Has TC peaked?

[moustache]

[LachenKrieg]

14 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.

Agreed, the PzIVG was a good match for the T34 except for mobility. If the aim is to showcase player skill, then it makes sense to me that you would want the vehicles as close as possible. The Sherman was closer in speed, and had problems traversing soft ground.

 

Of course there are still plenty of differences that would allow the player in each vehicle to make their own personal strategy which would just help keep the game play interesting. And because the vehicles are very closely matched, it should eliminate some of the "I only drive this" mindset.

 

But this only works if things are modeled correctly... not sure when if ever that is going to happen.

 

11 hours ago, CountZero said:

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

 

The thing about camo is that tank crews themselves did a lot in the field. So to historically accurate, you would have to find a way to duplicate that by either allowing players add 3D camo, or make better camo schemes for the German tanks. Because historically speaking, PzIV crews were more likely to dress their tank to match the terrain then they were to drive a golden love bug through a sea of green... But I get your interest in historical aspects to the game and have to say I agree with a lot of what you post.

19 hours ago, ShampooActual said:

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

 

That was a really good thread.... just sayin

Edited May 27, 2022 by LachenKrieg

[Yogiflight]

9 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

Agreed, the PzIVG was a good match for the T34 except for mobility. If the aim is to showcase player skill, then it makes sense to me that you would want the vehicles as close as possible. The Sherman was closer in speed, and had problems traversing soft ground.

 

Of course there are still plenty of differences that would allow the player in each vehicle to make their own personal strategy which would just help keep the game play interesting. And because the vehicles are very closely matched, it should eliminate some of the "I only drive this" mindset.

Exactly. The T-34 was more mobile, while the Panzer IV had the better gun and a dedicated gunner, not like the T-34, the commander having to shoot himself. IRL there also was no zooming in gunsight and roundview periscope, which, in game, gives the player the chance to use a larger FOV.

 

9 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

The thing about camo is that tank crews themselves did a lot in the field. So to historically accurate, you would have to find a way to duplicate that by either allowing players add 3D camo, or make better camo schemes for the German tanks. Because historically speaking, PzIV crews were more likely to dress their tank to match the terrain then they were to drive a golden love bug through a sea of green...

As far as I know, the tanks were delivered mainly, if not only, with the yellow color, while the camouflage was done in the field, for the reason you mentioned.

17 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?

You are right, we should accept, we burnt 80 bucks for a game, which was announced to be a WW II tank simulator, but didn't make it to more than a arcade first person shooter. There is a long list of suggestions in the TC forum, but everything we ever heard was it will get better over time. In fact, a game, which had potential, became worse, because of gaming decisions, like a white circle, showing the position of your opponent, an AI gunner, taking control over the turret and gun, turning the turret to the direction of a target, he couldn't know it is there, as it was outside of his limited FOV, shooting at the target on his own, high grass, which makes you position your tank on top of a hill, instead of behind it, because otherwise you can't see anything, but for your opponent, if further away than 500m, you are standing like on a stage, illuminated by spotlights.

And there is absolutely no information, if they are interested and willing to improve the game, so it becomes a tank simulation.

But, yers, you are right, we should shut up and be happy, we burnt 80 bucks for a game, we think is unplayable.

[moustache]

33 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

You are right, we should accept, we burnt 80 bucks for a game, which was announced to be a WW II tank simulator, but didn't make it to more than a arcade first person shooter. There is a long list of suggestions in the TC forum, but everything we ever heard was it will get better over time. In fact, a game, which had potential, became worse, because of gaming decisions, like a white circle, showing the position of your opponent, an AI gunner, taking control over the turret and gun, turning the turret to the direction of a target, he couldn't know it is there, as it was outside of his limited FOV, shooting at the target on his own, high grass, which makes you position your tank on top of a hill, instead of behind it, because otherwise you can't see anything, but for your opponent, if further away than 500m, you are standing like on a stage, illuminated by spotlights.

And there is absolutely no information, if they are interested and willing to improve the game, so it becomes a tank simulation.

But, yers, you are right, we should shut up and be happy, we burnt 80 bucks for a game, we think is unplayable.

[CountZero]

OP needs to brake his record, come on guys more posts ?

 

TC is not great tank sim without infantry, now when we gona get it its going sky high, to the moon and beyond...

