Has TC peaked?

May 18, 2022

2 hours ago, moustache said:

Sorry, I didn't understand your sentence...

I think he's saying the damage model sucks (it does) and a machine gun shouldn't have caused that amount of terminal damage.

May 18, 2022

I havent noticed machine guns causing such damage and then I have in our SCG missions and on multiplayer had machine guns of all kinds firing on my tank and only light damage to my tracks, no crew injuries or anything else, so I find that odd to see.

But I do know the HE ammo and armour model is a bit...strange and damaging parts of tanks which it shouldnt, in some cases a hit at the rear or side of tank can make the main gun disabled which it shouldnt. But I noticed the devs changing this in february so I hope for a fix or reversing back to previous model one day soon.

May 18, 2022

4 hours ago, moustache said:

Sorry, I didn't understand your sentence...

Yeah like @randybutternubs said, I was agreeing with your post. The amount of damage you are showing in those pictures doesn't seem real.

May 18, 2022

2 hours ago, SCG_judgedeath3 said:

But I do know the HE ammo and armour model is a bit...strange

I would be a little more than "a little"... I was able to kill tanks just with HE shells fired from a 75mm long gun... is that possible in reality?

May 18, 2022

11 minutes ago, moustache said:

I was able to kill tanks just with HE shells fired from a 75mm long gun... is that possible in reality?

Which tank did you shot at?
HE can destroy tanks if it has enough tnt/explosive inside and is heavy enough contra the tanks armour. But usually it only works against lighter tanks, unless its a SU-152 or such caliber, they dont have to pen to cause pressure/heat and damage inside a tank that it will result in destruction.

Sherman HE I would say is useless against example Panzer IV front plate, could kill the turret if you hit there. side hit should be doable too. Tiger tank: you wouldnt be able to anywhere unless you can hit the roof or floor. Panther side is on the limit even at point blank range.

May 18, 2022

2 minutes ago, SCG_judgedeath3 said:

Which tank did you shot at?

tiger, panther, ferdinand vs T34, KV1 and sherman...

May 18, 2022

Ah alright:
None of those would be able to destroy a tiger with HE ammo, unles the tiger is rolling downhill and you can get a good shot on its roof at 90 degrees, which is unlikely to ever happen.

Panther: At extreme close range at the side the Sherman might but I would need to check my books, the T-34 and KV-1 which has less explosives wouldnt.

Ferdinand: same as tiger, no chance, only thing that one could like in reality: HE on the superstructure can send shrapnel into the engine coolers and damage the engines, but not destroy the tank.

Panthers high velocity shells dont hold much explosives in its HE shells so it wouldnt be able to destroy any of the allied tanks.
Tiger HE can at close range to the side of a T-34 might render it useless. Sherman only from side. KV-1 no chance.
Ferdinand, slightly better than tiger like above.

May 19, 2022

Mmmh, I mainly tried playing the German tanks and the shooting was between 100 and 1400m, from the front. I have for almost every tank, managed to kill them at HE...

on this site, https://warspot.net/tags/1-tanks , I found an article where an American 75mm was able during tests to explode the roof above the driver of a panther at HE. It therefore seems possible in certain cases to destroy/immobilize a tank with HE . I would try again by just pulling on the front glacis.

Edited May 19, 2022 by moustache

May 19, 2022

There is an awful lot of "yeah in reality this shouldn't be xyz let me check my books" - uh yeah, we get that. That's the problem most of us are trying to address.

The damage model sucks and you can refer to books and things like that all day long but it really, really doesn't change the outcome of the game.

The game is flawed and isn't getting any attention.

May 19, 2022

8 hours ago, moustache said:

on this site, https://warspot.net/tags/1-tanks , I found an article where an American 75mm was able during tests to explode the roof above the driver of a panther at HE

That HE hit very low and almost at ghe roof as you say, explosion had a impact and buckled the roof and the hatch. The roof is less than 15mm, a hit like that would damage/break the roof like shown. Wouldnt knock out the tank but driver gone or injured, driver position is damaged. Turret would still be operational. But in the game I suspect the tank would explode ?

May 19, 2022

I did some tests today... it's a bit risky, 2 shots in the same place sometimes have totally different consequences... but one thing that comes up almost all the time is that a HE firing near the barrel seems to deactivate it (I don't know what breaks, just the barrel I imagine), only the 152mm barrel resists...)

the catastrophic explosions were quite rare, it was more the crew who left the vehicle

May 19, 2022

22 hours ago, SCG_judgedeath3 said:

I havent noticed machine guns causing such damage and then I have in our SCG missions and on multiplayer had machine guns of all kinds firing on my tank and only light damage to my tracks, no crew injuries or anything else, so I find that odd to see.

But I do know the HE ammo and armour model is a bit...strange and damaging parts of tanks which it shouldnt, in some cases a hit at the rear or side of tank can make the main gun disabled which it shouldnt. But I noticed the devs changing this in february so I hope for a fix or reversing back to previous model one day soon.

