Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

General Tank thread (Compiled idea's)


  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#81 short-fuse

short-fuse

    Beta Tester

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 05 August 2014 - 09:28 PM

General question for all tanks and AFV's:

Will all the combatants within a particular vehicle have their own hatch to get in and out of? The driver, commander, and sometimes the gunner will have a hatch to either "turn-out" or get out of when the tank is dammaged or burning. What I'm asking is that will the radio operator, loader, or any of the secondary postitions have the capability to get out of said vehicle? The way that's currently built is that there's only 2 ways into the tank, driver and commander. On the Stugs you have Gunner and commander. Will we be able use the available hatches?

#82 Hans Ludwig

Hans Ludwig

    Elite Veteran

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,844 posts

Posted 09 August 2014 - 09:54 PM

Those are all good questions, Short-fuse. Once the team feels comfortable discussing that particular game feature, you can rest assured your question will be answered in our game development blog.

#83 short-fuse

short-fuse

    Beta Tester

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 25 November 2014 - 01:30 AM

Here's another tank quesiton..

Now this is just based on the movie FURY but it does bring up a quesiton.. In know that this is Jollywoods version from inside the tank but, during the fighting scenes, you don't hear the roar of the cannon while inside the tank. It makes sence to me to not hear the cannon at all since the metal is a sound deadner ( to a degree ) but will we hear the same exterior / interior cannon roar like in DH? I found these videos and they explain it better than what I'm typing about:





Yes, I know that that the M1A1 and the Leopard have multi-layered armor but still, the cannon roar should be dulled to a point like this video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEyuJBVjyD4


Also, would it be possible to leave the hatch open while sitting in the commanders position? I know most of us, while in ambush mode, hate that sound because it gives our position away or let's the enemy know that we are in the area.

#84 Lizard

Lizard

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 13 January 2015 - 01:00 AM

First post here. Im a long time DH player.

I was thinking would extra-armor adds like schurzens stop some of the damage of for example shooting a PIAT to the side of Panzer IV or Stug? Maybe schurzens flying of after a hit or taking damage in certain situations. Same with sandbags that where used with Shermans.. even if you`re not planning to make them "animated" will there be battlefield modified armor based on the actual tanks used in specific battles?

One of the things that made DH so unique was the wide range of different tanks and vehicles for ww2 fps. Now with all the knowledge your team has about commonwealth and british tanks cant wait to see those models... :popcorn:

#85 Cpl.Guillemette

Cpl.Guillemette

    Elite Veteran

  • Festung Europa Tester
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,213 posts

Posted 14 January 2015 - 09:21 PM

I was thinking would extra-armor adds like schurzens stop some of the damage of for example shooting a PIAT to the side of Panzer IV or Stug? Maybe schurzens flying of after a hit or taking damage in certain situations.


Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that is already in Game, Shurtzen have protective effect agaisn't hollow charge weapons. I think they vanish also, but I'm less sure on that one and I don't have time to test it now. :D
Posted Image

#86 Lizard

Lizard

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 15 January 2015 - 04:06 PM

About them vanishing; if that is so, then i`ve somehow compeletely missed it.

Plz include Stug IV besides III. (even for a couple of maps)

from axis-h-forum:

"The division was created in France on 15Nov1943 and from December it had been stationed in the area between Tours, Angers and Parthenay in western France. Because of the lack of transport movement to Normandyu did not begin immediately. On 9 June the StuG IVs were unloaded between Montreuil and la Fleche and they began road movement to Mayenne immediately. One of the StuG IVs had been lost in air attacks during the rail transport. The StuG IVs arrived at the front on 13June in an area to the southwest of Carentan. The StuG IVs supported SS-PzGrenRgt. 37 when they attacked the US 101st Airborne Division sothwest of Carentan. On 15June it was reported that 24 StuG IVs were operational and 13 were in short term repair. On 27June they reported 18 combat ready StuG IVs and by 21July there were 10 StuG IVs operational. The division was partially surrounded in the Coutances pocket after Operation Cobra but they broke out with considerable loss of equipment. At the beginning of August the division was withdrawn for refitting.

The only other unit to serve in Normandy with StuG IVs was StuG-Abt 1331[2.PzJagAbt. 331] of the 331. Infantry Division. They had 10 StuG IVs shipped on 2 April 1944. The unit had served in the east with HG Nord and the 16. Armee. However in March 1944 they were withdrawn for refitting and had been sent to serve with the 15.Armee in the Calais area of France. On 28July 1944 they were ordered to move to Normandy and on 4 August the division unloaded from 51 trains. It appears the division was assigned in an area some 20 to 50 kilometers east of Argentan in L'Aigle-Gracé region assigned to the LXXXI. Korps. The US forces made no major thrust in this region it appears the division suffered low casualities. However it should also be noted that some sources report the divison was caught in the Falaise pocket and nearly decimated before escaping to Holland.
"