 

SU-152 is to OP!

[SCG_Neun]

Point is when you say the game is a failed game.....that is in past tense......no hope, move along statement and that was my point. Of course people who feel like the game is "failing" should be concerned, and post those concerns.  I in fact agree with some of these points that have been posted and I understand the frustrations.  For me the cost is a bargain, as I play it and get so much out of it, but to others who expected more and just can't play it I am sure the cost is too much.   

 

As far as the topic has the game peaked, I personally don't think that it has for the right group playing the game.  For single players, perhaps so.  But I'll tell you something, one movie on the tank war on the Eastern Front.....with Brad Pitt ?in a German Mk IV holding off the entire Soviet Army?, tracked and almost out of ammo, with Soviets charging the tank over and over again, or vice versa ......geesh....the people with come a running.  Just like this new Top Gun movie will have the jet sims going like mad.  ?

Edited May 28, 2022 by SCG_Neun

[ShampooX]

5 minutes ago, SCG_Neun said:

Point is when you say the game is a failed game.....that is in past tense......no hope, move along statement and that was my point.  Of course people who feel like the game is "failing" should be concerned, and post those concerns.  I in fact agree with some of these points that have been posted and I understand the frustrations.  For me the cost is a bargain, as I play it and get so much out of it, but to others who expected more and just can't play it I am sure the cost is too much.  

Me too Brother Neun,  I love this game.   I just think that with the right level of support, this game could dominate the tank-gaming space and steal the majority of serious WT and WOT (if there are any serious, LOL) players.  Both air and  ground for that matter.  Primarily' I'm speaking of more vehicles and more skins.  I think the ballistic realism is about as good or, or as bad, as any game out there now.  The maps and the gameplay are just perfect.  Could the graphics be a little better?  Yes, but then nobody beats the graphics on the inside of our tank models.  And I enjoy hitting invisible trees because each time I do, I take a drink.  In retrospect of all these posts, I'm kind of happy that we don't see WT sized numbers in the game - at least on the online servers - I like this as our little secret.  We may regret the day this game gets too popular.

[JV44HeinzBar]

22 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

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.

S!,

I used to be a rabid follower of SimHQ. I don't remember why I stopped visiting those forums. I may have to see if I can remember my old login and check it out again.

 

HB

[LachenKrieg]

On 5/26/2022 at 10:59 PM, ShampooActual said:

...Historical Accuracy is more important than Balance...

 

 

Here's another post for you.

 

I wonder though if you aren't using the word balance in the wrong context? With something like WT your comment makes sense because historical accuracy is not considered. So you could use that scenario to explain that you prefer historical accuracy over the balanced created for the sake of game play and visa versa. 

 

But balance in that context is different then the way I am using it here. There is nothing historically inaccurate about either a PzIII M, or a PzIV G going up against a Sherman.

 

But the inherent balance that existed in a PzIII M vs Sherman compared to a PzIV G vs Sherman was different. In the first case, balance was tilted to favor the Sherman. In the second case, balance was much more even, but depending on the point being compared the balance could favor one vehicle over the other.

 

For MP game play, the PzIV vs Sherman is a much better option because the historical balance that existed is more even. Balance in this sense is not the same as the balance you see in a game like WT. All of the vehicles here should have their strengths and weakness represented as they were in real life, and let the users/servers create the balance they want to achieve.

 

I really like the PzIII. I have my own personal reasons why it is my favorite German tank. And I would love to see the Luchs, or a number of other PzII's make it.

 

But IMO, the PzIII as it stands now is not a good MP tank unless it is paired with something else. Could be any of the other German tanks, but by itself it does not present a good MP tank.

 

If you run a closed group like the SCG guys are doing, and the point is to recreate early EF encounters, or for SP game play where you want the challenge of taking on a stronger opponent, then it is perfect.

 

But if you were to use it for MP game play on its own in something like A&S, the historical balance that existed would mean the MP match would heavily favor one side. 

 

These concepts only work if the vehicles are properly modeled though... So for the moment I don't think there is much in the way of historical balance.

[SCG_Neun]

We had a MkIV vs Sherman mission last Sunday and all in all, I would say the Sherman is in fact a bit too gifted in the survivabilty department.  I don't know squat about armor charts, ammo penetrations, angles of entry, etc...but if you play against that tank enough, you just get the feel that it isn't historical at this point.  Just my take on it.

