Talk about how to include the tanks gameplay
 

I see a big problem here if the final goal of this new feature is to bring arcade tank fans to the game to made more cash:

For this goal they need arcade tank players want to come to CoD. But if they go for the arcade game as it looks, then they need to offer more than competitors arcade tank games... I only can think about World of Tanks right now. And I really can´t see how this can compete with WoT for the arcade player. Landscape is more suitable for arcade players in WoT than CoD, because size, close up graphics being a lot better, and landscape offering a lot of arcadish planned environment to hide and so on, which are not in CoD. In WoT you have a complete upgradable tank system very suitable to arcade players. WoT tanks 3D models are far superior than CoD ones ( even superior than exterior CoD air crafts ). And I cant´t think about an arcade player that want to ride a tank 20 Km ( 100km anyone? ) to the battle and then being killed by an airplane with no place to hide and no way to defense. Not to mention WoT is free. So I can´t see a lot of arcade tank players buying CoD for the tanks as they already have their bed very well done. And not a lot of people who likes aircraft sims are going to buy CoD, or SoW, or BoM or whatever for the arcade tank game play. So if they go for the arcade market... I´m not sure they are going to succeed in generating a lot more cash without mayor changes to the game play and close up graphics.

But truly tank sim is a niche which is not properly filled today at the level CoD does for air crafts. It´s true there is not a big market there for this, but at least they would be offering something that WoT does not in a better way and WoT people would like to try it. Problem here is the resources that an approach like this would need, for all tank interiors and exterior updated models, and so on... So I think one way would be to build the tools and let all drivable tank vehicles to be build for third party with SDK with a MG control about quality.

Just my thought.

Anyway as they say that they have not very clear how to implement all this new feature in game I suggest we start to offer and discussing ideas for them about how they could do it from market, game play and available resources realistically point of view. Something useful could come from that... if we avoid the "I want to cross all te country by foot, kill the guards and steal the enemy plane to get home again... " We can open a new threat for this.

And I´m doing it.

Please, stay on topic. This is about how tank gameplay can works well, not about if it need to be integrated or not.
_______

I think it will be used primarily for manning AAA.

Then later I can see people making tank battles without player aircraft, if tactics can get used somehow it might be ok....but without infantry? That will be hard to do.

well, a question:

what tank battles took place in the battle of britain?

Let´s talk about future guys. BoM and so on.

As for the future of tanks.. The biggest limitation will be your imagination

We must be playing completely different games, because WoT models are far less detailed than IL2COD, same goes for the terrain, (all of which can be built in the FMB - embankments, roads, bridges, towns, etc.,etc.,etc.)

WoT is based upon a money making system. Sure the game is free, but when you hop in your tier 5 tank and get into matches with tier IX's/X's you are only there to be fodder.

In WoT you are limited to the amount of players, you are limited to the maps, you are limited to basically everything that WoT or their service is providing. All you do is play on their servers and roll the dice.

With IL2COD, you can create any sort of mission you want on any piece of map that's in the game. You can make the scenario as big or as small as you want. And then to top it off, you can respawn and not have to pay some abysmal credit repair charge to fix your tank after matchmaker raped you time and time again.

When this comes to fruition, there's no way I'll ever play WoT again. No more stupid icons, repair kits that magically fix your tracks in 1 second, camo netting that makes you invisible, radar, etc.,etc., I could go on forever. But WoT really sucks as any sort of a tank game. With IL2COD the options/scenarios, or well, any aspect of it can be user created.

When some tankers get their hands on an SDK and then realize that they'll have the tools to create w/e they want, in w/e environment they want, on their own server, in their own missions (from arcade to archaic :) ) I think this portion of the game will explode on it's own. It's not like you have to have a server up that uses airplanes. I predict plenty of "ground only" servers popping up.

This will be awesome. But again, this won't be handed to anyone on a silver platter. Missions will have to be made, scenarios designed etc., but I'm sure there's more than a few people out there, like me, drooling at the mouth, anxious to get my hands on it.

There was a big tank battle near the town of Hypothetical.

Not to mention the battle at What-Would-Have-Happened-if-the-Germans-Invaded-By-The-Sea.

LoL

+1

+1, the possibilities for dynamic online battles are mind boggling.:)

That's kind of my question, too. Even if the tanks are for the Battle of France, this is a flight sim. We need to have air battles over France, with a sim that improves with each patch. Showing me what tanks may do in the future sounds an awful lot like bait and switch. As in saying "I can't improve the FM right now, so let me show you some pretty tanks that I hope will divert your attention for at least a week."

binky9

Well played Bliss.

Its about gameplay, and added content that gives mission builders strategic and tactical options makes "gameplay" more varied and interesting for the players(which in turn could fire up the builders creative juices).

I doubt this could ever replace Steel Beasts as a tank sim but it sure will be cool for the missions in CoD.

If realism and historical accuracy is your goal then not at all. For starters who's fluid in tank tactics 1939-45 style? Hardly anyone. Would players stick to these tactics? Nope. Can historical strengths and weaknesses be depicted? Nope.

The thing is any kind of human involvement in the ground war will end in some kind of brawl, inevitable leading to a stalemate of some kind. Quite honestly I'd prefer more FMB control over the ground AI (like telling artillery which area to shell and when, telling tanks when to advance in which formation at what speed etc etc). ;)

Adding more ways for people to be involved in Cod/BoM/IL2 battles is awesome.

How about if we try assuming that they'll get it right and wait to start complaining until they actually screw it up.

What's the difference? look how people fly...certainly tactics are ignored by most...hey Bub, fill the tank!...oh, and check the oil:-P

I still think the original title Storm Of War was more apt. This was never just a flight sim. I can't believe that anyone who has been here for any length of time, and has followed this thing since the beginning, would think anything different.
David, your post made me lol and is spot on. :)

I think it's quite clear many people didn't pay attention to the updates at all. It's was fairly obvious more than 2 years ago about the vehicles, just not to the extent. And I'm sure they have many more surprises up their sleeves. Gotta love the ambition.

