Talk about how to include the tanks gameplay

[Blackdog_kt]

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.

[kestrel79]

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.)

[Ace Cheese]

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.

[csThor]

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.

[rga]

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.

[xnomad]

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!

[SlipBall]

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", flying above or on the ground in a tank, its all good!

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by kestrel79

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.

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

[DroopSnoot]

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.

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by DroopSnoot

Great ideas, although a little premature i feel.
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.