Edited May 29, 2022 by SCG_Neun

[ShampooX]

1 hour ago, SCG_Neun said:

We had a MkIV vs Sherman mission last Sunday and all in all, I would say the Sherman is in fact a bit too gifted in the survivabilty department.  I don't know squat about armor charts, ammo penetrations, angles of entry, etc...but if you play against that tank enough, you just get the feel that it isn't historical at this point.  Just my take on it.

There just so happens to be an epic thread, my record thread for replies actually, " Fix the GD Sherman" where there uis excellent discourse and even some compelling video based evidence on the exact "feel" that you're getting.  It's a thing.

[LachenKrieg]

2 hours ago, SCG_Neun said:

We had a MkIV vs Sherman mission last Sunday and all in all, I would say the Sherman is in fact a bit too gifted in the survivabilty department.  I don't know squat about armor charts, ammo penetrations, angles of entry, etc...but if you play against that tank enough, you just get the feel that it isn't historical at this point.  Just my take on it.

Agreed, I saw the same thing in both SP and MP. And you know things are being tweaked when you have an easier time against a T34 in a PzIII then you do in a PzIV? The PzIII appears buffed IMO, while the PzIV seems to be nerfed. At least that is what I was seeing, and it left me with the impression that they are trying to make things more playable.

 

But like I just explained, it would be far better IMO to model the vehicles as they were and let the servers/player base create the desired match up. This could range from having uneven numbers of player spawns on each side, to controlling the type and number of each vehicle included in the match.

 

According to some of the available post battle analysis reports, including those made on the Russian side, the PzIII L/M was able to penetrate the T34's armor frontally in a very low percentage of cases. There could be a number of reasons why/how this could happen, and it is almost impossible to say at what distance the penetration marks were made from, but it is probably safe to say that it would have to be less than 300 m, and more likely closer to 200 m and less. And that seems to at least coincide with reports from PzIII crews themselves. Most didn't bother firing until they were within a 100 m or so. From the side/rear this is obviously not the case.

 

But in Tank Crew, I have taken a T34 down frontally from 500 m in a PzIII, while in a PzIV I could hit a Sherman from the rear at near point blank with no effect.

[Yogiflight]

14 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

According to some of the available post battle analysis reports, including those made on the Russian side, the PzIII L/M was able to penetrate the T34's armor frontally in a very low percentage of cases. There could be a number of reasons why/how this could happen,

The vulnerable spot was the turret slewing ring, which was not armored as good as the front plate and not sloped. Shooting at that point worked pretty well in T-34 vs. Tiger, but I couldn't find benefit here in game. And they certainly used the PzGr. 40, so the solid AP round instead of the APHE round.

[LachenKrieg]

@Yogiflight, that is a good point and one of the possibilities. See the link to the post battle analysis of destroyed T34's. Out of 109 examined hits on the T34's upper front armor , 43 were attributed to 50mm shots, and of those 5 were penetrating hits. It doesn't specify where on the upper front armor though.

 

https://t34inform.ru/doc/1942-11-03_NII-48_T-34.html

[Leon_Portier]

TC has so much potential, I whish the server owners would balance out the tanks out a bit. With one team only driving Panthers and Ferdinands and me with the biggest thing having a Sherman its so one sided for the blues, its not interesting to play at all

[super-truite]

2 hours ago, [N.O.G.F]Leon_Portier said:

TC has so much potential, I whish the server owners would balance out the tanks out a bit. With one team only driving Panthers and Ferdinands and me with the biggest thing having a Sherman its so one sided for the blues, its not interesting to play at all

it is really difficult. As a server owner, I struggle between offering everything that players paid for and balancing. The current way of trying to balance is to let more 152s than heavy german panzers but nobody wants to play it because it is a bit challenging. Yet, the best player of my server is a 152 tanker (he plays almost only that tank)...

[Leon_Portier]

10 hours ago, super-truite said:

it is really difficult. As a server owner, I struggle between offering everything that players paid for and balancing. The current way of trying to balance is to let more 152s than heavy german panzers but nobody wants to play it because it is a bit challenging. Yet, the best player of my server is a 152 tanker (he plays almost only that tank)...

