PWCG For Tank Crew

[PatrickAWlson]

Get it here

 

What is it?  PWCG, but for tanks.

How is it different?  Tanks, not planes.

 

On a more serious note, users of PWCG for BoS or FC should be very comfortable with PWCG for TC.  The biggest difference is use is the briefing.

1. The display map is a zoomed in segment.  You're in a tank so you don't really care about things 50 km away.  More important, you need to see things close up to change waypoints properly.

2. The first point is your starting location.  Planes always took off from their fields.  With tanks you can change the location.

3. You can select a different friendly unit and replan their route as well.

 

Water: PWCG will still put things in rivers.  It has no idea of terrain.  Because of this, taking a good look at your waypoints and modifying them is a good idea.  If a mission causes you to cross too much water, scrub it and generate a new one.  Or start as the unit commander so they will follow you over the bridge.

 

Planes: they are there.  I stripped down the plane logic to ground attackers and sometimes fighters.  Far fewer flights since this focuses on the ground.  

 

Is PWCG for TC integrated with PWCG for BoS?  Unfortunately, no.  I found that making PWCG work for TC required many thousands of lines of code to change.  I just could not do it in the scope of the original code base.

 

is it fun?  I think so.  This is only the beginning, so it is almost certainly not everything it should be.  I find that if I am tooling around with a platoon of uber tanks it's pretty easy (squishing Pz38ts with a KV-1).  In a Sherman, T34, Pz IV, even a Panther, it is more challenging.

 

How long can I play?  Same as BoS.  American, Sept 44 to the end.  Russia, Moscow to Berlin, but no late war tanks.  German, also Moscow to Berlin with no late war tanks.  On the bright side, you at least get 1943 versions of the Panther and Tiger I that are more than competitive against Shermans and 1943 Russian equipment.

 

Does the enemy do anything or sit there?  The enemy does stuff.  On the offensive there will be several attacks towards the objective.  On the defensive, penetration by the assaulting units triggers defending armor to rush to the point of danger.  OK, maybe mosey and meander to the point of danger.  But they do try.

 

Future: Consolidation of some assaulting and defending armor to create larger than platoon size units.  If I can get to the point of understanding the terrain without forcing a 40GB download on users, all sorts of things are possible.  Ideas include reverse slope emplacements, units in the tree line, etc.  

 

Not sure what else there is to say.  Don't tell me PWCG put you into the river - I already know that can happen.  Modify your start locations and WPs and avoid water and anything else you want to avoid.  Alter friendly routes to do the same.

[Stonehouse]

Someone has been quietly very busy..........wow 

[PatrickAWlson]

20 minutes ago, Stonehouse said:

Someone has been quietly very busy..........wow 

 

We'll see where it goes.  Based on the few early missions that I have done I think it has potential.   Still, this is an alpha for a reason.  The current capabilities, with all of the kinks ironed out, makes a perfectly fine version 1 release.  I am pleased with the concept of waypoint triggers that make enemy tanks (or yours if you are on the defensive) respond, but I think that is going to take more play testing to iron out.  I also think the armor might be spread too far.  

 

Whatever the case, it has been released into the wild.  Let's hope it doesn't get eaten by the first passing predator  

[TheSNAFU]

Congratulations Pat. Funny, I had been thinking you have been rather quiet recently but figured RL was filling your time or you were just taking a well deserved break. Now we see what you’ve been up to. 
 

I don’t have TC (may need to get it now) but I am betting this will change the game as it did for Great Battles. 
 

 

[Stonehouse]

Think it has a huge potential.

 

Minor bug for you. Skins management is listing the same tank type twice? Also refers to aircraft rather than vehicles

 

 

<edit> guessing it is missing the M or L part of the description? Might need to increase the field size?

Edited February 22, 2022 by Stonehouse

[Cybermat47]

Amazing news, awesome work Pat!

[FodderMonkey]

3 hours ago, Stonehouse said:

Someone has been quietly very busy..........wow 

Yeah, I was gonna ask because we haven't seen any updates for a bit, but...holy crap!  Awesome job, and thank you!!

