Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

General Tank thread (Compiled idea's)


  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#41 Blue Lightning

Blue Lightning

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 02:29 AM

Well the battle of the bulge did happen, and German tanks did run out, and some raced to a fuel depot and didnt make it. So since the BoB is a big part of the westren front, I would think the fuel would be worthwhile.

#42 sulman

sulman

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 37 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 09:36 PM

I think one has to consider the scope of the game. If it's the same as RO1/DH then fuel considerations are outside of the feature set - that point is a layer above and really has already been decided: The place of the battle is the consequence. Including it in a 25 minute fight would seem a little gamey.

#43 short-fuse

short-fuse

    Beta Tester

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 30 March 2013 - 10:54 PM

If we are going to consider the "fuel" status of the tanks, then you might consider the possibility of sabotage of the German tanks. As for me, not so much. Although it would be a great feature, we need to concentrate on the tanks themselves to have the following:

good variety of tanks
the correct penetration values
good optics, (the ability to repair the optics if they are shattered/broken)
smoke dischargers, and externally mounted machine guns.

I've commented before on the other forums that the Commanders position should be set in a way that only his head and shoulders should be poking out and not the 3/4 view we have now in DH.

#44 Dietrich Landrik

Dietrich Landrik

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 368 posts

Posted 12 November 2013 - 10:49 PM

I'd like to see people be able to mount on tanks, and not with a leg covering the gun sight like in Invasion '44. With the implemented local VoIP, players would climb up on the tank and knock on the hatch so they could talk to the tankers inside about battle developments and etc. since a buttoned up tank's crew can't hear anyone outside otherwise.

Also, being able to "mount" on enemy tanks, knock on the hatch and if the tanker opened up the player could shoot him and drop a grenade down the hatch. Fair amounts of risk for both the tanker and the man trying to knock it out without an AT charge.
Posted Image
"Nach Drill und Dreck, Gibt's Erbsen mit Speck, Aus der Gulaschkanone~"

#45 DavidL.Roth

DavidL.Roth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 105 posts

Posted 27 November 2013 - 09:25 AM

Had this idea a long time ago when thinking of tank controls with keyboard.
Tanks should be heavy and clumsy, and not like some RC cars like in some games.

So I thought why not control each track on its own and throttle on its own?
This way you'd have realistic control over your tank and you could make it move more like a real tank instead of driving forward and backward and steering it like a car.

I invented this control system:
Posted Image


So with W and S you control the amount of your throttle, this way you can move really slow or fast (full control over the speed).
With Q and A you control your left side track, Q making it move forward and A making move backward.
And with E and D you control your rife side track, like in above.
Just like in real WW2 era tank which was controlled with footpedals now you can do fast spins and move accurately.

Arrow buttons are for the tank gunner to move the turret, I think there should be no mouse control over turret to make it more challenging (especially when infantry is around).

What do you think?
Realistic and challenging, ain't that what we all love the most?
  • 'DeadlyDad' Olson likes this

#46 Cpl.Guillemette

Cpl.Guillemette

    Elite Veteran

  • Festung Europa Tester
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,212 posts

Posted 27 November 2013 - 04:10 PM

I invented this control system:
Posted Image


So with W and S you control the amount of your throttle, this way you can move really slow or fast (full control over the speed).
With Q and A you control your left side track, Q making it move forward and A making move backward.
And with E and D you control your rife side track, like in above.
Just like in real WW2 era tank which was controlled with footpedals now you can do fast spins and move accurately.

Arrow buttons are for the tank gunner to move the turret, I think there should be no mouse control over turret to make it more challenging (especially when infantry is around).

What do you think?
Realistic and challenging, ain't that what we all love the most?


Sounds great to me, but I say let's keet the turret control as it was before ;)
I also would like to see some changing gear in there.
Since it's 2 players, they can use the same keys ;)
Posted Image

#47 DavidL.Roth

DavidL.Roth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 105 posts

Posted 27 November 2013 - 05:38 PM

Sounds great to me, but I say let's keet the turret control as it was before ;)
I also would like to see some changing gear in there.
Since it's 2 players, they can use the same keys ;)


Glad to hear you like it :)
How the turret control was before? Do you mean WASD?

Hmmm, changing gears, sounds interesting. How do you think this could be implemented, ideas?

#48 Cpl.Guillemette

Cpl.Guillemette

    Elite Veteran

  • Festung Europa Tester
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,212 posts

Posted 28 November 2013 - 06:21 AM

q and E for range and wasd for aiming.
speed depend if engine is on or off.

To me having a nice driving job, would enhance the driver position and make it more fun for them.
For the gunner, it was already not too easy and quite fun. But I guess it can still have some improvement to be made.
Posted Image

#49 soss533

soss533

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 35 posts

Posted 28 November 2013 - 03:55 PM

Fuel shouldn't be ingame, 4km² maps are way too small to simulate fuel consumption in a proper way.
Fully rendered & animated 3d tank interiors - waste of dev time.
Tanks should perform the way the did in RL. Even if that makes balancing everything a bit harder,
Tiger&Panther should be dangerous and the P4 should be < Sherman.

