy, and hopefully once that is done, they can get back to concentrating on fixing the broken wheels.

 

 

 

I don't think it will be player controlable. Because that would have been exactly the kind of vehicule they needed to add to make the game interesting.

[Jackfraser24]

What about IL-2 Clash at Orel?

 

I imagine that Tank Crew is going to cover sections of the Battle of Kursk piece by piece, starting with Prokorovka. Kind of like what they are doing in Flying Circus with piecing together sections of the Western Front. The southern salient of Kursk is already covered, so it would make sense to do the northern one too - at Orel. Although it might be somewhere else, but I am certain the next Tank Crew scenario involve another part of the Battle of Kursk. 

[moustache]

 

55 minutes ago, Jackfraser24 said:

What about IL-2 Clash at Orel?

 some new?

 

the same battle? so we would have the same armor and the same type of terrain? I'd rather have a new terrain, with a new typography and other armor...

[Jackfraser24]

9 hours ago, moustache said:

 

 some new?

 

the same battle? so we would have the same armor and the same type of terrain? I'd rather have a new terrain, with a new typography and other armor...

Personally, I would want them to go somewhere else too, to Normandy or Benelux, but with the maps being scaled down just for tanks, since it was there where a a lot of intense tank on tank combat occurred, on the Western Front that is. However, I see several reasons why the whole of Kursk should be covered and not just Prokhorovka.

• Prokhorovka was just one relatively small part of the Battle of Kursk, the largest tank battle in history. Players should be able to experience at least most of where the tank on tank action happened. It would be worth both time and money to cover other areas of the battle, like in the northern salient, or continuing in the south. 
• A lot of Soviet and German tanks, tank destroyers and other AFVs still need to be covered, like the Soviet T-70 light tank, KV-85 heavy tank, Su-76 self propelled gun, and German SdKfz 165 self propelled artillery, SdKfz 166 self propelled heavy assault gun, and StuG IV tank destroyer. 
• Also, there is a good selection of classic tanks/tank destroyers available from Prokhorovka, which could be used for ‘Crew Career’, AQMB and Campaigns too. Any other versions of the AFVs present would be easier to develop, opposed to starting a completely new vehicle from scratch.
• The terrain and buildings would be relatively similar to Prokhorovka, and there aren’t many large settlements to model, as opposed to Bodenplatte and Normandy. This would save a lot of time and effort while developing the map for the following Tank Crews.

Thanks

[moustache]

and kharkov? 3 battle in this part of ukraine...

 

[352ndOscar]

So you guys want to wait another 2-3 years for an Orel map and some missing tanks over a Normandy map due anytime and just some extra tanks need for it.  Am I reading this right?

[MajorMagee]

I'm all for Normandy being TC compatible.

[Frinik22]

On 5/30/2022 at 4:24 PM, Jackfraser24 said:

Personally, I would want them to go somewhere else too, to Normandy or Benelux, but with the maps being scaled down just for tanks, since it was there where a a lot of intense tank on tank combat occurred, on the Western Front that is. However, I see several reasons why the whole of Kursk should be covered and not just Prokhorovka.

• Prokhorovka was just one relatively small part of the Battle of Kursk, the largest tank battle in history. Players should be able to experience at least most of where the tank on tank action happened. It would be worth both time and money to cover other areas of the battle, like in the northern salient, or continuing in the south. 
• A lot of Soviet and German tanks, tank destroyers and other AFVs still need to be covered, like the Soviet T-70 light tank, KV-85 heavy tank, Su-76 self propelled gun, and German SdKfz 165 self propelled artillery, SdKfz 166 self propelled heavy assault gun, and StuG IV tank destroyer. 
• Also, there is a good selection of classic tanks/tank destroyers available from Prokhorovka, which could be used for ‘Crew Career’, AQMB and Campaigns too. Any other versions of the AFVs present would be easier to develop, opposed to starting a completely new vehicle from scratch.
• The terrain and buildings would be relatively similar to Prokhorovka, and there aren’t many large settlements to model, as opposed to Bodenplatte and Normandy. This would save a lot of time and effort while developing the map for the following Tank Crews.

Thanks

1) Prokhorovka was not the largest tank battle in history. The largest tank battle in the history of warfare took place at Brody at the end of June 1941.

2) The KV 85  made its appearance in October 1943 way after the battle of Kursk. The SU 76 did not participate either. The Stug IV did not enter production until six months after the battle of Kursk.

3) Otherwise I agree with you the entire battle of Kursk including Operation Kutuzov should be covered.