Being one of those that did pay attention to the updates, I remember several things that were fairly obvious more than 2 years ago, and I still haven't seen some of them.

The weekly updates still seem to me to be bones thrown to the pack to keep them happy. Mind you, I like CoD as it is, and fly it 3-4 times a week. I just want weekly updates that talk about what is coming next month, not next year, or in the next sequel.

binky9

Lots of people will be complaining about the CoD dev team working on tanks. That is coming next month, next year, and with the next sequel. Then the people who complained about tanks will be complaining that their tanks aren't using the right fuel and don't have the right ammo loadout.

Consider yourself updated.

But nothing specific about what everyone knows needs to get fixed? Damn.

binky9

He said that they are still working on it.

I don't believe you ;) Can you name some please?

The majority of old updates I remember seeing were clearly labeled WIP or Alpha version. And the missing features not in IL2COD on release (for stuff they said would be included) was talked about in an update before the Eastern release of the game.

I don't ever remember something being promised ever, just that it's being worked on. So please hook me up with these "fairly obvious" things that weren't discussed in an update as WIP/Alpha. Links would be nice. I've thought I've seen every single update for this sim. Maybe not.

Well,after playing multiplayer flight sims since F29 Retaliator on null modem cable I think I have seen historically correct tactics a handful of times... How many times in IL2 do you see Spits in tight vic formations looking only at the nearest wing? How many times do you see a wingman stay in formation for more than 1 minute when a battle starts? It sure happens, but in reality a wingman that left his position to chase a smoking He 111 3000 feet below more than once would have a hard time getting into the plane again accept during September 1940...

So a bit of kamikaze tank battles with people leaving the formation to go over some ridge in plain view of the enemy would not fall completely out of place? ;)


/mazex

Here I posted my proposal on how to include basic tank gameplay http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=142

If you have ideas please post in that thread. I am sure the devs are looking for them. But they have to be realistic and cost efficient i.e. simple. The more complex ones can be done by the community when SDK is out.

Please stay on topic, this is only for proponsals about HOW and WHY they could integrate tanks in the game. Not for arguing against doing it.

Why not do as CFS3 campaign style, which was terrible in CFS3 but which maybe could work with ground forces modelling in COD? You would have a moving front line with 'strong points'. The game would auto generate ground forces on both sides and a strategic AI would move them toward strongpoints, based on distance from their own strongpoints, reinforcements, resupply lines etc, it is not too complicated code.

So the player would have a choice of missions how they would play, to support the ground forces take specific strong points, maybe you bomb the defences, maybe you bomb the enemy tanks.

And if youre tanks are being attacked, you do the Ctrl F1 into the commander tank and dig in or evade the air attack. Or you can jump into your aircraft near, and defend your ground forces that way.

If you are success, the front line moves, if you are fail, the front line retreats.

I'm not such interest in FPS style tank against tank battles that is for World of Tanks, but for tanks to work in a simulator like this, it would needs to be of strategic purpose.

The obvious thing that springs to mind would be some sort of capture the flag based system for ground forces much like the battlefield series - you'd need to occupy key points on a map for a set amount of time and hold out against opposition ground and air forces. I only really see ground units working in a dynamic campaign where upon each new mission the ground units are tasked with taking / defending key points on the map - capturing forward positions would advance the front line, win extra munitions and replacement aircraft (and tanks), perhaps extra AI squadrons deployed very much like the dynamic campaigns in IL-2 original series.

Map design will be key to enhancing ground battles. There should be a number of targets within reasonable reach of ground forces to allow epic battles - I doubt anyone wants to spend hours driving a tank across fields between bases / targets; this can be easily be sorted through mission design.

Along side well designed missions / tasks for ground vehicles (as well as well designed playable vehicles themselves) I do think a properly modeled ground environment is essential if the developers are hoping to draw in a significant number of non flight simmers to play. World of Tanks aside, there are plenty of games that currently offer tanks and planes in one environment (plus infantry in many cases) and do this pretty successfully e.g. battlefield, arma, flashpoint, modern warfare, the soon to be released dust 514 etc etc. Hopefully, they will have looked at what makes these games successful and what features are suitable and achievable in CoD. Without an environment designed for ground combat e.g. an environment with destructible buildings, vegetation you can't drive through but is destructible, reliefs in the landscape suitable for cover / ambush, chock points, strategy, etc etc, I'm unconvinced ground combat in CoD wont be anything other than a novelty for flight simmers (much like air combat is for FPS). The formula does work successfully in other games, lets hope it can be successful in CoD.

The only good missions if you have vehicles in multiplay would be short missions that last about 5min. Team 'A' starts in a convoy heading to a fixed location Team B is starting the bomb run approach. Team A just needs to defend as much as possible , Team A attacks.


I can see it failing as you'll have the freedom to drive wherever and you will all be spread thin with random tanks everywhere. not fun.

Yep that's why infantry and other things would need to be included to play it as a tank sim otherwise you'd just have a load of tanks roaming round.

For the question asked in the thead, i'll provide my ideas tomorrow because it's 6:30 am and i've had quite a few drinks :-P

I'm just posting for a little friendly heads-up here.


I urge everyone to respect the intent of this thread and stay on topic. The way i see it, the topic is "give me some cool ideas that will give us flyboys better gameplay by having non-flyboys drive some tank units".

If any of you guys want to talk about whether tanks should be included at all in the first place, you're welcome to do it. Just start a separate thread and have a go at it and i'll be glad to move posts from this thread to the new one.

Please respect the original poster's intent and topic. Ailantd, if you need any help just give us a shout: no PM, just post in this thread so that other moderators can also see it if i'm not online. Just post "moderator request: please move off topic posts to a separate thread" or something like that, one of us will see it sooner or later and separate off-topic comments to a different thread.

I'm not out to "punish" anyone and moved posts or split threads are not punishment, i just want to make sure that each thread serves its purpose so each one of us can find what we're looking for with ease: one thread to discuss gameplay ideas for ground units, another thread to discuss if we even need those units and so on.