And please...
NO MOUSE AIM FOR THE TURRET >:o

#50 Nightingale

Nightingale

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts

Posted 28 November 2013 - 05:24 PM

Fuel shouldn't be ingame, 4km² maps are way too small to simulate fuel consumption in a proper way.
Fully rendered & animated 3d tank interiors - waste of dev time.
Tanks should perform the way the did in RL. Even if that makes balancing everything a bit harder,
Tiger&Panther should be dangerous and the P4 should be < Sherman.

And please...
NO MOUSE AIM FOR THE TURRET >:o

Everything this guy said. I can't speak about which tank was historically superior in combat, but everything else seems sensible and realistic to me.

Also: I approve of Roth's control scheme, provided only that S and W increase and decrease the throttle amount by static values rather than as a sliding scale. The incremental throttle in RO2 was something I could never get used to, especially the part where it's next-to-impossible to keep the tank still.

#51 DavidL.Roth

DavidL.Roth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 105 posts

Posted 28 November 2013 - 06:26 PM

I'd love to hear what devs think of my idea :nod:

#52 Dietrich Landrik

Dietrich Landrik

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 368 posts

Posted 28 November 2013 - 07:41 PM

Those are some good ideas. I'm no tanker, but I like the added immersion.

With TS3 integration, obviously the tanker can talk to the men in his tank or men outside if he's unbuttoned. Will there also be a radio system for talking to the other tankers?

#53 Shurek

Shurek

    Veteran

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 03 December 2013 - 05:42 PM

Get out of our brains! :bounce:

3ka2.png


#54 DavidL.Roth

DavidL.Roth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 105 posts

Posted 05 December 2013 - 07:34 AM

Get out of our brains! :bounce:


Yahoo! :whoo:

#55 FuriousBystander

FuriousBystander

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 924 posts

Posted 05 December 2013 - 08:19 PM

Get out of our brains! :bounce:

I'll believe it, when I see it.


Posted Image


#56 Twrecks

Twrecks

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 21 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 07:37 PM

I like Roth's idea, and would like to extrapolate on it...

Most Tanks of WW2 could not run treads in opposite directions, the Panther being the only real exception (though I could be wrong). Tanks turned by either braking and/or changing gears. Braking also required the driver to drop gear on the braked side. Pop one side up in a higher gear that side moved faster effecting a turn, the bigger the difference in gears the sharper the corner. At full speed, a tank cannot turn without slowing one side. At low speeds or a dead stop, selecting too high of a gear could cause the tank to stall or destroy the transmission. Too high of a RPM in low gear could also lead to burning up a tranny.

With all that said, I would propose the following:

Throttle needs to be a sliding scale, throttle up/down with the W and S keys. Holding down W or S moves the scale, tapping effects incremental changes.

Holding down either the A and/or D key selects side to change gears, then pressing W and S would change that gear up or down. Since the A and/or D key are depressed prior to tapping the W/S keys, the throttle is not effected. A and D keys do nothing on their own. A quick search will tell how many gears were available for each specific tank.

Only the Panther can go into reverse gears without throttling both sides all the way down, important to maintain only lower gears for both sets of treads.

All other tanks can either go forward or low reverse, not both at the same time for different treads.

Separate gear indicators for each tread are required, in addition to a tach and speedo. A tachometer could very useful other than showing throttle position, as in reality gears could only be changed at optimal RPM ranges, and that varied for each gear sequence. The sound of grinding gears for nOOb drivers will be heard all over the battlefield.

#57 short-fuse

short-fuse

    Beta Tester

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 09:46 PM

Waayyy too much to do when you get into a heated battle of 50+ people. KISS would be the best option or the other option would be everyone to purchase a joystick that they would usually use for their flying sims with a sliding throttle. Iron Front Liberation 44 is a decent sim but never catched on but the tanks in that game had the WADS system. Just a thought.

#58 Serathis

Serathis

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 07:09 PM

Since tanks don't spontaneously explode when knocked out of action, what about having an animation for bailing out from the tank when its no longer functional? This would play for the crew only, for everyone else the tank would go up in flames.
Bloody screen! So real.

#59 ROMMEL 34

ROMMEL 34

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 572 posts

Posted 09 December 2013 - 09:16 AM

Tiger&Panther should be dangerous and the P4 should be < Sherman.



Posted Image

Posted Image
Alles für Deutschland!

#60 soss533

soss533

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 35 posts

Posted 09 December 2013 - 02:26 PM

*random text snippets praising the PzKpfw IV*, 1944 Normandy?


Let me quote this Combat Mission dev:
Spoiler





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users