What battle would you like to see for TC2

[Enceladus828]

Kasserine Pass looks interesting to me, plus we’d get a bit of the Tunisia Campaign.

[JV44HeinzBar]

S!,

I voted for Battle of Arracourt. If memory serves me, we would get several new vehicles. We would get the Stewart, the M10 & M18, along with the panzerjager IV. Other vehicles in that battle we have already. Although the Axis thought they defeated the Allies, in reality, George Patton was ordered to stand down by Eisenhower, I think. Throw in the weather, and it would make for some really good fighting, especially for the Germans as they try to avoid fighter-bombers, like the P47.

 

HB

Edited November 28, 2023 by JV44HeinzBar

[GenMarkof007]

S! I think that it would be very cool to have a North Africa campaign like the 'Battle of El Alamein'.
Just love 'the history' of that part of the war...

 

Cheers,
GenMarkof

[SCG_Neun]

The Battle of El Alamein is also a favorite of mine as well.  At least we wouldn't have to worry if the grass detail rendered at 600 meters or not.  But please....give us non glare, matte finished skins.....out there on the desert.  If not, it would be a joke.  With this one,  would love to see some recon aircraft like the Fiesler Fi 156 Storch.   The air component capping that landscape, would be so neat in this one which is such a great strength for GB. 

 

I also have to say that the later battles...like in 44 etc.....historically really had an insignificant Luftwaffe in numbers, whereas these earlier battles like El Alamein, still had a viable and healthy air capability on both sides of the conflict.   And of course, whatever combat infantry prowess you can check in the mission editor..give the Aussies the highest one. 

Edited November 29, 2023 by SCG_Neun

[SCG_Junkman]

I to would like El Alamein, conflict at long range contacts. And Sand,Sand............

[Monty_Thrud]

Any Battle with some of these...

 

 

[1./JG42flesch]

Same as with the Planes.

For the Time Period 1941-1945 we need 15-20 Tanks for both Sides.

Planes we need 30-40 Planes for the same Time Period and they made an "Waco Glider and the TA 152"

Absolut uninterresting.

[MajorMagee]

Why not Normandy?

[R7-S276]

for Normandy the map already exist, just need to add tanks and scenarios. M4A1 by boat or the amphibian version from the D-Day beaches to the battle of the Normandy hedges would be great.

I would be interesting to see a Tank Crew WW1 with the first generation of tanks.

[MajorMagee]

For TC2 the existing Normandy Map lacks the level of finish we saw in TC. It would have to be redone as a smaller area with more detail for TC2.

 

Tanks in WW1 were pretty much just for infantry support, and the Germans really didn't produce more than just a handful of vehicles. TC2 in WW1 would be unique, but would require coop functionality with infantry and artillery to be more than a driving demo.

Edited December 4, 2023 by MajorMagee

[ACG_Bussard]

Any scenario or map with the below mentioned tanks, because of the replayability in MP (PvP and PvE):

 

German Forces:

Pz.Kpf. VI Type B Tiger II/King Tiger
Jagdpanzer 38(t) "Hetzer"
Jagdpanther
Jagdpanzer IV/70 or Nashorn/Hornisse 
New because of the upcoming artillery sight function: Self propelled Howitzer Hummel

 

US-Forces:

M4A3E8 Sherman "Easy Eight"
M26 Pershing
M10 Wolverine
New because of the upcoming artillery sight function: Self propelled Howitzer M7 Priest

 

British Forces:

Sherman VC Firefly
Mk IV Cromwell 

New because of the upcoming artillery sight function: Self propelled Howitzer Sexton

Soviet Forces:

T-34/85
IS-2
Su-85/Su-100
New because of the upcoming artillery sight function: ISU-152

Edited December 20, 2023 by Bussard*
Edited by advise of [SN]_Reaper_

[Frinik22]

New because of the upcoming artillery sight function: KV-2

 

Be careful what you wish for ; a slow lumbering monster, with poor ergonomics, barely 16 shells and a relaod time of 40 seconds????

Edited December 15, 2023 by Frinik22

[ACG_Bussard]

2 hours ago, Frinik22 said:

New because of the upcoming artillery sight function: KV-2

 

Be careful what you wish for ; a slow lumbering monster, with poor ergonomics, barely 16 shells and a relaod time of 40 seconds????

It's Christmas time, eveyone can make a wish, even me. ?

 

What would you wish for the Soviets as an artillery tracked vehicle? An SU-76??