[PatrickAWlson]

4 hours ago, Stonehouse said:

Think it has a huge potential.

 

Minor bug for you. Skins management is listing the same tank type twice? Also refers to aircraft rather than vehicles

 

 

<edit> guessing it is missing the M or L part of the description? Might need to increase the field size?

 

Thanks.  probably should have an L and M in there somewhere.

Obviously I need help polishing this up, but my biggest concern is "are the missions fun".  I don't want the player to face one of those famous one against the world scenarios every mission, but I also don't want them to be dull.  At the moment, assault or defend are the only two missions.   Amphibious assault and defense are coded but not play tested yet. 

Some thoughts on future additions:

Ambush mission, where the player's platoon ambushes a convoy of trucks and tanks.  This is realistic and happened all the time.

If I can get pathing and placement down for urban areas, an urban capture scenario would be a nice addition.  Totally unrealistic, because only a fool would send unsupported tanks into a cluster of houses, but hey, it's a game. 

Any other ideas - toss them out.

[ITAF_Airone1989]

1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Ambush mission, where the player's platoon ambushes a convoy of trucks and tanks.

What about an escort mission in which your convoy is ambushed?

[Stonehouse]

See if I can try a few missions, going through the UI doesn't take much time but these are only minor bugs and probably while interesting not what you are after. 

That said - few more for you, guessing you know at least some already but in case you don't.

• Intel map gives error popup to see logs and that no map was associated with airfield: Upolozy (in my case for a Wehrmacht early campaign). Clicking ok on the error gives you a blank brick texture wall and you have to close PWCGTC. 
• Depot status is talking about aircraft not vehicles in headings, Ditto equipment request
• Advanced campaign config has lots of aircraft related labels all over. Most I don't think matter and can be cleaned up as time permits and I noticed while some are there on the category list they go nowhere when you tick them anyway. Only possible concern is the waypoint stuff talking about altitude? Guessing you are just ignoring this type of info when you build the movement plan for the ground units but in case it somehow might cause grief if someone fiddles with values.

[gunmetalstug]

2 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Ambush mission, where the player's platoon ambushes a convoy of trucks and tanks

 

Absolutely! The one-off mission for the Panther that's included in TC was really fun and it'd be great to do more of it. 

 

2 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

If I can get pathing and placement down for urban areas, an urban capture scenario would be a nice addition.  Totally unrealistic, because only a fool would send unsupported tanks into a cluster of houses, but hey, it's a game. 

 

I don't know about big urban areas, but missions to capture smaller settlements like hamlets and state farms might be more doable. This would also be more realistic, as clearing out pockets of dug-in infantry or defenses hidden within was a routine assignment on the Eastern Front. It would also be fun to play as the buildings could still conceal nasty surprises like enemy tanks or AT guns. A district-by-district capture of the larger towns and cities would be much more difficult to build, but could definitely be fun.

 

2 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Any other ideas - toss them out.

 

I've only toyed with the mission creator for this game so I don't know what's feasible and what isn't, but I do have some ideas that may be fun:

 

Spoiler

As @ITAF_Airone1989 mentioned, a "Convoy Escort" mission is one of the first ideas that popped into my head. Although (IIRC) this was typically a job for lighter AFVs, it'd still be a fun, dynamic mission type. Different types/severities of ambushes could add variety, from machine gun nests to tank platoons. 

 

For bigger pitched battles, a "Meeting Engagement" mission would be interesting, where each side has to push and reach an objective to seize it before the enemy can. These were rare, but chaotic and lethal when they occurred. Some twists like enemy reinforcements, air support, or artillery could make these explosive and climactic.

 

"Demolition" - although it is a bit gamey to have tanks undergo demolition work with HE shells (unless you're using the IS-122 or 152), it would definitely add variety. While destroying a munitions dump or motor pool might be standard fare for the Assault mission type, destroying bridges to prevent an enemy from retreating or to deny them a crossing could add an interesting twist, where you might have to push past forces that have already crossed and preventing them from further establishing their bridgehead.