I think the top quote is exactly the kind of thing that makes the bottom quote so painfully true.

Something someone else sees, maybe even on a regular basis is not what you are seeing.

And this is the reason I would like to get an update from the Dev's because I can only go by what I am seeing.

The fact that there appears to be other people like me confirms the problem I am experiencing in-game.

I know the Devs are flat out broke for time at the moment trying to get Normandy out, but I'm really hoping that once that is done they will get back to Tank Crew.

3 hours ago, randybutternubs said:

There is an awful lot of "yeah in reality this shouldn't be xyz let me check my books" - uh yeah, we get that. That's the problem most of us are trying to address.

The damage model sucks and you can refer to books and things like that all day long but it really, really doesn't change the outcome of the game.

The game is flawed and isn't getting any attention.

May 23, 2022

On 5/18/2022 at 4:22 PM, LachenKrieg said:

The balance needed for game play should come from the mission designer/server host themselves by controlling what is allowed in the match.

Unfortunately as you pointed out, there are also balance issues being caused by the Damage Model itself. But assuming/hoping that gets fixed, I think it is up to the MP community itself to create more reasonably balanced matches that can hold peoples interest and be seen as fun.

As a single player, you might want to go against a pack of T-34's in a PzIII. That can be a really fun challenge, but again only if the game is modeled correctly.

But in MP, the match should be set up so that both teams have a similar chance of success.

Putting a Panther against a T-34 on an open map where there is more than 600 m separating the spawn points is not balanced IMO because the Panther could penetrate the T-34 on all sides, while the T-34 would struggle to damage the Panther frontally.

But put a PzIV vs T-34/Sherman in a match and you have a much more balanced game because if things are modeled correctly, both teams would be lethal/vulnerable in similar ways. This leaves the outcome of the match more up to player ability, and team coordination.

I also read you might not be happy with the Churchill collector vehicle, and I would say you have a point based on the fact that the CH was an infantry support tank, and Tank Crew doesn't really have an infantry element.

But consider this, the CH was capable and did prove that it could stand its own ground against other armored units. I am not saying that it was invincible, or that it packed the same punch as a Panther. And I'm not saying it didn't have its faults. But the way I would look at it is based on the type of MP game play that one usually sees in Tank Crew, the CH should be a good addition to the lineup in the MP setting it will be used.

I haven't seen any evidence of this, but if you have, or do, please link it to one of these threads because I am waiting to hear about it.

I design maps for the advance and secure server, which is a server where there is a lot more tank on tank action.

First of all the t34 vs pzIII match is completely unbalanced, because of the poor speed of the pzIII, its yellow camo, and gun. I made a map where the terrain favours the axis but still people are complaining massively about that matchup (with some pzIV).

Now for the classic matchup: If this is open terrain, then the big german tanks are too strong (also if there are long distances to drive). So you have to remove all tanks but the pzIII and IV. The pzIV Is too slow, and then again its yellow camo is a problem.

The most balanced matchup is a semi forest / semi city map, with all tanks allowed. The su 152 is good against german tanks but it's difficult to aim when there are slopes.

German players leave the server if they can't drive a panther, because pzIV is too slow, and too yellow.

If the russian had the t34-85, then suddenly open field matchups would be a lot more balanced. Or if the german had a fast tank with medium armor or less , like the puma. The problem for germans is that the pz3 and 4 are so bad that you have to leave the other tanks.

Edited May 23, 2022 by ickylevel

May 23, 2022

1 hour ago, ickylevel said:

poor speed of the pzIII, its yellow camo, and gun.

The pzIV Is too slow, and then again its yellow camo is a problem.

German players leave the server if they can't drive a panther, because pzIV is too slow, and too yellow.

Edited May 23, 2022 by Alexmarine

May 23, 2022

4 hours ago, ickylevel said:

I design maps for the advance and secure server, which is a server where there is a lot more tank on tank action.

First of all the t34 vs pzIII match is completely unbalanced, because of the poor speed of the pzIII, its yellow camo, and gun. I made a map where the terrain favours the axis but still people are complaining massively about that matchup (with some pzIV).

Now for the classic matchup: If this is open terrain, then the big german tanks are too strong (also if there are long distances to drive). So you have to remove all tanks but the pzIII and IV. The pzIV Is too slow, and then again its yellow camo is a problem.

The most balanced matchup is a semi forest / semi city map, with all tanks allowed. The su 152 is good against german tanks but it's difficult to aim when there are slopes.

German players leave the server if they can't drive a panther, because pzIV is too slow, and too yellow.

If the russian had the t34-85, then suddenly open field matchups would be a lot more balanced. Or if the german had a fast tank with medium armor or less , like the puma. The problem for germans is that the pz3 and 4 are so bad that you have to leave the other tanks.

I think these are the type of comments that need to be passed around and talked about more, especially when they can include the people that are actually involved in supporting MP servers.