Let us know if you need some forum management to facilitate this, by posting in this thread and requesting the appropriate changes. Cheers ;)

Like I said it will end in some kind of slagfest. Anyway, any kind of attempt to include drivable tanks (I purposely exclude soft-skinned vehicles here) will be limited to a very very small thing, probably company level and below. Just to put things into perspective a german Panzer Division of 1940 fielded around 300 tanks on its own. Add to that a load of motorized/mechanized infantry (a Regiment per division), a regiment of artillery, anti-tank, pionier, signals, bridging and supply units and you're looking at a lindworm of more than a thousand vehicles. Then multiply this by 10 (for the ten Panzer Divisions the Wehrmacht had in 1940), add the Motorized Infantry Divisions and you're thinking of tens of thousands of vehicles.
This, obviously, can't be simulated. We don't even have the numbers to go beyond a company (for Germany and Britain that would be 15 tanks), and even that is already questionable (given the problems with higher player numbers on servers and the general limit of 128 players). All I could potentially envision is essentially what WoT does - putting 30 people on a map against each other. Just that we - in CloD I mean - can have AI artillery and AT-gun support as well as 88mm guns on the german side (if they're there).

One danger I see is that people won't take anything but the best armored and armed tanks, even if they were not that numerous (thinking of Mathilda and Char B1 in 1940, thinking KV and T-34 in 1941). :-|

Once driveable tanks are introduced, I can imagine several scenarios that people might want to consider avoiding.

-Tanks are introduced. Players complain that protecting airfields is boring, why can't they have tank vs tank battles.

-Missions are then created with opposing tanks 5 minutes away from each other. "Epic" tank battles degenerate into a mad dash to engage then turn circles around each other at point blank range, firing continuously.

-Missions are created where tanks are supposed to overrun opposing airfields. They start 5 minutes away again. Tank players instead stand off under cover and shell aircraft at long range as they spawn. Easy points. Everybody gets mad at the Tank-sniping. Cold starts are removed from full switch servers to try to stop it. Core gameplay suffers.

-Tanks hide in trees instead of rushing into the open to get destroyed. Players who fly complain about dot visibility of ground vehicles. Tank players complain when aircraft players switch off trees and reduce building numbers in their graphics settings to deprive them of cover.

-Mission builders complain because tank players are not being funelled into the channels that they want them to go in. They want minefields or other deterrents, and end up making miles of some invulnerable FMB objects, all daisy chained together to stop tank players going where they like. Everybody complains because it looks silly...

I fully expect that you'll be complaining that your tank doesn't have the correct ammo load-out or use the correct fuel, so add that to the list of terrible stuff that is headed our way.

Putting up Cannon's 1:2 scale channel map in modded 1946 can take the sim places we don't want it to:

- People fly half the distance, so they take half the fuel and they fly with unrealistically increased performance as a result, or take full fuel and the 109s can loiter over London for ages.

- Everybody masses in that giant furball on the deck between Calais and Dover and ignores the map objectives.

- Getting hit means nothing, if you are at high altitude crossing the channel is trivial and you're within gliding distance of a friendly base at all times.

See what i did there? But history has shown there were numerous people using Cannon's excellent map in modded 1946 and having fun with realistically created missions and objectives.

In any case, all of the above are mission design and server population/player attention span issues, not game design issues.
Plus these subjects are off-topic for this thread apart from the mission design part and even then, the thread doesn't ask "how will we fail to use tanks in our missions". It asks "how will we successfully use tanks in our missions."

Let's stay on topic and provide what the OP asked for: gameplay ideas. I'm going to be cleaning up the thread and moving everything else to a separate one if this thing persists.

The guy asked a simply question, anyone who can give answers to it is welcome to, anyone who wants to discuss other things is free to get their own thread up and do it there. Is it really that hard to understand or is the OP speaking in an alien language or something? :-P

My biggest problem is that without infantry around them the usage of tanks is irrealistic. Whatever the tanks' DM is going to be...

And still a quantity vs quality issue... but you know, I would be VERY happy even if Clod had only 2 flyable planes (but well modelled)... so try to understand my feelings about this new update.

Then we can't know exactly if the staff working on the project has been recently hired: sorry but I still do not believe to the BS of "one year of timework to complete a single plane".

Sigh..still off-topic. The guy asked a specific question, asnwer the questions that are being asked, not the questions that will give the answers you want guys.

Is it really that hard?

I'm gonna clean up this thread within the next hour or so and move off-topic posts to another thread.

I think it would be pretty cool to see tanks given the ability to capture cities and airfields. Have a moving frontline.

It's the tank's job to drive to the city, destroy enemy tanks and other enemy strongholds. Once a certain amount of these have been destroyed, it begins to be captured. Then resupply trucks and trains are sent in to resupply the now captured base. All meanwhile you have airplanes flying over head battling it out for air superiority and to destroy the tanks trying to capture the base/city.

Also make a flyable c-47 or ju-52 for paratroop drops and air resupply to bases.

Sound cool?

(yes, I played a lot of Air Warrior back in the day.)

These are my concerns and ideas
people are stupid if they think this is a waste; a flight sim needs ground units and so the people who make these vehicles need something more to do to with free time. The developers have explained this.

-overall it is a good idea to easily expand into greater markets.
-more sales = more money
-more money = bigger and better game
-THE POSSIBILITIES: imagine a huge battlefield with everything from sailors to tank drivers to fighter pilots all operating in unison online, each with a specialized ability.

-would many people buy this game for the 'battlefield experience' given that there are games like bf out there?
-i think there are graphical limitations combining ground battles with air battles; i'm guessing a large battlefield will keep ground details down.
-at the start of this expansion i'm sure it will be rough but it's 1 more reason to buy the game.
-development will be slow to take off and a lot more developers are needed to make this work.

get the flight stuff working (which as they are) to make a great sim then get the money from that to employ more developers. They have the right idea. :)
like most russian stuff - it will be rusty, but damn it works.