I feel you, it must be really difficult. And I agree with everything. One question, on your server, are the 152s avalable on every spawn or just on the rear like the cats?

Edited June 26, 2022 by [N.O.G.F]Leon_Portier

[Monostripezebra]

My take is:

TC is essentially dead as a product, despite actual potential because both developers and player comunity both are stubbornly ignorant of fatal flaws..

 

for any game to live up to its potential, it needs to be offering enjoyable gameplay experience and the big key question to that is a matching, balanced opposition.  For single player this splits up into things like mechanics, units etc. but THE KEY is AI and AI perception and reaction to the player. AI is still poor, as are all those "integration" issues into the flightsim world like invisible trees and really cluncy UI.

 

It could have blossomed in multiplayer, as that could overcome AI issues and good mission design can somewhat mitigate the integration stufff.. and especially integrated arms stuff could have been a unique selling point.. and the best matches in any game are people vs people, but that would have needed either game design elements to iron out imbalences or a mature comunity working around imbalances, both key things which the game did not bring to the table.

 

Essentially, the game is a good example of how an "but muh simulations don´t need balance because realism"-attitude together with a very limited perception/definition of realism (purely focused on a individual players technical unit aspects, not a wider context like numbers, logistics, setting etc) and a producers choice of scenario quality-vs-quantity "leviathan" scenario and strict adherance to player voicings of "never balance a sim" claims while at the same time having a very onesideded "I only play the best unit"-behaviour  essentially killed the game in the timeframe window it had to appeal  and garner interest, despite a real demand in that area. Nearly all of my sim-friends who bought the game hoping for it to overcome its difficulties have just pushed it back in the drawer and don´t look back.

 

Now that it is ageing.. I highly doubt it is goint to pull a turnaround and significantly increase player numbers in the future.

Edited June 26, 2022 by Monostripezebra

[super-truite]

4 hours ago, [N.O.G.F]Leon_Portier said:

I feel you, it must be really difficult. And I agree with everything. One question, on your server, are the 152s avalable on every spawn or just on the rear like the cats?

like the cats, but it is true that I could add some as well at the closer spawns. I will try it.

[super-truite]

IMO there are several things preventing TC to take off:

• Lack of some tanks that would allow to design balanced scenarios (T34 85, Shermans with 76 guns, IS 2 etc.)
• Visuals: while beautiful for planes, the landscape visuals lags way behind compares to other titles and while we can understand it because we know this was developed inside a plane simulation, new comers are unlikely to accept it... Small improvements to tree, bushes and buildings  detailed LODs (that would not be seen by planes) + some textures adjustments seems doable. And I am speaking of the detailed area in Prokhorovka, not the maps that were specifically designed for planes. Also, I do not understand exactly why, but this map is not really popular and I do not like it much myself  and I develop tank missions on other maps most of the time.
• Lack of believable AI: no infantry, AI Tank and guns can be frustrating (pathfinding, firing through vegetation, slowness to react, quality of textures and crew animations for some guns etc.)
• Bugs: some bugs are very frustrating and are there for a while. To name a few: invisible trees, gun firing randomly sound/particle effects when multicrewing a tank, tank not visible in VR  if you do not press "T" when in the commander position etc.
• Lack of marketing maybe ? Free week-ends could work for instance. 
• Player behavior: I see games where there is one allied tanks vs 10 Germans. I get it, german tanks are more fun or at least more simple to play with, but this behavior  plagues the Multiplayer. If we activate autobalance, players leave because they cannot play with their friends in the same team or cannot get their favorite tank and if we don't, allies player loose interest little by little because they end up in completely unbalanced games... If we had more players this would be fixed though because the servers could be full and autobalance would be possible to enforce. 
• Mission editor. My Advance And Secure mission took hundreds of hours to develop and this feels really frustrating compared to other frameworks I am used to work with like Arma or unreal. The impossibility to script complex behaviors with code leads quickly to spaghettis monsters of MCUs connected together that are difficult to debug. This is great that we can edit missions, but it is difficult to do something original. 

Despite those problems, I find the game really interesting and for me it is really a diamond in the rough.

[CountZero]

and ppl wonder why decision to make churchill as collector tank was so bad and eye opening, that choice shows clearly that nothing was learned or there is no will to change. 

[Leon_Portier]

4 hours ago, super-truite said:

like the cats, but it is true that I could add some as well at the closer spawns. I will try it.