On 5/5/2022 at 6:53 AM, SCG_judgedeath3 said:

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

 

Ferdinand hit by one at Kursk:

 

 Except that the picture you posted and the argument you are making out of it are Hogwash! This Elefant was destroyed by a Soviet P2 bomber:

 

. https://albumwar2.com/ferdinand-tank-destroyer-destroyed-by-the-pe-2-bomber-on-the-kursk-bulge/

[CountZero]

13 hours ago, MajorMagee said:

I'm all for Normandy being TC compatible.

If by compatible you mean like any other air DLC map in game, then yes yull be able to spawn and play in tanks on it with random ground bugs as map is not build for tanks in mined.

 

If you mean build as detailed as prokhorovka, then 100% no, map will not have detail hight map or detail destructable buildings, if it was build in that way it would be unplayable as its more then 300x300km in size, 9x bigger then tank map that is lagy as heck when placed in enviroment other maps are working fine online.

Edited June 10, 2022 by CountZero

[MajorMagee]

So, not suitable for recreating the Normandy tank battles. 

[Frinik22]

This why Tank Crew is just a side show to IL2. The maps are designed primarily with air warfare in mind. Unless the developers start giving a bit more love it's going to stay that way,.

[SCG_Neun]

5 hours ago, MajorMagee said:

So, not suitable for recreating the Normandy tank battles. 

I think we are going to have to use a lot of imagination, just like the Rhineland map.  Towns, roads, etc.....very basic and most certainly a flight sim map.  But I suppose the major cities will be there.....with some roads and historical towns, so I'm going to keep my fingers crossed that it does have some detail, especially close to the coast.

 

[Yogiflight]

I don't know, if this is doable, but an idea, which comes to my mind is, taking a part of the normandy map, around the size of the Prokhorovka map, where tank battles took place, and improve it so far, that it fits the needs of a tanker map. If that would work, they wouldn't need to build a map from scratch and therefore spare some time in creating a map for a normandy tank game.

[moustache]

1 hour ago, Yogiflight said:

I don't know, if this is doable, but an idea, which comes to my mind is, taking a part of the normandy map, around the size of the Prokhorovka map, where tank battles took place, and improve it so far, that it fits the needs of a tanker map. If that would work, they wouldn't need to build a map from scratch and therefore spare some time in creating a map for a normandy tank game.

given the limitations of the game engine, it seems difficult to me to reproduce the typology of the Norman fields, just on the amount of vegetation compared to khoursk: there is a lot of forest, the fields are small and the hedges/fields of there are many trees... to which must be added the numerous roads (of earth or "concrete")

[Yogiflight]

13 hours ago, moustache said:

the fields are small and the hedges/fields of there are many trees...

We have lots of fields with trees around on the Kuban map, which is much larger, than a tank map would be. But you may be right. The developers will know best.

[Frinik22]

They would be well advised to create multiple smaller maps to recreate the tank battles in the Caen area, the Cotentin , Avranches and Falaise. Small ,10 to 20 sqkm2, maps would be fine.

[CountZero]

12 minutes ago, Frinik22 said:

They would be well advised to create multiple smaller maps to recreate the tank battles in the Caen area, the Cotentin , Avranches and Falaise. Small ,10 to 20 sqkm2, maps would be fine.

And who would pay for that development tme ? You can play any map online so MP players would not, and SP is nonexistant in tanks, and airplayers have no need for that small map. If they said they are not interested in building separate only maps for air stuff that have more extensive SP playerbase then no chance they gona do it for tank players. 

You gona get new map only with next TC DLC, so better buy thouse churchills and stugs.

[moustache]

6 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

We have lots of fields with trees around on the Kuban map, which is much larger, than a tank map would be. But you may be right. The developers will know best.

it is especially for this kind of landscape, that I am afraid that either the engine does not follow, or that too many invisible trees appear, or that it simply eats up too much performance...

 

[Voidhunger]

1 hour ago, moustache said:

it is especially for this kind of landscape, that I am afraid that either the engine does not follow, or that too many invisible trees appear, or that it simply eats up too much performance...

 

 

 

it will be hard to program AI not to shoot through bushes and orchards full of trees.