 

P.S.Could you please provide a reliable source for the "barly 16 shells" specification"? Thanks in advance.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Bussard*

[Frinik22]

Sure you can have your Christmas wish if you want but if they make the KV-2 accurately the way it was  in real combat capacity, players would curse you for having to use it.

 

The SU-76 and SU-76M are both good choices, fast, good gun , easy to conceal but thinly armoured . How about the ISU-122 with the A19 gun of the JS-122(or early JS-2)?  slow rate of reload like the JS-2 but still better than the KV-2 in every aspect also produced in larger numbers and much more successful operationally. The ISU-152 -1  and ISU-152 M are other possibilities.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Frinik22

[ACG_Bussard]

On 12/16/2023 at 12:55 AM, Frinik22 said:

Sure you can have your Christmas wish if you want but if they make the KV-2 accurately the way it was  in real combat capacity, players would curse you for having to use it.

 

The SU-76 and SU-76M are both good choices, fast, good gun , easy to conceal but thinly armoured . How about the ISU-122 with the A19 gun of the JS-122(or early JS-2)?  slow rate of reload like the JS-2 but still better than the KV-2 in every aspect also produced in larger numbers and much more successful operationally. The ISU-152 -1  and ISU-152 M are other possibilities.

 

Oh, that's an interesting reply. I already mentioned IS-2 or JS-2, as you call it, in my previous post.  And what exactly is the difference between the SU 122 and SU 152 included in Tank Crew and the ISU 122 and ISU-152 -1 / ISU-152 M you suggested? 

 

Further could you please provide a reliable source for your low shell load specification of the KV-2. I had already asked you for this on Friday. Thanks.

 

Finally I´m asking myself why should other players curse me, if the developers following coincidentally my wishes? I  think you're confusing facts here. ?

Edited December 18, 2023 by Bussard*

[LukeFF]

SU = T-34 chassis 

 

ISU = IS chassis

 

...among other things, of course.  The SU-122 used a howitzer, while the ISU-122 used a field gun.

[ACG_Bussard]

Exactly. But a howitzer was wanted, which can be read from the context ("New because of the upcoming artillery sight function") of my inital post. The suggestion with the ISU variants simply missed the point.

 

Thanks for the clarification, LukeFF!
 

[[SN]_Reaper_]

The KV-2 tank's ammunition was 36 shells.
Source: KV tank. Service Manual 1941.
 

@Bussard* KV-2 is an interesting tank, but it doesn't fit at all into the presented set of Soviet tanks. The KV-2 had limited combat use in the summer of 1941. Almost all tanks of this type were lost by mid-July 1941. The remaining few vehicles were withdrawn from combat units already at the beginning of the next year. 

 

Although not a howitzer, the ISU-122 could fire indirect fire from closed positions, using a panoramic sight, where it was also necessary to set the lateral and transverse level. That's why I vote for the ISU-122. But if you really want to see a howitzer, then there is only the ISU-152, without options.

 

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

 

[ACG_Bussard]

Since I really wished for a howitzer, I replaced the KV-2 with the ISU-152 based on your comments, even though we already have the SU-152 with an artillery sight.

[MajorMagee]

I just realized that we already have the next installment of Tank Crew in the BOX series. It's called the Battle for Attention. Like the Sitzkrieg, maybe "next year" things will heat up again. ?

[WitchyWoman]

Its a shame we have no early war tanks. Back in the day WWII Online had some very basic but realistic interiors for several early war tanks and Steel Fury also did a good job with mods to bring in basically anything you could think of. Would love to see a crewable 38T and some early french tanks in the sim. Its such a sin that this title has been stagnant in development and so many important elements missing. It really limits the scope of what can be done in this sim.

 

I too would vote though for some Africa missions or campaigns or some in Italy seeing as how much has been made for mods in these theaters.

Edited December 21, 2023 by WitchyWoman

[Frinik22]

Sorry for the late reply but I was away from my home and computer.

 

Here's an article about the KV2 where the slow rate of fire is mention  there are other sources as well. Read the artcile until the end it sopeaks abotue xperiemntal model and the KV2 with the 152 mm howitzer.

 

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet/kv-2_107-mm/ 

 

While the KV 2 had the capacity for 36 shells it rarely carried more than 18 because of the weight of the shells and the fatc that the turret despite it's bulkiness was cramped. That tank was afailure, with poor mobility, poor ergonomics, slow rate of fire and poor reliability. However it well well armoured in 1940 when used against the Finns.

 

Re the ISU 152 it was better protected and more relaible than the SU 152, in addition one the models the ISU-152 M had the BL8 152 mm gun which had better penetrative capacity than the ML 20.

