Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

General Tank thread (Compiled idea's)


  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#21 Blue Lightning

Blue Lightning

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts

Posted 07 January 2013 - 03:07 AM

On the exploding Panthers, I read where German commanders complained about the Panthers ammo exploding, but it was never corrected. I have to remember where I read it though. It was about a year ago when I read that.

I am a avent believer in a fuel system. I think we are missing a HUGE boat in ignoring that feature. It was an important feature in WWII, and espicially to the Germans. And driving a powerful King Tiger should have a greater penalty than just a 22 KPH speed, and this fuel idea could be it.

My idea is that if you are driving a tank ( both Allied or German) it will only go about 30 minutes until it needs a refuel. So a tank that isnt killed needs at least one re-fuel to finish the map. Mabye with the King Tiger, JagdTiger and Tiger 1, a refuel could be required twice; at the 20 minute mark, and then again at the 40 mark. Of course most people will be killed long before a refuel is needed so they wont have to worry about it. But for some of us seasoned tankers, it would come up now and then! (btw that would be 20 minutes of actual running time...your tank doesnt lose any fuel when it is turned off, adding to the stratagy of players not running a tanks engine as much as possible, espicially when low on fuel!)

My idea is that there would be a German fuel depot on the German side of the map, and an allied one on their side. The depots could be located far away from the cap zones or spawn, way in the very corner of the map. It would also add some stratagy to the map, as an allied enemy may lie in wait in-route, for a thristy King Tiger on it's way to fill up. I also think a 2 minute wait time for re-fueling would be perfect. A WORKING fuel gauge should be modeled in the tanks cockpit.

On some maps there might be just one depot, and it could be in the middle. It would be as important as a capzone (or it could be a capzone too!) There might be some vicious battles to capture an important fuel depot!

#22 The_Walrus

The_Walrus

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts

Posted 07 January 2013 - 11:39 AM

The Sherman's range was 193km and the Tiger 1's 195km, FE should be realistic and you are never going to travel 190km in one match so refueling is very unnecessary and just adds something that will piss people off. "Oh no my tank ran out of fuel in the middle of the map, I guess I gotta abandon this big asset to the team right there for the rest of the game."

One thing that could be used instead of fuel is ammo, tanks often ran low in real life because they would put sometimes 5-6 shells into one tank to make sure it was not going to be firing back at them as seen by the action in Cologne where the M26 Pershing shoots the Panther 6 times in the side even though it's already burning. This meant tanks were running out of ammunition quite often while in DH it takes 2 shots to kill most tanks and then they're completely dead. If FE does feature a realistic component based damage model as the features list says it will then we can expect people to be putting 5-6 shells into tanks to make sure they're well and truly dead. This will lead to running out of ammo much faster and many of the heavy German tanks carried less ammunition than the Allied tanks because the shells were quite a lot larger. The only exception would be large British guns such as the 17Pdr which used a ridiculous amount of charge and had quite a large shell.

This would mean the big British monsters with the 17Pdrs like the Firefly or Comet with its 77HV would run out of ammo quite quick and have to resupply while the Sherman 75mm's and Panther for example who use much smaller amounts of charge and thus smaller shells than the 17pdr and German guns like the 88 will be able to stay in action longer before resupplying.

This would both be realistic unlike running out of fuel in 20minutes and also wouldn't result in a stranded tank if the player forgets about it.

#23 Blue Lightning

Blue Lightning

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts

Posted 07 January 2013 - 01:26 PM

We already have ammo reload, for both RO and DH, Im sure that ammo boxes will be availible in FE too. Dont write off fuel so quickly. While it's true that tanks dont need to re-fuel on a 50 minute map, since this a a video game we improvise time-wise to make it realistic. I think at least one refuel could be required at the 30 minute mark, only on servers that have that option on? Remember, most tankers wont make it 30 minutes in a tank anyway, so really that feature would only effect hardcore tankers, and we would appreciate that feature I think.

On a server that has the fuel option on, I think it would be fun to have a dangerously exposed, soft skinned fuel truck at spawn that anyone can drive. If your big tank runs out in the middle of battle, you can call into spawn and ask a driver to risk his ass and drive that fuel truck to your location! It could also carry ammo, taking care of both problems at once.