But yeah, if the game is modeled correctly, then a pure T-34/PzIII match should be very strongly tilted in the Russians favor regardless of the map type, unless you used an uneven number of players on each side (10 PzIII vs 6 T34). I don't see a match like this being a good scenario for MP game play, because the PzIII was weak in all 3 areas (mobility/armor/gun) compared to the T34.

IMO, you would have to pair the PzIII with another tank to make MP game play work. You would have to probably use trial and error to find what works best, but you could try something like 2 KV/8 T34 vs 5 Tiger/5 PzIII, and make adjustments based on feed back. You could also do the same with a Panther/PzIV pair. Having a good group of people that are willing to help test the server where everyone gives each side a go before collecting the feed back could also help a lot I think.

Regarding speed, I think just about the only way to balance this would be to vary the distance of the spawn points. Have the slower tanks spawn closer in so that they have less travel time, and/or use obstacles placed in the Mission Editor to create choke points/kill zones to encourage close combat.

For the camo issue, this is really something the Dev's would have to solve if they want the community to make better use of all maps, but one thing you could do as the game stands now would be to use maps that have a little more golden wheat color. I seem to remember the Stalingrad map having a lot of wheat fields. Using a map like that as a base, and then building it up with objects you add in the Mission Editor might help resolve some of problems with camo.

But if the game is modeled correctly, then one of the best close combat (city map) match ups would be the Sherman/Pz IV IMO. They are close in speed, and both were vulnerable/lethal to each other in similar ways.

The idea of balancing MP game play is not to make the tanks equal, it should be to make the challenge to game play equal.

The PzIV and the Sherman both had differences in their strengths and weaknesses. Those differences are an important part of the simulation, should still be there, and need to be modeled correctly so that player skill can be used to leverage your strengths against your opponents weakness. That is how you make the challenge of game play interesting and fun IMO.

Punching holes in a Sherman until he locates and 1-taps you back to the spawn point is not challenging, or fun IMO. It ruins both, the value of the sim and MP game play.

May 23, 2022

8 hours ago, ickylevel said:

I design maps for the advance and secure server, which is a server where there is a lot more tank on tank action.

First of all the t34 vs pzIII match is completely unbalanced, because of the poor speed of the pzIII, its yellow camo, and gun. I made a map where the terrain favours the axis but still people are complaining massively about that matchup (with some pzIV).

Now for the classic matchup: If this is open terrain, then the big german tanks are too strong (also if there are long distances to drive). So you have to remove all tanks but the pzIII and IV. The pzIV Is too slow, and then again its yellow camo is a problem.

The most balanced matchup is a semi forest / semi city map, with all tanks allowed. The su 152 is good against german tanks but it's difficult to aim when there are slopes.

German players leave the server if they can't drive a panther, because pzIV is too slow, and too yellow.

If the russian had the t34-85, then suddenly open field matchups would be a lot more balanced. Or if the german had a fast tank with medium armor or less , like the puma. The problem for germans is that the pz3 and 4 are so bad that you have to leave the other tanks.

well more ppl got exited about puma AI then about churchill in last DD about them, it just shows how big miss devs made by their tank selection, if collector tanks should paiv the way for next TC2 then thats hard hill to climb on.

you say t-34 vs pzIII is big mismatch, and iv is even not popular vs soviets, but what is not missmatch for tiger or panther in paper perfect conditions or even ferdinand... you have one side that is used to be missmatched and one that dont like it, ppl who like to have advantage play axis thats why for them to play in anything els then perfect tigers panthers elefants is opresion. Game is set to fail with choices of tanks and nothing you as mission maker try to make will work when you have players on one side that needs to play with advantage... they say what about realisam/history there was no balance there, but dont wont it when it comes to historic camuflage that makes them disadvantaged, or numbers of tanks compared to slots in MP per side, or battles conditions of tank types that were most used in historical battles, or why some super tanks were not used and so on... they wont to play on every map with best most advantaged tank, no mather what... you cant fix that, devs can fix that with smart tank selection, or better ability to spawn as player with group of AI tanks you as player can control so you sim numbers advantages one side would have, making it relistic in using wors tank in big numbers vs advanced tanks in small numbers ... they said we have to go for churchill because it was only tank that fit BoP, and then give it fantasy tank gun ,75mm used only in MTO... but cant do 85mm for t-34 then as it didnt fight in BoP... what a joke of tank game this is.

Edited May 23, 2022 by CountZero

May 23, 2022

Salutations.

When attempting to build my single player missions, I indeed found that the armor balance simply wasn't there. I had to make adjustments to present what at least felt like a balanced scenario for the player. They had to be non historical of course.