Sorry Blackdog, but closing ones eyes to the realities of "gamer's attitudes" is simply counter-productive. Without a solid framework for player-controlled ground vehicles it will simply dissolve into what we see at World of Tanks (which I play regularly, just to make that clear) - a mindless, pointless bar room brawl in which you will neither find coordination or a common goal nor (sadly) any indication of plain intelligence. People will do what they please the way they want it and give a f*ck about realism, teamplay or a mission goal.

Even in scenarios, which are an exception and not the norm, or within tight-knit groups of people I don't see much if any use for tanks or ground vehicles because the players that frequent scenarios or prefer playing with like-minded players are the minority and will generally stick to flying aircraft. :-|

The true question is: what extent of "realism" we are willing to accept? Simulating a tank is never a problem. Simulating how it was historically accurately used in WW2 is a different story.
Tank warfare requires a huge level of teamwork and discipline. Tanks must co-operate closely with infantry, artillery and aircrafts in order to success. Even in tank units alone, tanks do not maneuver as they see fit, they maneuver in formation, under strict command. Do you know why German panzers were so successful in the Battle of France, despite the fact that one-on-one, French and British tanks were not inferior? Because they had radio :P
Wartime tactics rarely work online, due to the lack of discipline. I know gaming is for fun, but if you want to simulate history, you have to accept the not-so-nice things of it as well. Even in IL-2 squads, people help you more in learning how to fly than actually co-operate with you. Teamwork between 6 people is an exceptional feat. It is no problem for flying sims, since pilots have incredible level of freedom IRL as well. Now imagine a tank battle maneuver of say, 20 people, which is the size of a medium battle in WWII. They can stay in formation, but at the first sight of enemy, this formation will fall apart: someone will try to accelerate and outflank, someone will resort to shoot and scoot, others will conveniently retreat, since "living to fight the other day" is most important to them.
Another thing that undermine the fun-factor is death. We airboys happily accept the rule that die is die, and you must restart the mission from the beginning. But that is only because if you fly carefully, you will live very long. Tank battle is different story: no skill can save you from an AP round firing from a hiding AT-gun. In no time people will complain about sudden death.
In conclusion, a tank sim, however truthfully modelled, will never be able to fully depic the fact of war.

Well obviously the whole ground vehicle concept is for the Eastern front. The Luftwaffe and the VVS were tactical airforces and their original purpose was to support ground units.

If you want to simulate the Eastern front properlu you have to have the ground vehilces in the mix.

I'm guessing it will be as mentioned that you will have AI tanks with you and you give them instructions just like we are 'supposed' to have with radio commands for our AI wings.

I'm also guessing that mission builders can build AI tank battles and if you want you can jump into a tank just like we can do with aircraft, or you can just let the AI battle it out.

This could be interesting as it's going to encourage more divesity in the air as we'll have more people willing to get into ground pounding, and they'll need escort cover. So rather than dogfighting for the hell of it, air superiority will actually be the aim of the fighters so that the bombers and fighter bombers can get through and anhilate the objective.

You can say that we have this already but I reckon it's more enticing to players when they know that a vehicle may be manned by a human rather than AI. So you are more tempted to get into your Ju 87 or IL2 and go drop a few bombs on the guy! :-D

Pretty much what we have today with the spitII in place of the Tiger.
Reality teaches us everybody wants to fly the best plane.

Everyday business in IL2 too. CF in the air. What you want requires the players too change - it's not the games fault.

The thing with tanks and mobilized ground vehicles, is that they were in all theater's. Why assume that the only way to include tanks to game play is to have a tank battle. Being able to drive or man a gun in the ground vehicle, is the important part here. There are countless possibilities! Whether a gunner, or a staff car driver in a truck convoy, gunner on a supply train, rogue tank taking out whatever is put in his sights...just think "Halo":-P, flying above or on the ground in a tank, its all good!

You just described the average DF server in CoD AND old IL2. And yes even the FR servers like Warbcloud and Zeke_vs_Wildcat etc.

Maby controlling AI forces on the ground will be possible to, who knows

This. I think it's really cool to be there fighting in a tank whilst human aircraft try to bomb your tin can.

For me the only role a tank plays in CloD is bomb bait. A target for my plane, nothing more. If it is AI or some poor sod sits in it doesn't matter to me anyway. I will not play as a tanker, when I could fly a warbird. Simple as that.

And when the human tankers realize they are at the mercy of the IL2s, Stukas, JU-88s hopefully later on the Jugs, Typhoons and Tempests they will quit the game real fast. :-P

Do you actually play any FPS, or other, games with super short life expectancy?
My average LE in AA3 is around 80sec, k/d ~.7:1. Sux, yet I still like it.
Furthermore you should not expect the tanks to stand still and wait for you to bomb them.

@ swiss + baron

I know that my description also fits most DF servers, but that actually underscores my doubts about the possibility to incorporate ground vehicles. If only because of one basic fact (which nobody can discuss away and which no amount of wishful thinking can gloss over): The most successful advances by german Panzer Divisions were around 100 to 120 km per day. An aircraft makes that distance in perhaps twenty minutes (if we're dawdling, that is). There's a fundamental difference in scope when it comes to piloting as opposed to driving a tank and that difference makes for very different layouts of missions.

Frankly as one that will probably never sat in any ground vehicule in CoD unless I have to per mission design, I still think that devs are building here something cool that will certainly found its place in the gaming universe.

Regarding aerial bombing of tanks may I remind you that a specific 1944 US studies concluded that ionly 2 to 4% of bombs scored a direct hit ;)

One thing is for sure, the interaction btw grd player and flyers would be huge with dozen of sorties to claim a single kill.

"Tanks plinking" became a "reality" much more latter ;)

Yeah right! So easy, have you noticed how hard it is to spot a single vehicle/tank in CloD especially when you don't even know exactly where to look? I remember making a train busting mission in CloD where I put like 3 seperate trains with wagons in a certain area on the English countryside. After flying all the way from Calais in my Bf-110 and spent like 20 mins looking for any of those trains and didn't find anything even though I knew the approximate area where they were supposed to be.