Thanks, I think its a good idea.

BTW, my friends and me say you have the best tank server in GB.

100% agree with the list that prevents TC from taking off.

Edited June 26, 2022 by [N.O.G.F]Leon_Portier

[moustache]

1 hour ago, [N.O.G.F]Leon_Portier said:

100% agree with the list that prevents TC from taking off.

hard to say otherwise...

 

wouldn't it also be possible to give more AI to the Russians?

Or a simpler (and maybe even tank) way of destroying heavy tank "producing" factories? (I don't have the impression that there are many airmen who take care of it...)

[super-truite]

2 hours ago, moustache said:

hard to say otherwise...

 

wouldn't it also be possible to give more AI to the Russians?

Or a simpler (and maybe even tank) way of destroying heavy tank "producing" factories? (I don't have the impression that there are many airmen who take care of it...)

yes, I am already working on adding more AI to the allies, it will be activated on the malmedy map soon.
Some pilots are destroying factories and it is not that hard, but I think I could make the objectives more interesting to attract more pilots. 

Edited June 26, 2022 by super-truite

[RossMarBow]

I don't think TC has even started.

Until they re-do all the maps at ground level with tanks in mind.

Its still very much a beta test product. 

[ShampooX]

2 hours ago, RossMarBow said:

I don't think TC has even started.

Until they re-do all the maps at ground level with tanks in mind.

Its still very much a beta test product. 

I hope your right brother, but for the last couple years or so we've got very little.  Even with some of the weakness in ground graphics, I think that at least on the PvP severs it's the best game available.  But it needs a shot in the arm for sure.

[Reaperr]

Well when it came to tanks and pvp is massive disaster in this game no matter map. If you play as allied you are in massive disadvantage because you always alone against more germans and even if you find more people that is very rear sight, on top of that allied tanks are very inferior to germans, and you cant use ant tank tactics because it relies on having numbers. But when it came to PVE tank crew is very fun. It would be nice to have some tanks on allied side that are capable to stank one on one with german heavies like IS1, kv85 and others but i guess that is to much to ask but insted we have t-34 with short barrel 75mm and upcoming 1942 Churchill with is even slower than than Ferdinand. it seams that tank crew rolling down hill

[jollyjack]

The solution maybe ?

 

[LukeFF]

8 hours ago, jollyjack said:

The solution maybe ?

 

 

If you want prototypes that never went anywhere, sure.

[moustache]

21 hours ago, Papa_Bear said:

It would be nice to have some tanks on allied side that are capable to stank one on one with german heavies like IS1, kv85 and others but i guess that is to much to ask but insted we have t-34 with short barrel 75mm and upcoming 1942 Churchill with is even slower than than Ferdinand. it seams that tank crew rolling down hill

he should stop with this idea of staying around the battle of Kursk: in the end, whether it's the modders' solo content or the multiplayer, we see little of the Prokhorovka map.

 

for me, it is of little interest compared to the other maps: certainly (slightly) more detailed than the "plane" maps, but these seconds have the advantages of being large and having much more varied topography (forest , dense or not, mountains, plains, winding roads, village or big cities... etc)... and then the details of the TC map seem limited...

 

in my simple opinion, it should be better played like studio bohemia: you make a solid base, and you leave the tools to modders (who have, I think, already largely demonstrated their talents) to build missions, skins, etc. .. and by the same, you provide several tanks, more "balanced" (I'm not talking about changing the stas, we understand each other...), and free for people to recreate historically faithful battles if they wish. ..

 

because indeed, if we want to be historically correct, we would need numerical superiority on the allied side, like AI tanks that would follow the player, but given the CPU problems that seem to be created by the excessively large aircraft crews, it seems unlikely ...

[Guest deleted@188321]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

If you want prototypes that never went anywhere, sure.

Like the Arado that maybe had one or two combat missions? ?

[LachenKrieg]

On 7/18/2022 at 2:57 PM, Papa_Bear said:

Well when it came to tanks and pvp is massive disaster in this game no matter map. If you play as allied you are in massive disadvantage because you always alone against more germans and even if you find more people that is very rear sight, on top of that allied tanks are very inferior to germans, and you cant use ant tank tactics because it relies on having numbers. But when it came to PVE tank crew is very fun. It would be nice to have some tanks on allied side that are capable to stank one on one with german heavies like IS1, kv85 and others but i guess that is to much to ask but insted we have t-34 with short barrel 75mm and upcoming 1942 Churchill with is even slower than than Ferdinand. it seams that tank crew rolling down hill

Just curious to know what German tanks does the Sherman have problems with in this game?