I won't be as harsh as to say that TC is a joke though. The game developers are primarily a flight simulation group that initially threw in two tanks to mess around with. Not that long ago some of us (me included) kept begging for more tanks. Months later Tank Crew came about. It may leave much to be desired but it is pretty good from a group of flight sim developers. They have kept adding to TC. The Puma was mentioned. The only thing I don't like about the Puma is that it is AI only. I'd like the ability to create missions that allow the player to contend with light vehicles. It would be a change of pace and challenge.

In conclusion, I haven't given up hope on Tank Crew. I trust the developers to keep working on it for our benefit. I believe it will be made better and better as time goes by. Of course, I doubt it will ever be perfect but so little ever is.

May the tanking god be with us all.

Edited May 23, 2022 by Thad

May 23, 2022

4 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

Regarding speed, I think just about the only way to balance this would be to vary the distance of the spawn points. Have the slower tanks spawn closer in so that they have less travel time, and/or use obstacles placed in the Mission Editor to create choke points/kill zones to encourage close combat.

For the camo issue, this is really something the Dev's would have to solve if they want the community to make better use of all maps, but one thing you could do as the game stands now would be to use maps that have a little more golden wheat color. I seem to remember the Stalingrad map having a lot of wheat fields. Using a map like that as a base, and then building it up with objects you add in the Mission Editor might help resolve some of problems with camo.

But if the game is modeled correctly, then one of the best close combat (city map) match ups would be the Sherman/Pz IV IMO. They are close in speed, and both were vulnerable/lethal to each other in similar ways.

The idea of balancing MP game play is not to make the tanks equal, it should be to make the challenge to game play equal.

The PzIV and the Sherman both had differences in their strengths and weaknesses. Those differences are an important part of the simulation, should still be there, and need to be modeled correctly so that player skill can be used to leverage your strengths against your opponents weakness. That is how you make the challenge of game play interesting and fun IMO.

Punching holes in a Sherman until he locates and 1-taps you back to the spawn point is not challenging, or fun IMO. It ruins both, the value of the sim and MP game play.

I do have closer spawns for the pzIII but still they have less tactical mobility, which they would have needed to close in. We really need a default green camo to see what's it's like.

1 hour ago, CountZero said:

well more ppl got exited about puma AI then about churchill in last DD about them, it just shows how big miss devs made by their tank selection, if collector tanks should paiv the way for next TC2 then thats hard hill to climb on.

you say t-34 vs pzIII is big mismatch, and iv is even not popular vs soviets, but what is not missmatch for tiger or panther in paper perfect conditions or even ferdinand... you have one side that is used to be missmatched and one that dont like it, ppl who like to have advantage play axis thats why for them to play in anything els then perfect tigers panthers elefants is opresion. Game is set to fail with choices of tanks and nothing you as mission maker try to make will work when you have players on one side that needs to play with advantage... they say what about realisam/history there was no balance there, but dont wont it when it comes to historic camuflage that makes them disadvantaged, or numbers of tanks compared to slots in MP per side, or battles conditions of tank types that were most used in historical battles, or why some super tanks were not used and so on... they wont to play on every map with best most advantaged tank, no mather what... you cant fix that, devs can fix that with smart tank selection, or better ability to spawn as player with group of AI tanks you as player can control so you sim numbers advantages one side would have, making it relistic in using wors tank in big numbers vs advanced tanks in small numbers ... they said we have to go for churchill because it was only tank that fit BoP, and then give it fantasy tank gun ,75mm used only in MTO... but cant do 85mm for t-34 then as it didnt fight in BoP... what a joke of tank game this is.

The t34-75 vs tiger/panther matchup is more balanced than pzIII vs t34, because the t34 has the speed and camouflage to close in. It's possible to destroy the panther frontaly at a reasonable distance and to detrack the tiger or destroy its gun. Because of the slow speed of the pzIII, the driving time to the front is longer and it gives it a numerical disadvantage.

May 23, 2022

1 hour ago, CountZero said:

well more ppl got exited about puma AI then about churchill in last DD about them, it just shows how big miss devs made by their tank selection, if collector tanks should paiv the way for next TC2 then thats hard hill to climb on.

you say t-34 vs pzIII is big mismatch, and iv is even not popular vs soviets, but what is not missmatch for tiger or panther in paper perfect conditions or even ferdinand... you have one side that is used to be missmatched and one that dont like it, ppl who like to have advantage play axis thats why for them to play in anything els then perfect tigers panthers elefants is opresion. Game is set to fail with choices of tanks and nothing you as mission maker try to make will work when you have players on one side that needs to play with advantage... they say what about realisam/history there was no balance there, but dont wont it when it comes to historic camuflage that makes them disadvantaged, or numbers of tanks compared to slots in MP per side, or battles conditions of tank types that were most used in historical battles, or why some super tanks were not used and so on... they wont to play on every map with best most advantaged tank, no mather what... you cant fix that, devs can fix that with smart tank selection, or better ability to spawn as player with group of AI tanks you as player can control so you sim numbers advantages one side would have, making it relistic in using wors tank in big numbers vs advanced tanks in small numbers ... they said we have to go for churchill because it was only tank that fit BoP, and then give it fantasy tank gun ,75mm used only in MTO... but cant do 85mm for t-34 then as it didnt fight in BoP... what a joke of tank game this is.