Also, if you saw that video in the last Friday update you could hear the planes buzzing above from the ground. If I'm in a tank and hear that sound I'll be sure to drive under some trees and sit still, good luck spotting anything.;)

Trees and grass are of course disabled, houses at minumum in a competitive multiplayer environment. Now try to hide :-P

Well, in a well implemented game that won't be a problem. If you are hidden in a forest that someone has disabled you will just disappear in the middle of an empty field. Guess if its better to know that there is a forest there or not?

/mazex

Why hide?

Or do you think the vehicals shown in the videos thus far are the only vehicals they are ever going to make?

I think not.. I fully expect that you will see not only fixxed base AAA but mobal AAA like this

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...b_borden_3.JPG

So I wouldn't loose any sleep over it thinking your going to be at the mercy of planes.

I just cant wait until they start doing Helicopters... Ive allways wanted some helicopters in this game. I know they hinted about the Gyro Copter they supposnly said they were messing around with but still never heard anything about it.

but man it would be fun to blow them out the sky

That won't be a problem, the server will decide what graphics level your game will be set at.

I can imagine at least two combined-arms mission types, with four objectives to choose from, that could make use of tanks or other ground vehicles or artillery.

1. Attack and capture a position.

2. Defend and maintain control over a position.


3. Get from point A to point B.

4. Stop opposition from getting from point A to point B.


With the current state of the AI control capabilities (and come to think of it, even if they were perfected), these game-modes would be most playable in some kind of co-op mode with re-spawn available.

Each team would have enough tank and plane slots to allow the players to make a tactical decision about what ratio of planes to tanks (or other vehicles or artillery) they want to use.

The maps would be large enough to force the planes to have to fly from distant spawn points, so they don't spawn directly over the tanks or the objective being fought over. But the tanks would spawn closer to the objective so they don't have to drive for too long and so the tanks and planes will converge roughly in the same area.

I don't see map-balance issues being any more difficult to achieve than with any other kind of game-play. If the map is well made and you make the wrong choices as a team, or don't work together to achieve the map objective, you lose, nothing new there.

Having played ground attack missions in the original IL-2 series (online and offline), and having played territory-capture tanking maps in the original Red Orchestra game, I think the inclusion of tanks and other vehicles and playable artillery in the new IL-2 series opens up the potential for some of the most engaging ground and air combat ever.

And no, on a macro scale, I doubt we'll have the player numbers to recreate any historical scenarios, but on a micro scale, from the point of view of the tank driver or pilot who has a specific limited mission to accomplish, I think the potential is there to show very realistically how difficult it would have been to have done what they did in real life.

Ground pounding is hard and requires skill, and with human opposition in the air with you, it's even harder. Intercepting ground pounders is also difficult, especially if they have escorts.

Taking and holding (and/or defending) territory in a tank is also difficult, especially against human players. It's a tactical affair, even when it gets down to one on one. Having to consider the possibility the opposition might get through and attack you from above adds a whole other level to your tactical considerations.

I do think though the potential is there for the ground aspect of the game to become the best of it's kind and draw in new players to the IL-2 series.

I think if the developers cover a few certain basics in the implementation of ground vehicles and artillery it will be up to the players to make of it what they will. It may turn out people find the tanking or ground-pounding too hard to do with realistic settings, but if using easier settings helps overcome limits of the computer-gaming medium itself, so be it.

The devs may also have to introduce some new game features though, in order to get planes and ground vehicles working together properly. I'm thinking along the lines of new map features (to help with capturing territory etc.) and new re-spawn features (giving, for example, the ground-pounders an option to re-arm at a closer base than the one they would spawn from at the start or if they were destroyed). That's all to be seen though.

To be honest, I have no expectation that the potential of the game will be fully realized, on the ground or in the air, but only because I don't want those expectations to lead to dissappointment. I'll definitely keep an eye on developments though, and support the team in their efforts to fix and refine and add new features to the sim, because you never know, as long as they keep trying they just might succeed.

And the moaning from people with slower machines will be unbearable. ;)

We'll see were the IL2 series will be in 3 years. My prediction is: there will be driveable vehicles but there will be no gameplay provided (campaigns, missions, etc...) so noone will use them. :cool:

I'd be very happy if 1C can pull this off, but I doubt it.

The new patch will allow people with average systems run with trees and buildings on.

The developer won't need to provide campaigns and missions as the community will do all the campaigns and missions you could ever play, and some probably much better than the developer would ever do.

I'm sure the developer with the communites help will do more than pulled it off. The far more advanced FMB , especially Triggers option will be making very complex and interesting missions. Far more immersive than we've seen from IL-2 1946 or any other combat flight sim.

I can't really answer you without knowing the kind of standards you judge it with. For me absolute realism is impossible, so i want a simulation in the sense it's meant when doing scientific models for physics, etc: a set of mechanics that create a behavior proportional to the real one, while being easier and faster to implement.

If we want people to drive 10 hours only to be taken out by a Typhoon with rockets, it's obvious nobody will drive vehicles. However, we can provide game mechanics and mission designs that place vehicles near enough to the action without making it a free for all. Best of all, we are already doing it for aircraft, i really can't see the problem here, it's just a different scale.

I mean, how long does it take to cross the channel in CoD? 10-20 minutes, depending on how wide it is where you cross. If i was hosting a mixed aircraft and vehicles server i'd do the same, but in a way that creates incentives for the player to "work" for each advantage:

1) moving frontline script
2) set up forward HQ script: move X amount of supplies here, enter a server console command to trigger the HQ setup, guard the supplies for Z amount of time and if you succeed, you get a respawn point.

This way, vehicles will be on average 15 minutes away from the action, just like aircraft currently are. If we can fly 15 minutes to be bounced by someone out of the sun and we still respawn and do it again, the vehicle drivers can drive for 15 minutes to be bombed and respawn to do it again. It's not like it happens everytime.