Also pathfinding will be hard to program. Only  good for multiplayer

[MajorMagee]

20+ years ago Panzer Elite dealt with that by using ground objects with damage boxes. If the vehicle target was the first damage box the shot would encounter then the AI could shoot. Otherwise they would hold fire and maneuver (avoiding any damage boxes) within a zone either side of their primary direction of advance until they could get a clear shot. Building damage boxes were solid, while trees/vegetation were subsets of the texture polys to represent the trunk being able to stop a tank, but the vegetation just inhibiting visibility. The only side effect of this approach was that the AI would not intentionally shoot at trees or buildings to knock them down in order to to clear a path, while the player could still do that. It also meant that, if you were within range, the AI always knew where you were even though they couldn't shoot you so they had the advantage of never being truly surprised by your sudden appearance from behind a building, or popping out of the bushes. TC seems to be using something similar already.

[Yogiflight]

11 minutes ago, MajorMagee said:

It also meant that, if you were within range, the AI always knew where you were even though they couldn't shoot you so they had the advantage of never being truly surprised by your sudden appearance from behind a building, or popping out of the bushes.

That was a big advantage of T-34 vs. Tiger. I often used that, to hide behind hills, with just the tank commander looking over it and take enemy tanks, passing the hill sideways, by surprise.

In TC, when playing with grass enabled, you have to place your tank almost on top of the hill to be able to see anything, which will make you, in SP and MP, stand like in the spotlight on a stage for your opponent.

[SCG_Neun]

2 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

That was a big advantage of T-34 vs. Tiger. I often used that, to hide behind hills, with just the tank commander looking over it and take enemy tanks, passing the hill sideways, by surprise.

In TC, when playing with grass enabled, you have to place your tank almost on top of the hill to be able to see anything, which will make you, in SP and MP, stand like in the spotlight on a stage for your opponent.

I find this to be one of my biggest  complaints.....you feel hidden.....but with the grass not rendering around you at any real distance...you might as well be on a shooting range.

 

[super-truite]

9 hours ago, SCG_Neun said:

I find this to be one of my biggest  complaints.....you feel hidden.....but with the grass not rendering around you at any real distance...you might as well be on a shooting range.

 

In arma3 they deal with that problem by adding a fake flat ground whose height correspond to the grass height. So your body gets semi-covered by the fake ground when covered by the grass. It does not take too much ressources because it is a simple flat mesh. On top of that, your texture is blurred I think, so that you cannot be spotted because of some sharp texture gradient with respect to the ground mesh. This system also has the advantage of reducing the visibility for the smart asses setting terrain quality to low in order to spot other units better ?( which is also a problem in TC)

Edited June 12, 2022 by super-truite

[RossMarBow]

If they actually redid the ground for all the maps it would be a lot nicer.

 

Actually had more than one vegetation model per map. And removed invisible trees. 

 

Fixed terrain so it wasn't always terribly slow unless your driving on road.
Had more than one road model. 

And actually had terrain types that are different like soft muddy fields,  deep soft snow, hard frozen permafrost etc.

 

Until this happens its going to just feel like a weird addition to a flight game, who's maps aren't designed for tank combat.

Will be interesting to see what Normandy map is like!
 

[Jackfraser24]

Why Clash at Kharkov should be considered

• There were four battles that involved the city of Kharkov.
• Was a decisive battle on the Eastern Front between the Soviets and the Germans.
• Kharkov was an area of strategic value for bigger military operations, like Case Blue that led to the Battle of Stalingrad.
• There was a decent amount of armored fighting vehicles on both sides of the battle, so doing a Clash at Kharkov should be worth making.
• Years ago there was a game released called Steel Fury Kharkov 1942, which is a great game, but is now way past its time.

[LachenKrieg]

14 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Why Clash at Kharkov should be considered...

• Years ago there was a game released called Steel Fury Kharkov 1942, which is a great game, but is now way past its time.

And yet with its ballistics/armor model, and infantry that game still offers the player a much more believable experience. I think that is the main problem here, because it shouldn't. Basically if someone updated the graphics/texture level in that title, it would set the bar for everything else to live up to.

 

But I agree, Kharkov would offer a very enticing backdrop for TC 2 if it were ever going to be considered.

[Alexmarine]

14 minutes ago, LachenKrieg said:

 

But I agree, Kharkov would offer a very enticing backdrop for TC 2 if it were ever going to be considered.

 

Unless you go for a 1941/42 scenario (unlikely given that early war always gets downplayed), we already have most of the tanks that saw combat around Kharkov in 1943. Apart from a map and missions based around there (highly unlikely), there is no real stuff you could create for such a scenario talking about vehicles...

 

Though I guess Panthers appreciators would love to play a scenario based around the battles for Korotich (west of Kharkov itself)