I get everything you are saying. I also get that you don't like the CH as the next collector vehicle. Knowing online communities/consumers for what they are, I also know and doubt it would matter what tank was picked because you can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time.

But the bold text above is what really caught my eye as it is well said, and I think it holds an important point where there could be a solution to the problem you are driving at.

To find a solution though, you would first have to ask yourself what it is you want to be simulated. For me, the expectation is that the planes, trains, and automobiles work as close to the real thing as possible. I would prefer the sim provides an accurate simulation of the planes/vehicles and the Dev's leave the battle conditions up to the individual player/MP community.

The feeling I'm left with is that you might be overemphasizing all the details of historical accuracy in a discussion about MP game play. I think even with what is currently modeled in Tank Crew today, you would probably be able to loosely recreate the Eastern Front battles for MP game play where one side was outnumbered and had very limited fuel, ammo, and repair capabilities, but is that really what the general MP community wants?

I'm not convinced that it would be as fun/successful as game play that has two similarly equipped teams duke it out for control over an objective. Historical game play certainly has a place where you have a closed group of players like the SCG group, or as a campaign (paid or self made). But general MP game play IMO requires a certain level of balance in order to remain fun and interesting.

So to your point, I think the side that is use to being at a disadvantage results largely from inappropriate vehicles options set on the server side, while the side that doesn't like being put at a disadvantage often results from inaccuracies in the SIM itself (invincible tanks, poor camo availability).

So the solution IMO would be for the Dev's to make the SIM as accurate and relevant as possible, that way if someone wants to start a MP server that recreates actual battles on the EF with all it details, they could do that. And if someone wants to start a server that emphasizes player skill as opposed to some major advantage/disadvantage in logistics/machine capabilities like the A&S server, they could also do that. And if someone wants to see what it might have been like as a single player to sit in a PzIII with 4 T34's charging at you, that would also be possible. And if someone wants to build a campaign whether it was based on history, or a what if scenario, they could also do that.

If the vehicles are modeled accurately, but selected appropriately for MP game play in a way that promotes balance between the two sides, you shouldn't need to worry anymore about one team being use to playing at a disadvantage, and the other team not liking it when it happens.

May 24, 2022

12 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

So the solution IMO would be for the Dev's to make the SIM as accurate and relevant as possible, that way if someone wants to start a MP server that recreates actual battles on the EF with all it details, they could do that. And if someone wants to start a server that emphasizes player skill as opposed to some major advantage/disadvantage in logistics/machine capabilities like the A&S server, they could also do that. And if someone wants to see what it might have been like as a single player to sit in a PzIII with 4 T34's charging at you, that would also be possible. And if someone wants to build a campaign whether it was based on history, or a what if scenario, they could also do that.

totally agree, especially since in fact most of the content comes from modders, whether for skins, missions/campaign, or even tools/programs...

May 24, 2022

15 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

I get everything you are saying. I also get that you don't like the CH as the next collector vehicle. Knowing online communities/consumers for what they are, I also know and doubt it would matter what tank was picked because you can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time.

But the bold text above is what really caught my eye as it is well said, and I think it holds an important point where there could be a solution to the problem you are driving at.

To find a solution though, you would first have to ask yourself what it is you want to be simulated. For me, the expectation is that the planes, trains, and automobiles work as close to the real thing as possible. I would prefer the sim provides an accurate simulation of the planes/vehicles and the Dev's leave the battle conditions up to the individual player/MP community.

The feeling I'm left with is that you might be overemphasizing all the details of historical accuracy in a discussion about MP game play. I think even with what is currently modeled in Tank Crew today, you would probably be able to loosely recreate the Eastern Front battles for MP game play where one side was outnumbered and had very limited fuel, ammo, and repair capabilities, but is that really what the general MP community wants?

I'm not convinced that it would be as fun/successful as game play that has two similarly equipped teams duke it out for control over an objective. Historical game play certainly has a place where you have a closed group of players like the SCG group, or as a campaign (paid or self made). But general MP game play IMO requires a certain level of balance in order to remain fun and interesting.

So to your point, I think the side that is use to being at a disadvantage results largely from inappropriate vehicles options set on the server side, while the side that doesn't like being put at a disadvantage often results from inaccuracies in the SIM itself (invincible tanks, poor camo availability).

So the solution IMO would be for the Dev's to make the SIM as accurate and relevant as possible, that way if someone wants to start a MP server that recreates actual battles on the EF with all it details, they could do that. And if someone wants to start a server that emphasizes player skill as opposed to some major advantage/disadvantage in logistics/machine capabilities like the A&S server, they could also do that. And if someone wants to see what it might have been like as a single player to sit in a PzIII with 4 T34's charging at you, that would also be possible. And if someone wants to build a campaign whether it was based on history, or a what if scenario, they could also do that.