 

"Seek and Destroy" - this might also already be covered by Assault missions, but maybe due to incomplete scouting or rough intel, only the general location of a target (say, AA emplacements, artillery batteries, etc.) is known. This leaves the player to do some recon-in-force, planning ahead, or even breakthroughs to reach their objective. I can see how this might get messy with pathing and the like, however.

 

Speaking of recon, a "Scouting" type mission is another possibility, though I don't know how this would work within IL-2's mission building parameters. Lighter tanks like the Pz III were often used for reconnaissance, and complications during the mission might be fun to explore. To get some action in, you could be acting as "Forward Observers" that call in artillery then follow up the barrages with an attack.

 

"Breakout" would be another variant on Assault, where your platoon might be sent out to help rescue an encircled friendly force from attacking enemy forces. Once you reach them, they'll try and path back to friendly lines, with enemy counter-attacks attempting to re-encircle or destroy you. 

 

"Retreat" would be in a similar vein, where you have to reach a certain location while under constant enemy assault. Again, probably lots of pathing issues, but the CO-OP mission included in TC was really fun and challenging, could be cool to see more of it.

 

Hope this was helpful and not too pie-in-the-sky. Thanks so much for your hard work, Patrick!

[Stonehouse]

Few random ideas past frontal attack or defence which may or not be worthwhile:

• infiltration followed by a surprise attack of some sort 
• Move to contact where you don't know exactly where the enemy is or the density of enemy forces. You might be able to trigger some stuff randomly within certain force limits to simulate a chance encounter. Once in contact the player has the option to attack, defend, bypass, delay or withdraw. Would depend on what size enemy unit you encounter. Not sure of complexity but perhaps might be able to have a chance to get reinforced from nearby reserves if you can delay the enemy long enough and turn it into an attack or have to successfully withdraw under fire.
• With limited intel, locate a weak point and perform a penetration. If you get it right you get reinforced after a certain time to help develop the breakthrough, if you get it wrong you have to withdraw keeping your force intact.
• act as part of an envelopment force while other units keep the centre busy.
• over watch a road block or some other strategic choke point
• cordon and search for cut off enemy units
• security for a rear area, depot etc which gets a surprise attack
• reserve force when your side is attacking or defending and you need to be mobile and respond to instructions from command

I know that each mission is separate in itself but if it ever became possible to branch the next mission based on the current one's results you could do a pursuit type scenario after a successful attack or delaying/defend/withdrawal after a failed attack. I guess that would also follow for a lot of other things.

[grcurmudgeon]

Possibly cost me some money, that's what.

[grcurmudgeon]

Plus Tank Crew goes on sale. This is evil, but in a good way.

[BBAS_Tiki_Joe]

Hi Pat, I was able to complete four Missions in an American Sherman. All the missions were really fun! I like how the whole battlefield feels alive with Vehicles/planes everywhere. You can look off in the distance and see huge fights going on a couple of miles away. I was finally killed on my 4th mission, huge formation of stugs came out of the woodline and decimated us. Keep up the good work, looking forward to Version 1!

[PatrickAWlson]

@BBAS_Tiki_Joe Thanks for the feedback.  When the stugs came at you, was your mission to attack or defend?    I am hoping that you were attacking as that would prove out the reactive waypoint concept (defending tanks get waypoints triggered by attacker penetration).  

[moustache]

hello @Patrick AWlson, and thank you for your work... is there a tutorial for creating a campaign (I admit I'm not very good in English...)? each time, I get at the end of the configuration an error message... sniff...

[DD_Friar]

Salute, my squad had been using your plane version for a P38 campaign up until recently when a technical problem halted their progress.

 

Can I use the TC version for multiplayer? It would be good to attach personalities to vehicles like the pilots in the planes?

[PatrickAWlson]

5 hours ago, moustache said:

hello @Patrick AWlson, and thank you for your work... is there a tutorial for creating a campaign (I admit I'm not very good in English...)? each time, I get at the end of the configuration an error message... sniff...