#87 TT33

TT33

    Elite Veteran

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,137 posts

Posted 16 January 2015 - 01:38 PM

Yes, we are aware of the Stug IV being used in France.
I like the fact the Stug IV has a hatch and periscope for the driver instead of a visor , the vehicle would would definitely be interesting to add to any later war WWII game in my opinion.

gar83IX.gif


#88 Epee

Epee

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 21 January 2015 - 06:30 PM

Pardon me if this has been posted and discussed previously but I skipped to the end of the thread (sorry)...
One of the chief problems I see tanking is that the commander really only has what command his driver will allow him; rendering the driver the real tank commander while the commander position, in fact, becomes one of gunner/spotter and, if you have an incompetent driver, victim.

I realize that what I'm about to suggest would be a major redesign but one that I think would allow tanks to play a more "consistant" role on the DH battlefield.

Dispense with the dedicated driver position. In reality the driver is there only to see that the will of the commander is done. Allow the commander to drive from his position and replace the driver with a gunner position (selects ammo, aims and fires the main gun and co-ax only). This would still leave the bow MG and still provide an advantage to a well co-ordinated, multi-player crew. Likewise it would allow a single player to use a tank more realistically (as the commander can use his enhanced field of view for navigation as he is supposed to) while preventing the unfortunate net-phenomena of a well played, single-player tank being highjacked into a suicide charge by a late-arriving, incompetent driver.

#89 TT33

TT33

    Elite Veteran

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,137 posts

Posted 25 January 2015 - 09:28 PM

Its been stated a few times over the years if not on this thread.

We have discussed tweaking and redesigning several aspects of tank operation as they pertain to Festung Europa versus the Darkest Hour modification. We have not yet come to complete decision on everything as we lack progress in certain areas to test our ideas out however if and when the situation allows we shall disclose exactly how everything will work. In the meantime you guys can continue to suggest ideas and we will seriously consider any ideas that will improve the game's operation.

Personally I think we can still do something with full TT (team tanking) but we shall see what the future will bring.

gar83IX.gif


#90 Epee

Epee

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 26 January 2015 - 06:39 PM

Well, using the "Commander as driver, dedicated gunner" idea will still favor well-played teams.

#91 Epee

Epee

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 23 February 2015 - 03:39 PM

Just one more plug for the "Commander as Driver" paradigm; certain early-war tanks suffered a tactical disadvantage by forcing the commander to serve as both commander and gunner; very similar to what RO & DH do now.

#92 Tauchpanzer

Tauchpanzer

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 07 April 2015 - 11:18 AM

My thoughts:

* Team tanking has to go (at least as a default)
I've been playing DH since 2011 and most of that time I've spent tanking. Over the years I've had maybe two or three instances of great team tanking, when driver-commander communication has just intuitively worked. Most of the time it's a complete mess, tankers basically just throw their tanks at the enemy, and just one bad player can completely ruin the experience not only for other people in his tank, but for the entire team. Now I know that there's a niche group of people who enjoy team tanking, but I don't think that the tanking experience should be designed by the needs of a niche group, and I bet that those people spend most of their time tanking alone anyway.

* Commander as a driver, gunner
Driving through WASD, gun control with arrow keys. I did like RO2's idea of commander issuing orders to the driver, but it was implemented horribly. I suggest a hybrid between direct driving and acting as a commander, the player still drives the tank directly, but there is a very slight lag to each key press. This would give the impression that there's a driver present. Driving from driver's position would give direct access without delay.

* Four player views: 1) Commander's cupola 2) Gunsight 3) Driver 4) MG
Commander's cupola would be the default view, with scroll-down to gunsight, scroll-up to pop-out view. When a crew member is killed, a view would be eliminated until the dead guy has been replaced.

* A simple crew management system
This would be mainly for moving crew members around when some of them have been killed. Each crew member would have a specialty, and putting a radio operator into driver's position would give a slight penalty in tank's responsiveness. Empty positions would be inoperable, no radio operator = no communication with other tanks. Loader dead = slow reloading. A simple diagram would be enough, you just open an overlay menu screen with a key and drag icons representing crewmen from one slot to the next. Crew switch would take more or less time based on the situation, empty seat = 5 seconds, dead man in the seat = 15 seconds, for an example.

* No AI machine gunners, infantry mannable machine guns
AI machine guns in RO2 were a nightmare, and even if they work, getting killed by one isn't fun. You feel that you have been killed by an automated game function instead of other player's skill. I think that it should be possible for any soldier on the field to man MG positions in tanks, and that some machine guns should be restricted for infantry use only (top mounted guns in M10, M5, etc.) An infantry player would request to be let into the tank, and he could then stay in the MG position as long as he wishes to. Top mounted guns could be operated freely without commander's approval. Playing in a completely separate machine gunner class wouldn't probably be very appealing, since you'd be completely at the mercy of the commander. If he chooses to park his tank into a hull-down position for 10 minutes, there's nothing you can do. As an infantryman you can always exit the tank and resume gameplay in your original class. I know that this isn't ideal, since some people would use tanks as transports, and you can't penalize the tank commander by removing one of his crew members as the human player leaves, but I still think that this would be a nice way of providing maximum firepower from armor, especially in missions where light tanks are there mainly for infantry support.