 

The ISU 122 had the same gun as the JS2 so that made it good for artillery support and fortification busting. It's gun  ,the A19, used to a be a naval gun thus effective against hardened targets and bunkers. The rate of fire was better than the 152 mm and gthe gun wa sproduced in greater numbers.

[Avimimus]

Dude. You should update the original poll with more options! Your only gave battles the U.S. participated in... what about battles in Eastern Europe, or ones with only a British/Commonwealth force?

 

It is very unlikely to happen until TC3 or TC4 (if any sequels happen), but I think an early war eastern scenario is more interesting than people think. The early model Panzer IV and StuGG lack penetration, but their high explosive rounds can still destroy light tanks. The Panzer III is a dominant force on the battlefield.

 

Furthermore, the Soviet forces include weaker opponents (T-26, T-60 etc.) and more powerful ones (early KV-1, T-34)... so the game balance is actually pretty good, with a mixture of weaker and stronger opponents.

 

That said, I've always felt casemate tanks were somewhat alluring, so a Jagdpanzer 38 (i.e. Hetzer), Jagdpanzer IV, or for the Allies an Archer (used in Normandy, powerful gun, low profile), or a SU-85/Su-100 would be pretty neat.

[MajorMagee]

At the risk of opening up a debate, there are some issues to be considered when asking for a marketable armored sim to be developed.

 

How much time and effort do the 3D models actually deserve? Current expectations are that every last bolt, switch, and label for both the interior and exterior will be shown in high resolution detail. It currently takes far longer for a developer to create a new tank model, than it did to design and build the real thing back in the day. However, almost none of that matters for game play. It only serves to provide that wow factor for the reviewers to generate sales.

 

We need vision ports for the crew, and realistic gunsight optic views. Heads out positions for the driver and commander, and useful binoculars. We need recognizable exterior models that let you identify friend from foe. For Co-Op we need simple coms between recon and attacking/defending units. We only need relatively simple controls to drive, select ammo, aim and fire. We're not going to spend any time looking around the interior of the tank, watching handles spin, and pedals move, or bots reloading the gun, unless we're trying to make a movie. Panzer Elite was an example of getting the playability right without bankrupting the project with adding too much less-than-useful detail. I'm not sure how you find that balance anymore?

 

Most of us are not after a fully clickable study sim, or a military grade training platform. For that genre, Steel Beasts Pro already exists. What I think most of us want is that combat stress inducing experience of hunting, while being hunted. For that, all that's needed is a convincing environment to move through that has predator and prey (hard, soft, and infantry targets) that have reasonably accurate damage models. You also need terrain that vehicles realistically interact with (hard pan versus mud, minefields, line of sight masking, etc.). It's all about the relatively small maps (tens of miles, not hundreds), and realistically fighting on it.

 

Working within the BOX family of titles has the advantage of their existing air/ground co-op functionality, so they have that going for them, but a ground focused title like TC2 really needs the combined arms of interactive Infantry, Artillery, and Armor to feel complete.

 

 

Service To The Line,

On The Line,

On Time!

 

[LukeFF]

12 hours ago, WitchyWoman said:

Its such a sin that this title has been stagnant in development and so many important elements missing. It really limits the scope of what can be done in this sim.

 

A lot of time was spent introducing the indirect fire feature in this latest update. That's not what I would call being stagnant. ?

[MajorMagee]

I have to wonder, how/why was that particular feature chosen to invest development time in? I don't recall anyone asking for it. Was it needed for something else coming in our future?

[WitchyWoman]

6 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

A lot of time was spent introducing the indirect fire feature in this latest update. That's not what I would call being stagnant. ?

Infantry badly needed Luke. We need more threats to tanks that are extremely important to ground combat, better AI path finding, and a proper career option. 3 things that would raise this game to at least an acceptable standard.

 

The indirect feature is great but when key elements have been grossly neglected or not even thought about, its something that should have been added afterward. The ground war is very shallow and under-developed. All thats missing limits the replay value.

Edited December 22, 2023 by WitchyWoman

[ACG_Bussard]

While I definitely and explicitly welcome the indirect fire possibility, the current state of the entire simulation (WW1 + WW2) seems to me to be going in all sorts of directions without any clear focus. Add to that the current state of the latest update, which leaves the impression that it was released due to their deadlines too early. I am aware that this is a small dedicated development team is doing what they can do in their time, perhaps less could simply be more in order to achieve good quality.

 

[Enceladus828]

On 12/21/2023 at 4:23 AM, Avimimus said:

Dude. You should update the original poll with more options! Your only gave battles the U.S. participated in... what about battles in Eastern Europe, or ones with only a British/Commonwealth force?