[Reaperr]

3 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

Just curious to know what German tanks does the Sherman have problems with in this game?

i would say all of them, if not for they armor then they ammo can pen frontally from any distance. Closest mach up would be  PzKpfw 3 againt  PzKpfw 4 you will strugle and need multiple shots to do any damage and you need to be smart and tactical with you engagements. And rest of them simply to op. they hitting so hard that you gonna forget your name

[LachenKrieg]

8 hours ago, Papa_Bear said:

i would say all of them, if not for they armor then they ammo can pen frontally from any distance. Closest mach up would be  PzKpfw 3 againt  PzKpfw 4 you will strugle and need multiple shots to do any damage and you need to be smart and tactical with you engagements. And rest of them simply to op. they hitting so hard that you gonna forget your name

That is funny, because I was seeing the exact opposite. Your post would almost suggests that they might have fixed/adjusted the model a bit, but I haven't seen anything in any of the patch notes.

 

Tank Crew is supposed to include a basic model of some of the onboard systems, but I could penetrate the Sherman from all sides with very little effect. To be honest, I never tried a PzIII vs PzIV because the problem I was seeing seemed to be mostly with the Sherman/Russian tanks.

[BlitzPig_EL]

What is really odd is that it's like some people are playing a completely different game than I am. I have been one shotted in a Sherman many times by my mates driving any of the German tanks, and when I decide to take out the Pz. IV against my friends in Shermans I can one shot them with ease, as they can my Panzer.  Not that the Shermans can't be difficult to attack, but it's not because they can absorb damage, but because of their great mobility compared to the P IV. or Tiger.  And God forbid I'm in a Sherman and one of my friends is in a Panther, especially at range, out in the open.

[LachenKrieg]

29 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

What is really odd is that it's like some people are playing a completely different game than I am. I have been one shotted in a Sherman many times by my mates driving any of the German tanks, and when I decide to take out the Pz. IV against my friends in Shermans I can one shot them with ease, as they can my Panzer.  Not that the Shermans can't be difficult to attack, but it's not because they can absorb damage, but because of their great mobility compared to the P IV. or Tiger.  And God forbid I'm in a Sherman and one of my friends is in a Panther, especially at range, out in the open.

I have no reason to doubt what you are saying, but then again I don't think you have reason to doubt me either. Especially after the video I put up that shows me using both against each other. The outcome was predictable.

 

When I first got TC, that was definitely not the case. The game did seem to be more realistic at first, but weeks before others started reported the gun/armor issue with videos, I reported in a post on this forum that I was unable to take out a Sherman at under 500m while driving a Panther.

 

We have all seen the  videos and heard the arguments/counter arguments, I'm more interested in whether they will ever fix the game I paid for. I guess we will see what happens after Normandy releases.

 

Not sure what you mean by "difficult to attack", but in terms of mobility the Sherman was also known to have issues traversing soft terrain.

[moustache]

of course the sherman is not indestructible... but it is true that sometimes the DM seems strange...

 

just some example, when i say to me "how he survive?":

 

these are APHE shots for the most part, with a Pz IV, (and the direction of the sherman's gun indicates my direction), we see that this one is active, it continues to roll... frankly, on the shots who touches the driver's position, I don't see how he can survive?! is the periscope strong enough to cover it from the shell explosion? looks big to me...

[LachenKrieg]

Yeah that is pretty much the game I was playing.... Swiss cheese simulator

 

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

It's just so strange, and disappointing.  There is so much promise in TC.  I continue to hope that promise is realized.

[LachenKrieg]

16 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

It's just so strange, and disappointing.  There is so much promise in TC.  I continue to hope that promise is realized.

I agree, it is strange and disappointing at the same time.

 

I have sort of given up hope on Tank Crew back when I uninstalled the game. But obviously I am still hoping for things to change otherwise I wouldn't still be hanging around here.

 

I keep telling myself they will get back to fixing it once they can clear the upcoming Normandy release off their to-do list.