#24 warrdogg

warrdogg

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 12:26 AM

Map makers could include "low on gas" if the local situation dictated ie Battle of the Bulge maps for the Germans. While I like the idea of resupplying gas and ammo during the game, it borders on a strategic situation, instead of tactical, where logistics are an important consideration. It still could add another element to the game where a force is surrounded or not able to resupply, but I think it should be up to the mappers to include that specifically for their maps based on the situation.

#25 Masterson

Masterson

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 374 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 04:56 AM

Even on a Bulge map where the axis needed to win attacks to get more fuel, you would not see a panther run out of fuel in the middle of a battle. They would at least have fuel to carry through the battle. If they lost repeated engagements, then yes, the Axis would have a problem, but this would not appear in the scope of a single round on a map. Maybe in a campaign-style setup.
Posted Image

#26 Serathis

Serathis

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 02:36 PM

What about re-arming a tank? If the game is truly realistic, then the whole "stop by the ammo box and shells magically load" does not seem very authentic.
Bloody screen! So real.

#27 Masterson

Masterson

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 374 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 05:31 AM

Neither is the ammo box being next to massive warehouse filled with tanks just off the outskirts of a battlefield. I do not think too many players will find hopping out of a tank and individually carrying rounds back and forth to their tank very fun.
Posted Image

#28 Blue Lightning

Blue Lightning

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 02:38 AM

Right. But it could be a bit more realistic...say the ammo boxes have to be underground so enemy fire and explosions cant hurt them. As it is now the boxes are often dangerously exposed, but cannot be destroyed by direct fire which is un-real. So I say all ammo dumps should be underground (in a trench, a cellar, etc).

If the tanker can reach the box, it resupplies him immediatly. But it takes say 1 minute for the tank to resupply this way (it's like pretending a crew is loading the tank). So when the player gets back to the tank, there can be a text saying "tank being resupplied: resupply finished in 35 seconds". The player is not to start the tank until the resupply is complete, or he loses the re-supply.

I still vote for 1 refuel. Think of it this way...in real life they had to refuel that tanks. In the game time is compressed into a 50 minute map since nobody can play for 8 hours. So since time is compressed, normal events can be added.

Oh and another thing: zombies! FE needs zombies! :D

#29 ROMMEL 34

ROMMEL 34

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 572 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 07:16 AM

And how come you mention the T-34?

Look here:

Posted Image



maybe Rommel34 has some more information.

Look here: Panther D,A,G, TigerI:

Posted Image

Posted Image
92 Rounds for Main Gun



talking about FE, meaning that it wont be long until we see some Russian tanks/eastren front

More than certain that TT33 will be pushing for the soviets to be eventually added in to FE at some point.



complained about the Panthers ammo exploding, but it was never corrected

It was corrected in the following manner in the late Ausf. A through G, look here:

http://desmond.image...jpg&res=landing



And driving a powerful King Tiger should have a greater penalty than just a 22 KPH speed

Its called limited availability. In addition, road speed will probably function in the new game engine so it will be faster than 22 kph.



My idea is that if you are driving a tank it will only go about 30 minutes until it needs a refuel.

This is dangerous Tripwire mentality here. If fueling is modeled then it demands real life km/liter or mile per gallon consumption along with real fuel tank capacity, not some arbitrary number of minutes 'that feels right'™. That is what Tripwire does.



In the game time is compressed into a 50 minute map since nobody can play for 8 hours. So since time is compressed...

Lets also compress km/hr, projectile m/s, vehicle capacity/ammunition, map scale, and infantry stamina as well. When you run out of stamina after, lets say 3 seconds of running, ('that feels right'™) you have to slow walk back to the spawn and stand next to a 'stamina fuel pile' for 2 min to unlock a family amulet. Kissing this amulet will give you +10 health, insuppressibility for 5 min, and infinite stamina for 9:07 min or 18:14 min if you are a Hero™.



zombies! FE needs zombies! :D

:nono: Absolutely not.
Alles für Deutschland!

