|
|
#31
02-25-2012, 06:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
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). 
|
|
#32
02-25-2012, 10:44 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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...
|
|
#33
02-25-2012, 05:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#34
02-25-2012, 05:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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? 
|
|
#35
02-25-2012, 06:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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".
__________________
 A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria. Last edited by 6S.Manu; 02-25-2012 at 06:21 PM.
|
|
#36
02-25-2012, 07:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#37
02-26-2012, 02:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.)
|
|
#38
02-26-2012, 04:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. Last edited by Ace Cheese; 02-26-2012 at 07:04 AM.
|
|
#39
02-26-2012, 09:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#40
02-26-2012, 09:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