If the vehicles are modeled accurately, but selected appropriately for MP game play in a way that promotes balance between the two sides, you shouldn't need to worry anymore about one team being use to playing at a disadvantage, and the other team not liking it when it happens.

You dont have balanced nor histrical MP now, and stug or churchill will not change that.

Starting point is what we have, historicly selected tanks to fit BoP, but in 24/7 MP you cant have that seting as you cant have situation where you see why one side created small numbers of high tech tank to fight vs low tech tank mass produced, because you will have more players taking best tank, and if best tank is not available because server wonts to enforce balance for both sides, then players will just not play.

Solution is make tank that can fight it out with tiger 1 v 1, even if it dosent fit timeline, so in MP servers can give balance missions with late tanks, sell that tank like collector.

Or make it so player have option to spawn with number of AI tanks in company with him, so he can comand them, switch to other tanks in his company and so on... then server can sim high tech tank in low numbers facing low tech tanks in big numbers, when you have to have server for 10-20 players at best that need to fill both sides, then you can have 10 axis players playing in their panthers tigers facing 10 allied tank players with each of then having extra 4 tanks they have with them, or oposite if your doing early tank battles and so on...

As how its now your at point where you cant do anything exept wait untill players who still play get tired of shooting at static objects to farm for stats, or troll airplayers with tanks.

Just imagine if game sim BoFrance with tanks, but you dont have effect of suprise and number advantage axis had, you just have to fight heavy allied tanks with thouse week panzers, in 24/7 MP with that tanks you would have no players playing on axis side as they would have no chances vs allied tanks when they have to go 1 v 1 on them with no other advantages axis had over them in that period.

Edited May 24, 2022 by CountZero

May 24, 2022

12 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Or make it so player have option to spawn with number of AI tanks in company with him, so he can comand them, switch to other tanks in his company and so on... then server can sim high tech tank in low numbers facing low tech tanks in big numbers, when you have to have server for 10-20 players at best that need to fill both sides, then you can have 10 axis players playing in their panthers tigers facing 10 allied tank players with each of then having extra 4 tanks they have with them, or oposite if your doing early tank battles and so on...

it would be a great thing, indeed... but is it possible, wouldn't we have the same problem of AI overload as with the heavy bombers?

May 24, 2022

3 hours ago, CountZero said:

You dont have balanced nor histrical MP now, and stug or churchill will not change that.

Starting point is what we have, historicly selected tanks to fit BoP, but in 24/7 MP you cant have that seting as you cant have situation where you see why one side created small numbers of high tech tank to fight vs low tech tank mass produced, because you will have more players taking best tank, and if best tank is not available because server wonts to enforce balance for both sides, then players will just not play.

Solution is make tank that can fight it out with tiger 1 v 1, even if it dosent fit timeline, so in MP servers can give balance missions with late tanks, sell that tank like collector.

Or make it so player have option to spawn with number of AI tanks in company with him, so he can comand them, switch to other tanks in his company and so on... then server can sim high tech tank in low numbers facing low tech tanks in big numbers, when you have to have server for 10-20 players at best that need to fill both sides, then you can have 10 axis players playing in their panthers tigers facing 10 allied tank players with each of then having extra 4 tanks they have with them, or oposite if your doing early tank battles and so on...

As how its now your at point where you cant do anything exept wait untill players who still play get tired of shooting at static objects to farm for stats, or troll airplayers with tanks.

Just imagine if game sim BoFrance with tanks, but you dont have effect of suprise and number advantage axis had, you just have to fight heavy allied tanks with thouse week panzers, in 24/7 MP with that tanks you would have no players playing on axis side as they would have no chances vs allied tanks when they have to go 1 v 1 on them with no other advantages axis had over them in that period.

Again very good points, and I agree with the general sentiments you have stated, but also think that balance could be possible even with the current tank linkup if things were modeled correctly. The Sherman vs PzIV should make for a very good MP match up, but unfortunately not with the way things are currently modeled.

It should also be possible to create balance by using various tank combinations like Tiger/PzIII, or Panther/PzIV to face off against similarly capable Russian tank combos just by adjusting the number of each tank allowed in the combo. But this would require that players on both side work as a team to reach their objective.

The PzIII for example was initially considered a MBT, but by the time Germany got its poop together enough to mount a 5 cm gun, the PzIII had already been completely outclassed on the battlefield. So in a Tiger/PzIII combination, the PzIII is acting more like a light support tank for flanking. Its job is just as important, but if every body wants to be in a Tiger, or doesn't want play in a team it wont work well.

May 24, 2022

S!,

An idea I've tried to get many online servers to implement concerns the capture of control points. This would make the CP much more valuable and important than what we currently see on some servers. This would be based on the year the server is trying to simulate.