 

Tis is something that I have to prevent - but most of the time if you are getting an error it is because a non-English alpha character was used in the campaign or pilot name.  Use only A-Z and z-z.  Avoid characters that are not English.  Avoid numbers.

[moustache]

thank you, unfortunately, an AI bug prevents me from playing... but it looks very nice! little question: you have to get out of the game each time to recreate a new mission?

[BBAS_Tiki_Joe]

12 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

@BBAS_Tiki_Joe Thanks for the feedback.  When the stugs came at you, was your mission to attack or defend?    I am hoping that you were attacking as that would prove out the reactive waypoint concept (defending tanks get waypoints triggered by attacker penetration).  

Yes, on the attack! We had just got done clearing out some trucks and AT gun positions when they showed up.

[DD_Friar]

A problem I can see with using this for tanks is that we tend to get killed a lot more often at first contact with the enemy, unlike with planes where a mission will tend to be longer.

 

Would it therefore be possible to have a dog fight mode rather than just co-op?

 

Tanks do get killed a lot more than aircraft, I am just reading a book about the Sherwood Rangers, a British tank crew using Sherman's and Firefly's, and subsequent research I found a report that to keep a squadron compliment of 150 tanks, over 1000 were used during the course of the campaign!

For example in North Africa the Commander had to abandon 5 tanks in one day!

 

  

Edited February 24, 2022 by DD_Friar

[352ndOscar]

I gotta agree with DD_Friar on being able to generate a “dogfight” mission type as well as a “coop” type.  The coop is nice “IF” you’re doing a DiD campaign, but it’s not the normal style of game type for tanks - I use the Advance & Secure server missions as an example.  During WW2, tank crews routinely abandoned tanks needing repair/rebuilding and moved on to replacement units.  A respawning “dogfight” game type will give us this capability.

[No_Face]

Interesting.

 

I had already tested the version for airplanes but I think I had to generate a new mission each time, I don't know if it was normal or not, but I had put it aside. This tank version is a chance to try again.

 

Anyway, thanks for the work done.

[PatrickAWlson]

Took me awhile to even understand what you were referring to when you said "dogfight" - obviously I don't do MP very much  

 

My first response is that's not what PWCG is for.  It's a career mode.  However, I am not against using PWCG to generate single missions.  TBH, I'm not sure what the difference is between dogfight and co-op in terms of mission generation.

[Stonehouse]

Minor bug for you Patrick. Doesn't seem like the PzIII L (the German "demo" tank that is a freebie) is being detected as owned. Guessing the Russian one will be the same although I've not checked yet to confirm. Played my first offline mission last night and enjoyed it - it was a pretty simple attack mission early in the war and I didn't noticed any issues with what I saw. However going onto the next mission I was moved from a PzIII M to an L and got blocked with the error popup that I don't own the L. Double checked I had it available by playing a quick mission generated by the game and had no issue. Hoping to try some co-op campaign missions with some friends in the next few days

[Stonehouse]

Ran a coop mission this afternoon although a bit differently than Patrick probably intended. Set it up as a coop mission with one human and several AI tanks, created a server and then had one person take the player slot and the other two of us took crew positions. Had all the simple config settings on high, I tried to adjust the advanced settings to lower the player max wound level but got an error saying see log and that blank was null. I figure perhaps some of the disabled PWCG settings are passing an null value - the log was basically empty at this point and certainly nothing relating to the error I could see. 

 

Mission went fine and was really quite fun. We knocked out some MG and AT positions but must have somehow got past enemy tanks without making contact as we suddenly were under fire from behind, managed to re-orientate and take some shots but lost the main gun and so we bailed out. Another tank from our platoon took a hit while this happened and proceeded to blow up about 50 m away right in front of where we hit the dirt. Quite spectacular at that range.

 

Not sure if it's possible but it'd be nice to be able to get a human crew for a single tank properly handled by PWCG TC if it can be done rather than the dance we did. It would probably also be a feature welcomed by bomber groups as if possible they could run a campaign as a bomber crew in a single bomber. I assume from the mission editing side it is probably all the same regardless of being a vehicle or aircraft........that's assuming it's possible.