The only difference is to make it in a way that makes for interesting gameplay, with a sense of tactical objectives in mind.

For example, in a battle of France campaign the blue players advance in their panzers, move supplies forward and give the console command to the server to create a forward staging area and gain a spawnpoint closer to the enemy lines. If the red pilots can bomb those supplies before the timer completes, the blue panzers lose that spawnpoint and the supplies they had stockpiled there and have to do it again.

This in turn makes it necessary for the blue pilots to get involved and protect their ground troops, while at the same time attacking enemy spawnpoint locations. Of course those locations are not known in advance because they are created arbitrarily by the players and once the script completes its timer, a trigger spawns a set of HQ related objects there.

So, we now need to make reconnaissance flights too, while the enemy needs to stop those flights, etc, etc.

I'm not saying it can be done tomorrow, but for someone with time on their hands and knowledge of C# it's no big deal, it will just take a while. So, either the developers provide some examples when they release the SDK and we take it from there, or we wait for community programmers to pick it up and run with it.

The waiting period doesn't mean it's not useful for tactically oriented gameplay however. It just means people need to roll up their sleeves and tinker with it if they are in a hurry to see it implemented, or they can just stick to flying until someone else makes it for them.

Either way, the only thing that's missing is a spawnpoint object for ground units in the FMB, the rest is already possible and many servers run scripts that do similar stuff, they just haven't been combined this way yet. Which is the good thing about scripting in an object oriented language, people can package parts of their code that does specific things and exchange it among each other.

If i started out tomorrow to code the scripts i describe i wouldn't do it all by myself. I would e-mail the guys that run Repka and ask permission to use their moving front line script. Then i would e-mail Bliss and ask him permission to use the script he runs on Atag for managing ground targets objectives. And so on.



In any case, these are all solvable problems and not a single one is a matter of game design. They are all matters of mission design and scripting: if the server admin wants a realistic server he will provide suitable missions and attract the relevant crowd, if he wants a relaxed realism server he can give them what you describe.

There's no harm in either.

It's like swiss says:

It's a matter of how far the player and the server host want to go with it.

What i'm trying to say is that just because some people will use the new feature in a non-realistic manner it doesn't mean the feature is bad, because you can choose to use it in a realistic manner yourself. ;)



Pretty much what i expect. I don't expect another steel beasts pro out of the blue, i just expect something that will give players a reason for fighting it out: pilots will help the ground units because their airfields depend on them, ground units will help the pilots because their ease of moving around on the battlefield depends on the lack of enemy bombers.



Again, this happened in the past as well with cloud settings back in IL2. People running the high detail clouds couldn't see AC in the clouds, people running low detail clouds could. The solution was that the server admins told people to stick to low detail clouds for an even playing field, until everyone's hardware caught up.

The solution for CoD is dead simple as well: server enforced forest/building amount settings, just like the difficulty settings are enforced.

Set it to low so everyone can have fluid frame rates, everyone can see the same thing and nobody is having a disadvantage.

I see a lot of obstacles being considered insurmountable, when they are not only relatively trivial to overcome compared to some of the things we're getting in the sim (like the graphics engine rewrite or the new FM calculations), but also similar things have happened in the past and were also successfully overcome.

IL2 was a game with 16 or 32 people in multiplayer and a handful of flyables, now it's got 200+ flyables and 128 player online sessions. CoD will probably go a similar route as long as it survives, so let's just ride it out and see where it goes. Rome wasn't built in one day either :D



Pretty much my take on things Les. We could have pre-scripted missions with rigid objectives like a COOP, or free-form scenarios.

This last one is my favorite and if i have enough time during the summer i'll get into C# and try to code a supply tracking script.

*Convoys (land/air/sea) moving supplies between elements of the supply chain, spawning under AI control by triggers if necessary. Eg, if manstonFuel<X gallons then call up a c# method that triggers a resupply AI truck convoy. This in turn checks to see if there's enough fuel in the regional fuel dump, otherwise it waits to be resupplied itself from the main refinery, or waits for the AI ship convoys spawning in the channel to reach port and unload.

*Each unit spawned, AI or player controlled, takes up supplies (ammo, fuel, etc)

*Each team has a supply pool, as well as a pilot, aircraft (per type) and vehicle (per type) pool of resources to use. Pretty similar to what we had in some DF servers in IL2 where each team has 200 planes and 200 pilots and if you lost them you lost the map, but on a much bigger scale.

*Supplies of all kinds and manpower get replenished over time. A working factory might produce 20 Spitfires a day and flight schools generate extra pilot slots for each team. However, if the enemy bombs these facilities the resupply rate drops. For any supplies getting moved by convoys, resupply relies on the convoy reaching its destination. This gives each team enough incentive to go after the opponent's means of production, fly battlefield interdiction sorties and do recon flights.

This would be a good mix of historical and what-if under realistic conditions, to the limit allowed by current technology and playability concerns, because by controlling the starting conditions and variables (resupply rate, initial supplies, etc of each team) the mission designer could make the campaign as realistic as he wanted to.

Then it would be up to the players to work as a team and win the map.

For example, in a BOB scenario the blue team would try to stop the convoys and attack radar stations and fuel depots to mess with RAF's ability to intercept them. Then they would start going after the airfields to deplete the resources on each airfield and at a certain point a trigger would start the invasion phase (eg, when the red team fell bellow a certain threshold of available aircraft or active airfields).

The red team on the other hand would try to protect these same assets, while at the same time trying to sneak in enough attacks of their own to deplete the blue team's resources across the Channel.

By setting the initial variables of the campaign well enough, a mission designer could thus give the players an environment with near infinite replay value. I mean, what if RAF attacked the LW airfields in France (one of the reasons the LW was slow to start attacking, they wanted to secure their airfields first)? Or what if the 110s flew smart instead of acting as close escort under Goering's orders?