#30 Father Ted

Father Ted

    Veteran

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 526 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 11:07 AM

To be fair, ALL games have some sort of abstraction. The "It's not realistic.." argument will always spin down to the point that there's no injury or death. Whilst I personally don't think that re-fueling during a short action is something that wouldn't have happened, and therefore doesn't have a place in the game, I think it's worth exploring ideas that make players think beyond a K/D ratio.

#31 Masterson

Masterson

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 374 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 05:32 PM

Since a day long battle is being compressed into a 50-minute long one, why waste time with rearming ammo and not keep it instant? Realistically getting ammo in itself may take up to 50 minutes on real battlefield.

"Since the time is compressed", why do you want to make players spend even more time at the ammo depot?
Posted Image

#32 Schneller

Schneller

    Elite Veteran

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,675 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 11:09 PM

We will not need Russian or American voice actors in FE ....

As far as re-supply. The game will keep track of the expenditure of ammo. We may end up having Infantry only ASP's ....tank cannon ammo would NOT be available there. Tankers would have to go to an Armor ASP or link up with a MOBILE ASP (aka Truck) that would have Cannon ammo on board. My preference is that once the tank is next to the ASP that a time would start to represent the time needed to transfer the ammo into the tank. This is not a lengthy process so, I don't think players will freak out.

Re Fuel....the vehicles don't travel far enough on our maps to need re-fueling. Even on a map that lasts a long time, the vehicle would not travel so far as to empty its tanks.
Posted Image

Wilsonam wrote: But, as someone said - perhaps just a touch too anal for a game

WUK: What! Thats impossible! Blasphemie!

#33 Blue Lightning

Blue Lightning

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts

Posted 12 January 2013 - 12:52 AM

1. The maps are compressed in time...so a refuel could be an option.

2. Tanks DID refuel. In fact, many times StuGs would leave during a battle to refuel and re-ammo.

3. Not all tanks went into battles with a full tank.

I think leaving out the fuel dynamic is a mistake. Striving to make an even more realistic tank game doesnt make sense when the tanks have un-limited fuel.


And another thing: FE has GOT to have breakable trees for God sake. I cant stand my Panther or Tiger running into a skinny little tree and being stopped. Large tree's should be downed when hit with 56 tons.

And I would like to see the tanks reach their real full speed on roads. So a Sherman thatdoes 31 KPH now...should on a ROAD do the full 28 MPH which I think is around 40 KPH. The M18 Hellcat would do a full 60 MPH on the roads, which I think translates into something like 72 KPH doesnt it?

#34 The_Walrus

The_Walrus

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts

Posted 12 January 2013 - 01:05 AM

1. I never realised before that the game runs in 4x speed of reality.

2. Battles that lasted hours and hours, sometimes days and days.

3. Neither did they go in with 1/10 remaining as is proposed by a 30minutes fuel tank.

Putting in fuel makes no sense, if it was put in realistically nobody would ever run out anyway. Most tanks had ranges of 170km or more which you never travel in-game. Even if the tank had 1/4 fuel you would probably never travel 42km in a single tank in-game. So for the purpose of realism having un-limited fuel and realistic fuel makes no difference because you will never run out with realistic fuel.

Breakable trees yes please.

60mph is 100kmh, pretty speedy

Would also like to see the Kubels, Jeeps, Trucks, Greyhound and Puma having very slow offroad speed compared to on the road and getting stuck if taken into certain terrain as it was for wheeled vehicles of the time.

#35 Blue Lightning

Blue Lightning

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts

Posted 12 January 2013 - 01:47 AM

2. Battles that lasted hours and hours, sometimes days and days.

Yes, so some of the maps could start theoretically in the middle of a 2 day battle. So fuel might be needed.

Putting in fuel makes no sense, if it was put in realistically nobody would ever run out anyway. Most tanks had ranges of 170km or more which you never travel in-game. Even if the tank had 1/4 fuel you would probably never travel 42km in a single tank in-game. So for the purpose of realism having un-limited fuel and realistic fuel makes no difference because you will never run out with realistic fuel.

Yes, so some of the maps could start theoretically in the middle of a 2 day battle. So fuel might be needed.