I picked these battles because they would be the most appealing to players for a TC2 and would give us another map instead of taking place on the BoN map. There could be Battle of Kalach which takes place right before BoS. I considered adding Operation Spring Awakening, the last major German offensive on the Eastern front, but felt that it would best if we had late war Soviet planes like the La-7, Yak-3, and IL-2 Type 3 before doing that to reflect the air superiority. Same goes with 1944 Eastern front tank battles though I might be pessimistic.

[csThor]

Personally after seeing the US and UK soldier figures that came with Normandy even thinking about making some tank missions (even if just to learn the Editor) lacks "pull factor" for TC. Germany and USSR really would profit from such objects, not to mention the whole plethora of field fortifications (what we have is often too much "Scheme F").

[WitchyWoman]

Unless TC-2 brings infantry to the battlefield, better ground war detail like emplacements and battle lines that make sense, Better AI/AI path finding (as always) , and a much needed career mode. I would pass.

 

Panzer Elite, Steel Fury 1942, Steel Armor BOW delivered on these features as is the current "Gunner Heat PC" game. I think TC2 needs to come to the table on an  equal level at the least or it will fail and this is probably why the development has gone no where on this module. Even the old retro game,  "Across The Rhine" which was a sim lite game but the campaign and level of command detail was deep and had more depth than a lot of current games. Heck I play it on an emulator so it must be fun. right?

 

Most of us have been spoiled by years of sims both air and ground and there is a bar of basics that must be met. We can talk forever about tanks we would like added but if the other features are missing it falls flat on the floor.

 

 

Edited December 28, 2023 by WitchyWoman

[Avimimus]

I do agree that infantry (at least static infantry positions) and better spotting (something more like Petrovitch - for both the player tank crews and the AI) would add a lot.

That said, I'd be happy for anything that keeps the series alive.

[Yogiflight]

On 12/21/2023 at 9:09 PM, MajorMagee said:

I have to wonder, how/why was that particular feature chosen to invest development time in? I don't recall anyone asking for it.

Maybe in the Russian forum, as it surely will mainly be used with the two Russian self propelled guns. The Ferdinand and StuG still lack a scissors periscope for precise range finding.

[ACG_Bussard]

10 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

Maybe in the Russian forum, as it surely will mainly be used with the two Russian self propelled guns. The Ferdinand and StuG still lack a scissors periscope for precise range finding.

Indeed, but it lacks not only the commander's scissor telescope, but also the panoramic sight, angle-of-site device and longitudinal level for the Gunner.

 

P.S. The Russian Forum is and was quiet in this matter as the overall activity there is way more smaller.

[Eeafanas]

10 часов назад, Yogiflight сказал:

Maybe in the Russian forum, as it surely will mainly be used with the two Russian self propelled guns.

As a representative of the Russian-speaking community, I assure you - there they stand for the further development of the Second World War (Barbarossa, Leningrad, Murmansk, Bagration, Berlin). 
 

Скрытый текст

The information about the Korean War was received rather coldly, they blame the English-speaking community for all the troubles, they say the developers listen more to the Western community because of its greater solvency, and the Russian-speaking community was „cheated out of money“.

 

News of the temporary suspension of further development of the guided ground vehicle range was generally received very negatively. I myself was very saddened by the news that this was most likely the first and last part of Tank Crew.

However, I don't give up hope that the next project will do much better.

 

Edited January 7, 2024 by Eeafanas

[ralk59]

hello Eeafanas,

Indeed, I think it would be more useful to develop the equipment and the battles in the east of Berlin (natural origin of IL2), to make the game more reliable rather than getting lost in tank fights of little significance in the west or others that for me come out of the very essence of IL2.

[MajorMagee]

Anything from Bagration to Berlin would be a welcome development.

[SCG_Neun]

Yes, I could live with this as well...

[Eeafanas]

I personally really want Operation Barbarossa. The battle in the Dubno-Lutsk-Brody area is worth it. 

[Yogiflight]

On 1/8/2024 at 6:49 PM, Eeafanas said:

The battle in the Dubno-Lutsk-Brody area is worth it. 

Yes, but I think you will have the same issue, you have with TC 1, just the other way round. The German tanks will be clearly inferior to the Russian tanks, which will give a pretty bad game. I am more for the Battle at Kalach, @Enceladus828 mentioned in an earlier post. I suggested that timeframe in another thread months ago, too, as it gives you Panzer IV F1 and F2 (later renamed to G) versus early T-34 and KV-1 on Russian side.