The trick in all this, is that the mission tries to give the players the same tools as each side had back then, but lets them use these tools as they see fit: the outcome might not be historical and be different on each playthrough, but the framework around it would still be realistic.

It's like combining a tactical and strategy layer on top of it all.

The best thing for such an environment would be a revamped briefing interface. It's already possible to make your own menus for the sim (i've seen some very impressive stuff, there's a campaign in the FMB sub-forum made by a guy from sukhoi.ru that has a totally custom interface).

It's also possible to set-up waypoints on the in-game minimap but only when actually spawned in the aicraft.

So, imagine we get the ability to set up a lobby within the server and have these map tools available to us in the briefing screen. I could then create a mission by adding waypoints on the fly, typing a briefing and inviting people to fly it with me. The people in the lobby would get a copy of my waypoints and briefing notes, we'd spawn into our aircraft and go bomb the enemy oil tanks or airfield, etc.

I'm not dreaming here, all of this has been done to varying levels and with various purposes in mind with the current version of the sim. It just hasn't been combined in this manner yet because the devs are too busy debugging the game to release the SDK and the people in the community who can code in C# probably have a daytime job to take care of. It just needs some time to start snowballing :grin:

Blackdog, could you please include a table of contents with your posts.

Thanks!

lol

this game have to be a funny sim...arcade games are forbidden here!
So devs have to improve skills and physics of vehicles, the interior graphic details of vehicles and the low altitude detail of the terrain...then they have to add some depth of field to the views of the vehicles.

Anyway I think that il-2 is a great fast flight simulator...I think they don't have to waste their time on tanks and trains now,it's too early for a global sim,they're too few devs and we are too much angry followers waiting for this ******* fast sim...

With the inclusion of drivable tanks & ability to man AA guns, this could open up a real online war. Here's the idea i've been muling over today:

When the server first starts, the only information avalible to the player will be where the front lines are & a general briefing of what needs to be done. The idea here being that players have to seek out targets & then relay them to the team. The whole idea for this is that pilots, tankers & AA gunners will all need to work together in the sighting of targets & their destruction. Of course all sightings will be relayed in the briefing automatically as a player gets within visual range of that target. It would work like this; if an ally sights enemy tanks, the briefing will update with "enemy tanks sighted in E3 heading west". An icon will appear on the briefing map aswell.

As the ground vehicles move into enemy territory, the front lines on the briefing will change, of course if an ally has a visual sighting. If a certain number of enemy ground vehicles move onto an ally airfield, it will become un-useable to whomever had control of the field. If the enemy vehicles are destroyed, the airfield will return back to use say 5 mins after the last enemy was destroyed. However if the enemy manages to hold & take control of the field, it will turn over into the enemies hands, but will be un-usable untill the front line gets 5-10 km away & stays that way for 5 mins, then it will become an emergency landing ground, allowing for landings only. After say 10-15 mins of control it will turn back to fully operational.

You can´t see the forest that there is behind the branches, but there a forest behind the branches, even if you don´t see it.

We need have a wide view of the whole picture, then we´ll see the forest :


What is that part of the Simulator that is in danger by this ?

Righ now, the multiplayer is only a slaugther with the exception of those who avoid the dog fight to do some target practice in the designated points.

The whole point of all this is change this mess and brings some order, but how ?


The drivable vehicles brings maned targets to the ground and to the designated points, a real bone to any dog, now the players have a reason to go and attack/defend objectives.

Also maned AAA makes the targets very tough, a true reason to fly in formations.


In this way all this brings a way for missions builders to drive the online battle of the players, through a motivation of a lively ground, its now up to the mission builder to use this properly.


Sure see drivable tanks in a fligth sim is rare but we are heading to a new level, a evolution of the multiplayer mode.

Don´t let to those who are moving the branches prevents you from see the forest.

good ideas :)

some additional thoughts ....

I) SMALLER NUMBERS OF TANKS ON SMALLER MAPS

if you just need to direct one tank unit in the 1e person or to be controlled by AI (as designed in the mission) this is not to bad, eg:
- direct tanks to objective, instruct how to act when meeting enemy ground forces (engage if weaker or equal, avoid if they are stronger),
- what to do once objective is reached (hold position, dig in defensively , proceed to next objective etc)

in il2-CoD scenario's i also suspect all tank units need a number of mobile AA guns integrated with the unit (smaller caliber AA, mounted on mobile soft skinned vehicles that move with the tank unit ) because as a flightsim (without infantry being modeled) most threats will come from the air by enemy planes constantly hunting for them. without that minimal protection any tank unit out in the open becomes much to vulnerable and ineffective

once a captured objective has been held for a period of time (and if it has an unbroken supply line) the same sector/area also needs heavy AA guns (and some reenforced defensive ground artillery positions ?) being spawned automatically to reflect what would normally happen when the enemy hold a new position (normally infantry in fortified positions would hold the position with artillery units nearby), eg once captured the position is held, but the tanks stay mobile. most of this could be done with a number of basic commands and some simple automated scripts and doesnt need to be to complex, but you cant expect a tank unit to fill all those roles (be mobile offensive and defensive, and exclusively hold all stationary positions on their own)

if a tank unit captures an area (town, airfield, bridge etc) and that unit becomes isolated from its supply lines, server msg's need to exist that warn the friendly side to have to supply them by air, or instruct it to withdraw (with a particular limited radius of movement until resupplied)

there is also the additional potential problem that a mission on a server might have been carefully designed, but when some n00b teens join the server for a bit of fun they take over control of a specific tank unit in the 1e person, go off on their own joyride and completely change the unfolding battle plan (since there wont be 100's of tanks active on the map, but more likely 20 or so, this could be a major problem). not sure what the solution to this is.