For example, early war situations would have each side with basic tanks, e.g. PzIII vs early t34 at each spawn point. These tanks would move out to take control of a capture point, once this is done, the corresponding side would then have additional tanks to choose from, like PzIII & PzIV vs early t34, su122, & late t34. Moving on to the next capture point, the available models would increase again, e.g. PzIII, PzIV, & Panther vs t34, Lt34, su122, & Sherman. Of course, the next round would include the Tiger & Su152.

Recapturing these control points would move the availability back to the previous set of tanks. Keep in mind there could also be a limit on the number of these upper level tanks, too, e.g. 10x pzIV, 10x Sherman, 4x Panther, per spawn point....until resupplied.

I'm sure someone can point out a flaw in this idea that I don't see. This is just a basic idea, which could be modified, to suit the scenario that the online server is hoping to achieve.

HB

May 25, 2022

12 hours ago, JV44HeinzBar said:

or example, early war situations would have each side with basic tanks, e.g. PzIII vs early t34 at each spawn point. These tanks would move out to take control of a capture point, once this is done, the corresponding side would then have additional tanks to choose from, like PzIII & PzIV vs early t34, su122, & late t34. Moving on to the next capture point, the available models would increase again, e.g. PzIII, PzIV, & Panther vs t34, Lt34, su122, & Sherman. Of course, the next round would include the Tiger & Su152.

Recapturing these control points would move the availability back to the previous set of tanks. Keep in mind there could also be a limit on the number of these upper level tanks, too, e.g. 10x pzIV, 10x Sherman, 4x Panther, per spawn point....until resupplied.

it seems like a good idea, but when you are cornered on your last point by the enemy, you end up with the "basic" tanks (Pz III and T 34) facing more "advanced" tanks (tiger and KV1 or SU )? it might make a counterattack very difficult, right? isn't there a risk of the players leaving the game? I may have misunderstood, right?

May 25, 2022

7 hours ago, moustache said:

.........but when you are cornered on your last point by the enemy, you end up with the "basic" tanks (Pz III and T 34) facing more "advanced" tanks (tiger and KV1 or SU )? it might make a counterattack very difficult, right? isn't there a risk of the players leaving the game? I may have misunderstood, right?

S!,

That's a possibility, but I imagine the savvy mission builder/server would provide more than 1 original spawn point along the length of the front lines. If I could build missions, I'd build at least 3 different, original tank spawns along the front. If one is held down by advanced tanks, then players could re-spawn in a different location. I imagine it to be not unlike when a number of planes are hovering & "vulturing" an airbase. Players will spawn at another base and fly to remove the offending vultures. Given the number of tankers online, I see this as a mild inconvenience.

Using my imaginary example above, I suspect it would be best to have only 2 CPs per spawn point. More than that and it gets....messy. Of course, I'm just throwing out ideas. These would have to be tested in real time to find other, potential problems.

HB

PS. maybe I should give up painting tanks for a bit and learn mission builder, now ;)

May 25, 2022

12 minutes ago, JV44HeinzBar said:

PS. maybe I should give up painting tanks for a bit and learn mission builder, now

not maybe, do it!!! if you have as much skill in building missions as skins, I'm ready to pay! (but if you do it for free, that's fine with me too...)

P.S.: speaking of skin, I find that the Pz IV and Pz III are neglected at the moment... I said that, I said nothing...

Edited May 25, 2022 by moustache

May 25, 2022

17 minutes ago, moustache said:

P.S.: speaking of skin, I find that the Pz IV and Pz III are neglected at the moment... I said that, I said nothing...

another rabbit hole to venture down into and get lost, lol.

HB

May 25, 2022

6 hours ago, JV44HeinzBar said:

another rabbit hole to venture down into and get lost, lol.

HB

You'll be back! We'll wait here... ?

May 27, 2022

I would just like to encourage more replies on this thread as it is ranked number 5 in most replied to thread. I held the record on the most replied to thread about fixing the Sherman until it was locked. So I would be very happy to see this thread do even better than that. This thread has a chance at setting the new record. So to keep thing going I will say this:

Historical Accuracy is more important than Balance

Invisible Trees are a good thing for the game

Russian tanks are too fast

There will never be a player made skin ever incorporated into this game

Flame me - I need about 80- more posts to hit the record. #letsgo

May 27, 2022

S! Shampoo,

You do a great job keeping things current and with a bit of humor

HB

May 27, 2022

4 hours ago, ShampooActual said:

Invisible Trees are a good thing for the game

Absolutely. With all that trees, you can see in the towns on the Stalingrad and Kuban map, it is nice to have trees, you don't see :biggrin:

4 hours ago, ShampooActual said:

Russian tanks are too fast

I didn't try it lately, but I always had the feeling, the Panzer IV in game is too fast in comparison to the Panzer III, having the same engine, but being some tons heavier. And, yes, I know, there were some parts in the drive changed for the Panzer IV, but for not too bad acceleration, not for higher top speed.