60mph is 100kmh, pretty speedy

It sure is! But on a road that is what a Hellcat could do.

Would also like to see the Kubels, Jeeps, Trucks, Greyhound and Puma having very slow offroad speed compared to on the road and getting stuck if taken into certain terrain as it was for wheeled vehicles of the time.

Agreed.

#36 Tony O'Halloran

Tony O'Halloran

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 12 January 2013 - 02:15 AM

Yes, so some of the maps could start theoretically in the middle of a 2 day battle. So fuel might be needed.


Wouldn't the tanks be moving into battle with full fuel in the first place?
Just because it was a lengthy battle doesn't mean the tank drove about 170 km. It could have dug in and defended, or passed through a town section. Battles last for days yes,but more days does not always mean more distance. By that calculation Leningrad lasted for 400 days. How much fuel was used per tank for each day? More than a full tank? Even thugh it was a rough stalemate all that time?

Another Example to support my end.

Kursk.

Fucking huge tank battle, like a bazillion tanks (Rough estimate) and miles upon miles of open terrain, pretty much in a single day. The amount of fuel used was enormous between getting there, combat maneuvers and then bugging out, it still probably wouldn't come close to 170 km of usage though.

Final nail (Hopefully) in this idea is this. Who in their right mind would keep FLAMMABLE FUEL on a BATTLEFIELD, with LIVE EXPLOSIVE SHELLS Flying about. That's just asking for a paddlin'
Posted Image

#37 Father Ted

Father Ted

    Veteran

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 526 posts

Posted 12 January 2013 - 02:48 AM

Just to dial it back a bit: does anyone have accounts of AFVs being re-fueled/rearmed DURING a SHORT battle? I'm not casting aspersions here, it's just that there seems to be a lot of supposition and little hard evidence either way in this thread.

#38 Blue Lightning

Blue Lightning

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts

Posted 13 January 2013 - 02:49 AM

Wouldn't the tanks be moving into battle with full fuel in the first place?

Perhaps they are in the middle of a battle. Mabye when you get in the tank it has been re-armed, but not re-fueld because the fuel truck didnt make it or whatever (which that stuff happend a lot in war). Use a little imagination. I can promise you not always were tanks just brimming with fuel, there were real shortages, even the Americans felt this when they outran their supplies before the redball express was formed, or when Patton was forced to do without fuel so Monty could make his drive in the north. I watched a documentry "TANKS!" which talked about StuGs leaving the line to refuel and reload, and we know what happend with German tanks during the battle of the bulge. I can go on and on. Why do you assume that in every instance we start a map, the tanks are always rested, fueled, washed and waxed? It was not always like that...in war there were a lot of variables.

Final nail (Hopefully) in this idea is this. Who in their right mind would keep FLAMMABLE FUEL on a BATTLEFIELD, with LIVE EXPLOSIVE SHELLS Flying about. That's just asking for a paddlin'

Like keeping ammo boxes exposed in a pile with LIVE EXPLOSIVE AMMO flying about? Like that?

Who says the fuel depot has to be on the battlefield? Earlier I stated it could be off to the back side of the battlefield. Either way you look at it, an ocasional fueling could make the game more interesting, at the very least it should be a server side option.

#39 Masterson

Masterson

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 374 posts

Posted 13 January 2013 - 07:22 AM

Patton outran his supply line and had to halt, yet sill managed to outmaneuver a German thrust in Arracourt and fight in the largest tank battle on the western front up until that point. Generally in military logistics if you stop it isnt because you literally are not out of fuel, but in Patton's case he ran out of fuel that prevented him from simply driving straight for the border. Tanks spend more fuel on the move than actually in fighting.
Posted Image

#40 Dietrich Landrik

Dietrich Landrik

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 368 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 12:36 AM

Honestly, if our battlefields were 144 square kilometers then I wouldn't mind with tankers needing to resupply fuel. However, for the purposes of FE, it seems like a small thing that doesn't need development time wasted on. It's more of a logistical thing than anything strategic unless it is a crazy Battle of the Bulge scenario.
Posted Image
"Nach Drill und Dreck, Gibt's Erbsen mit Speck, Aus der Gulaschkanone~"




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users