II LARGER NUMBER OF TANKS ON BIGGER MAPS

but to do this in a workable way gets rather complex if you look at the main large maps SoW uses once it deals with land based maps with large front lines. you would need roughly historically correct proportional numbers of ground forces and vehicles on front lines. for example the less able allied tanks cant be matched 1:1 with german tigers, for ex in a normandy (or north africa) scenario where the larger numbers of allied tanks usually overwhelmed the stronger tiger tanks, otherwise the german side would always outperform the allied side (if you give both sides equal numbers of units)

to be able to use the tanks in mission design or a dynamic campaign server with large number of units on a map and a whole front line being populated with tanks and other mobile units, we need to have the right server commands available to control them and give new orders while the dynamic campaign server keeps running its other parts of scripted events (not in a complex mission design method, but some simple AI instructions method from a purpose designed interface console which is also accessible from within in the game itself by the "server command" that setup the mission (who with a pwd can delegate it to his assistants/helpers). this would allow both sides some ability to respond (in a limited way) to unfolding events in a dynamic campaign server.

might be a bit early to think that far ahead, but eventually some of this type of control should become possible as the series evolves


right now at release of some of these new feature of controlling tanks and other ground vehicles, i'd be happy if the guns are accurate over the right distances, we are given some AA mounted on mobile vehicles to protect them from air attack, and we can issue some basic commands to engage/disengage the enemy forces, capture an objective and hold it, and be resupplied by air once low on fuel/munitions :)

Great ideas, although a little premature i feel.
I think anyone who has played ArmA will understand how much data has to be shifted back and forth and the issues inherent with it, desync being the biggest issue.
We are most likely going to be running on maps that will be much bigger than Arma Islands as well more detailed if our first map in CLOD is anything to go by.
The developers will need to do something special with the code or it might have similar downsides that Arma has, and that could be problematic for a flight sim.

Needless to say I think its a great angle and i hope they only include it into the game when its fully ready this time.

This has been the developments way of business for years. They introduce new features as the system resources allow. Each addon is a approx. a couple of years down the road when the customers average system is stronger and the sim further optimized to allow more demanding features to be introduced as an option for those with systems strong enough to employ them.

I havnt read all of Blackdog's post, but im guessing its more all arms combined tactical warfare 128 players 24 hour online war strategy action COOP dogfight with triggers pipe dreams CLOD fiction. ;)

What ever he said, i hope it comes true.

The best tank sim I played was T34 v Tiger. You might still be able to get a copy on eBay.

Having CloD incorporate a tank sim at that level would be welcome.

It would be cool to play out a Blitzkrieg assault with Ju87s and Tanks working together.

I take csThor points but those same 'play styles' are being played out in IL-2 / CloD in the online world now. This can be controlled some what if they make the tanks with same level of realism as the planes.

For example: The Tiger I, you couldn't just put the foot to the floor and go ( ala WoT - which is as unrealistic as you can get ), the Tiger had to be warmed up and care had to be taken when selecting gears, the gearbox and drive train in the Tigers were very vulnerable and under strength-ed for the tank.

I'm currently reading Otto Carius' book "Tigers in the mud", a very interesting account of Tiger Tanks in combat and the tactics used. Would highly recommend it.

I for one would love to see a driver-able Tiger I in CloD, if they can match the level of realism as the planes. The offline campaigns would be enjoyable at the very least.

S!

As already said, this will be great for online wars. As a SEOW player, I think it's a much welcomed feature if we are to ever have something like SEOW in CloD. In case all flight slots are taken, there still would be the ground slots (all driveable vehicles) available for the extra pilots. Depending on ground vehicle CloD's AI vehicle skill, humans taking control of tanks etc. could tip the outcome in land battles, which are very important factor in SEOWs. I don't think that many pilots would be anxious to take vehicles that are transiting far from the front, but the ones in the front might be quite tempting distraction.

+1

Bit OT: This is also available (implemented with only airplanes though) on old Il-2 server "War-birds-FH". Relevant mod available here: http://www.war-birds.com/

For the DF servers I do not know and I do not care. BUT, even in generic coops (needless to say online wars), the vast majority of players tend to stay in packs, however disorganised they may be. This means that every coop would need only few people that know what to do, others will follow.
In online wars however, this is a no brainer since no n00b does them anyway (they can`t take the harsh start of being eaten alive - everybody new experiences it, though not many go on).

Mates, remember that most of what you said in this topic was already in IL2 1946. We do not need to step back with this. Online wars had it all worked out, the only difference with CloD being that there would be additional tank/AAA player slots. Moreover, we do not need to have it full scale like furbs has chosen to troll about. Just 5 tanks a side, few heavy armor empacements, few AAAs and we`re ready. IL2`s old online code had it running flawlessly most of the time when people had 6mbit connections at best. Now people have xxxmbit connections and you still see a problem?

All this frontline stuff : red/blue, resources, attaacking airfields, cities limitations, historical, ahistorical - we had it all few years ago. Now what we need to do first is to make a smooth transition.

First we make old coops work, then we get at them 100 player missions when we feel comfortable with it.

Since the tanks aren't going to be full sim, and I enjoyed the Idea of WWIIOL. I didn't like driving a tank 45 min to get blown up in two seconds. The awesome part about what MG is doing is it's up the the mission makers. so nothing would stop someone from making mobile spawns for tanks, so you die, you spawn, 5-10 min later your in the fray for some french town again, all the while the aircraft still take their 10+ min to get anywhere and are duking it out for air superiority. Take for instance the objectives on ATAG Axis vs allies, nothing would stop them from doing the same exact thing but on the ground, on a smaller scale, and at a faster pace. Boom red just destroyed the fuel depot Blue tanks respawn 20 seconds slower, red can move up to the town slightly easier. but wait, red aircraft haven't taken out the artillery now the red tanks are getting hammered....It goes on forever.

You could even make the human tanks respawn with 10 AI tanks, so 10 people playing tanks = 100 tanks fighting in the area....you die, you take over a tank or choose to respawn (time added for amount of your AI tanks still out there).

The possibilities are endless, I would much rather the community get a massive upgrade to the FMB and the SDK then have MG make a decent campaign for CLOD.

With strong mission makers, and online capabilities, the game would last as long or longer then il-2.

"how to moderate a forum" 101