I know this issue from the German IFV SPz Marder. When the version A3 was introduced, with lots of additional armor, the drive was changed, too, for a similar acceleration as the A2, but the top speed was lower, because of the neccessary lower gear ratio.

BTW, the Panzer IV is a good matchup for the T-34 as well, not only for the Sherman.

May 27, 2022

Prokhorovka map is made for tanks, why would devs fix invisable trees on other maps, wont historical accuracy play only on Prokhorovka map

Tanks are selected to fit that battle so they have skins used in that battle, its silly to wont other skins to beter camufage you that were not in that battle.

Why most popular tank servers use other maps more then map made for TC shows that historical accuracy is last thing on players or servers mineds and TC is failed game on to more posts

May 27, 2022

12 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

Absolutely. With all that trees, you can see in the towns on the Stalingrad and Kuban map, it is nice to have trees, you don't see

I didn't try it lately, but I always had the feeling, the Panzer IV in game is too fast in comparison to the Panzer III, having the same engine, but being some tons heavier. And, yes, I know, there were some parts in the drive changed for the Panzer IV, but for not too bad acceleration, not for higher top speed.

I know this issue from the German IFV SPz Marder. When the version A3 was introduced, with lots of additional armor, the drive was changed, too, for a similar acceleration as the A2, but the top speed was lower, because of the neccessary lower gear ratio.

BTW, the Panzer IV is a good matchup for the T-34 as well, not only for the Sherman.

The Pz. IV definitely is too fast. It should only be able to do 42 kph for the Ausf. B to the Ausf. G, the Ausf. H is stated to have 38 kph.

So I guess a Ausf. G with the addon 30mm front plate should be at 38 kph also.

I really would like to report it, the problem is I have no hard evidence to do so. Sure, one can calculate the speed by just going down the drivetrain ratios and find out how fast the sprocket wheel turns, but that does not tell you if the vehicle actually has enough hp to actually spin it at that speed.

Gear ratio 6th gear: 1:1

From there to the steering system: 1:1,05

Planetary gearbox for steering: 1:1,43

Final drives: 1:3,23

Diameter of sprocket wheel: 726 cm

Those were my (rounded) results:

RPM KPH

2000   27,00
2250   30,38
2500   33,75
2750   37,13
3000   40,50
3250   43,88
3500   47,25
3750   50,63

As far as I know no gear ratio changes where made after the Ausf. B

Edited May 27, 2022 by SCG_SchleiferGER
Added information

May 27, 2022

It's down right funny that some guys spend hours on this forum for a game they claim is failed. On to more posts.....why? What's the point?

May 27, 2022

I Suspect that secretly.... deep down inside they actually want Tank Crew to become the best armor based game available.

Their constant denegrations about the game are their way of not so politely urging the developers to fix and improve the product. :coffee:

May 27, 2022

S!,

From today's DD. Perhaps, this may be added to mission editor? Maybe we'll get some infantry to shoot at?

HB

Edited May 27, 2022 by JV44HeinzBar

May 27, 2022

1 hour ago, SCG_Neun said:

It's down right funny that some guys spend hours on this forum for a game they claim is failed. On to more posts.....why? What's the point?

because we can only express ourselves on the forum to say good things about the game and praise Oooh how the developers, who are demigods, are brilliant and more so affinities? nah, that would be stupid...

44 minutes ago, Thad said:

Their constant denegrations about the game are their way of not so politely urging the developers to fix and improve the product.

maybe some are angry, or exhausted because their previous "polite" requests have come to nothing, that they have the impression that we don't care about their pear...

it's not as if we lacked an example unfortunately...

May 27, 2022

2 hours ago, SCG_Neun said:

It's down right funny that some guys spend hours on this forum for a game they claim is failed. On to more posts.....why? What's the point?

We hate because we love, my friend.

May 27, 2022

3 hours ago, SCG_Neun said:

It's down right funny that some guys spend hours on this forum for a game they claim is failed. On to more posts.....why? What's the point?

It's one of the longstanding mysteries of gaming forums. I've seen it ever since I first starting posting online 20+ years ago over at SimHQ.

Has TC peaked?

Recommended Posts

Guest deleted@188321

SCG_judgedeath3

LachenKrieg

moustache

SCG_judgedeath3

moustache

SCG_judgedeath3

moustache

Guest deleted@188321

SCG_judgedeath3

moustache

LachenKrieg

ickylevel

Alexmarine

LachenKrieg

CountZero

Thad

ickylevel

LachenKrieg

moustache

CountZero

moustache

LachenKrieg

JV44HeinzBar

moustache

JV44HeinzBar

moustache

JV44HeinzBar

Canvas25

ShampooX

JV44HeinzBar

Yogiflight

CountZero

SCG_SchleiferGER

SCG_Neun

Thad

JV44HeinzBar

moustache

ShampooX

LukeFF

Browse All

Activity