 

I guess one other thought is I can imagine for a large online server it may be a real plus for PWCG TC to have vehicle and aircraft player slots even if the aircraft slots were just as "support" for the tank guys and not tracked from a campaign viewpoint. 

 

Thanks again for this Patrick, breath of fresh air for TC and I can see us doing a co-op TC campaign now for sure along side our flying ones. 

Edited February 27, 2022 by Stonehouse

[DD_Friar]

@PatrickAWlson

Salute Sir for all your hard work on this application.

In a co-op when you die you are out of the mission.

In a Dog Fight you can re-spawn and go again.

 

In a battle once a tank gets hit it is very often immobilized. Whereas in a plane you can drop out of the fight and try and get home / get to a nearby airfield to save the plane / the life of the pilot.

In real life tankers would bail and try and scramble to safety (although the majority of tank crew were actually killed OUTSIDE of their tank, getting machine gunned whilst trying to escape for example). If they managed to get back to safety they could be given another unit to go again (maybe not in the same battle admittedly)

 

When building a dog fight map you need to add an "Airfield" of type Vehicle and specify the type(s) and numbers (-1 means unlimited). You do not allocate a specific tank to a player, unlike a co-op where you place the planes / tanks in any given position and when the player spawns in they get that aircraft / tank. 

In a dog fight spawn point players spawn in at the next available position. For tanks that is to the right of the direction the spawn point is facing and 40 meters away. Tanks continue to spawn in taking slots to the right until they reach 40 meters to the left of the spawn point. Further players then do the same in row 2. Once a player has spawned in and moved off, that slot becomes free. When placing tank spawn points you always need to check that they do not hit buildings etc using the ruler to check for 40 meters either way.

 

Apologies if I misunderstood your comment about not understanding the difference and have just told you what you already know!

[HEWHOFLIES]

OMG Patrick, you have just made Tank Crew an even more worthwhile experience! Thank you! I will be testing extensively in the following weeks! 

[javelina]

Pat, WTH buddy!  awesome!!!  many thanks, I'll check it out over the weekend...  Nice!

[RedeyeStorm]

Hi Pat,

 

I played my first mission yesterday and loved it. I choose to start as a gefreiter in PzIII. The issue I noticed is that the platoon moved in a very slow start-stop motion of mayby 2 to 3km/h. Not enough experience with TC to determine wether that is a TC problem or a mission problem. 
 

I also thought that the paths of the advancing platoons where a bit odd in the sense that they crossed each other. Mayby there is a reason for it but I failed to see it.

 

Otherwise great job, loving it.

[easterling77]

You are the Best man?

Kinda bussy now but I'll jump in it when I got the time

 

If PatrickAWIson stands on it - it's a sure thing for me

[Maddin]

On 3/6/2022 at 9:40 AM, RedeyeStorm said:

I played my first mission yesterday and loved it. I choose to start as a gefreiter in PzIII. The issue I noticed is that the platoon moved in a very slow start-stop motion of mayby 2 to 3km/h. Not enough experience with TC to determine wether that is a TC problem or a mission problem. 

 

Got the same problem, same setup. But you can see this strange behaviour everywhere else in TC in some situations like formation change or AI is struggling with obstacles.

Maybe it's because the map (Moscow) isn't designed for tanks?

 

Quote

2. The first point is your starting location.  Planes always took off from their fields.  With tanks you can change the location.

 

Well, i'm starting about 1 kilometer away from first point. Doesn't matter if i have moved the point in first place or leave everything default.

Did it once to avoid river crossing but than had to cross the river anyway as i wasn't starting exactly at the point.

[PatrickAWlson]

On 3/6/2022 at 3:40 AM, RedeyeStorm said:

Hi Pat,

 

I played my first mission yesterday and loved it. I choose to start as a gefreiter in PzIII. The issue I noticed is that the platoon moved in a very slow start-stop motion of mayby 2 to 3km/h. Not enough experience with TC to determine wether that is a TC problem or a mission problem. 
 

I also thought that the paths of the advancing platoons where a bit odd in the sense that they crossed each other. Mayby there is a reason for it but I failed to see it.

 

Otherwise great job, loving it.

 

Movement speeds are set at 10+KPH on the waypoints.  I see the same slow movement with stops/starts when I play.  Not sure what the AI is doing or how I can convince it to do otherwise..  If you play as leader they tend to follow you.

 

The pathing for each platoon has a series of objectives.  They are not necessarily pathed particularly well.  Pathing, in general, is something that I do not have figured out.  That is one reason why PWCG TC allows you to change not only waypoints but also start positions for each platoon - AI as well as player.  Just select a different platoon.  it's path will turn yellow.  Modify the start position and waypoints as you see fit.

[DD_Friar]

@PatrickAWlson

When you generate a waypoint what authority do you give them?

Low means they will attack anything that can distract them so are a bit nervous.

Medium means they will try to get to the destination in good order but could be distracted to attack

High means ignore all distractions and get to the destination.

 

Does that make sense? / help

 

 

[PatrickAWlson]

1 minute ago, DD_Friar said:

@PatrickAWlson

When you generate a waypoint what authority do you give them?

Low means they will attack anything that can distract them so are a bit nervous.

Medium means they will try to get to the destination in good order but could be distracted to attack

High means ignore all distractions and get to the destination.

 

Does that make sense? / help

 

 

 

For TC: low.  Always.  There is "stuff" all over the place so the AI has to be allowed to make decisions.  That could be the reason for the very cautious behavior, but the fact is I have no insights into TC tank AI.  

[Thad]

6 minutes ago, DD_Friar said:

@PatrickAWlson

When you generate a waypoint what authority do you give them?

Low means they will attack anything that can distract them so are a bit nervous.

Medium means they will try to get to the destination in good order but could be distracted to attack

High means ignore all distractions and get to the destination.

 

Does that make sense? / help

 

 

 

Your waypoint authority breakdown  is basically correct based upon my mission building experiences.

[RedeyeStorm]

4 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Movement speeds are set at 10+KPH on the waypoints.  I see the same slow movement with stops/starts when I play.  Not sure what the AI is doing or how I can convince it to do otherwise..  If you play as leader they tend to follow you.

 

The pathing for each platoon has a series of objectives.  They are not necessarily pathed particularly well.  Pathing, in general, is something that I do not have figured out.  That is one reason why PWCG TC allows you to change not only waypoints but also start positions for each platoon - AI as well as player.  Just select a different platoon.  it's path will turn yellow.  Modify the start position and waypoints as you see fit.

Hi Pat. Figured this out so I started a new campaign as commander. Also learned I can change the movement paths. 

[HEWHOFLIES]

On 3/6/2022 at 9:40 AM, RedeyeStorm said:

Hi Pat,

 

I played my first mission yesterday and loved it. I choose to start as a gefreiter in PzIII. The issue I noticed is that the platoon moved in a very slow start-stop motion of mayby 2 to 3km/h. Not enough experience with TC to determine wether that is a TC problem or a mission problem. 
 

I also thought that the paths of the advancing platoons where a bit odd in the sense that they crossed each other. Mayby there is a reason for it but I failed to see it.

 

Otherwise great job, loving it.

This has been a long-standing issue with TC. In SynVanders QM generator for TC, tanks, particularly enemy tanks, tend to stay put and refuse to move after reaching a small town or forest. Pathing seems to be the main issue and I do not know if SynVander managed to eventually address the issue. 

Edited March 9, 2022 by HEWHOFLIES

[RedeyeStorm]

Pathing is a joke. One of the objectives was a train station in a village. Four of five PzIII’s ‘knocked out’ because they hit a building. The missions are immersive but the (lack of) AI is terrible. Drive along path, spot an enemy, stop, start shooting until target is destroyed, keep moving. Rinse and repeat until destroyed. 
 

The AI employed zero tactics. Not maneuvering at all, no hull down position etc. A real shame. It may work nicely online but I am not interested in that.