* Ability to leave the tank and return
Having the ability to scout on foot is less important in Normandy, but I do think that it should be present for larger (community made?) maps. This introduces the problem of functional abandoned tanks on the field, when the scouting commander is either killed or decides to continue on foot, so I propose that there shoud be a certain radius around the tank where the commander could move freely. Maybe 25 metres or so. If the player goes beyond this radius, or is killed, the crew members that are still alive would vanish, the engine would turn off and the tank would become abandoned. If a tank player were to stumble upon one of these abandoned tanks, he could still operate it, but he would have to do it alone without crew members. This system would also work when a player decides to bail from a battle damaged tank. Infantry could still operate top mounted machine guns of these empty tanks (Audie Murphy style).

* No complicated tank interiors
I'd be perfectly happy with 2D interiors, like Iron Front had , and a 1st person pop-out view. I don't think that detailed 3D interiors give enough boost to immersion to be worth the dev time, and would rather see a greater variety in vehicles instead.

 

()

* No field repairs / very limited field repairs
I think that this would be very hard to implement in a realistic and immersive way. I'm against putting any sort of AI bots / figures onto the battlefield, and just one guy doing, for an example, track repairs would be silly. I'm OK with getting tanks fixed at a depot / spawn. Not very realistic considering the battle time frames, but adds to overall immersion by providing an incentive for players to evacuate their damaged machines from the field.

* Kick voting for tankers
Many times the success or failure of an entire team hinges upon tankers doing their job, so for that reason there should be a way to get rid of players who simply can't play, or deliberately ruin the experience for others. Same system could be implemented for arty officers, commanders, etc. A successful kick vote would simply return them into rifleman class.

* Less accurate guns
I feel that sniping enemy tanks at extreme distances is currently way too easy, and makes engagements far less interesting. With experienced tankers, usually the guy firing the first shot wins every time, especially if he's playing the Axis. This is exactly how TWI managed to screw up RO2's infantry combat, the guns are just way too easy to aim and shoot. There should be some inaccuracy added to the main gun, or wind effects taken into account.

* Better damage model for non-penetrating shots
Spalling, flaking, etc. One of the problems in DH is that if a super heavy tank is angled & parked just correctly, it simply cannot be killed. I've seen players camping at the edge of the map in their King Tigers for the entire duration of the map and not getting killed once. I don't have much respect for that style of gameplay. This is less of a problem in larger maps, where you can use the terrain to flank the super-heavy, and camping at the edge would simply put you outside of the action zone, but I hope that FE can also implement some sort of an advanced damage model, so that tanks can eventually be destroyed or disabled with enough of non-penetrating shots and HE (Tiger II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia / Soviet wartime testing).


Ideas already mentioned that I agree with:

* Manual gears
* Less explosions
* NO fuel systems
* Transport slots on top of tanks
* Pivot turning for tanks that are capable


And a final wish:
If FE implements tank only / large combined arms maps, I wish they would represent more realistic situations than many "arena type" tank maps that the community currently plays. Maps that have 10 different capture points at the same time degenerate into silly mayhem, and don't really give the impression of being on a real battlefield. I'd love to play more maps that have one side attacking, other defending, meeting engagements with a single objective, etc.


  • 'DeadlyDad' Olson likes this

#93 LSchroll

LSchroll

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 242 posts

Posted 21 July 2015 - 04:47 AM

* Team tanking has to go (at least as a default)
I've been playing DH since 2011 and most of that time I've spent tanking. Over the years I've had maybe two or three instances of great team tanking, when driver-commander communication has just intuitively worked. Most of the time it's a complete mess, tankers basically just throw their tanks at the enemy, and just one bad player can completely ruin the experience not only for other people in his tank, but for the entire team. Now I know that there's a niche group of people who enjoy team tanking, but I don't think that the tanking experience should be designed by the needs of a niche group, and I bet that those people spend most of their time tanking alone anyway.

 

I agree with this, by default as you say.


Posted Image
SS-Untersturmführer u. Zugführer Lukas Schroll
SS-Panzer-Regiment 12 'Hitlerjugend'

#94 FuriousBystander

FuriousBystander

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 924 posts

Posted 24 July 2015 - 04:45 PM

I agree with this, by default as you say.


+1, I agree with most of Tauchpanzer's suggestions

However, for team tanking, I would like to see a dedicated gunner spot not connected to the Commander. So in my variant, if you will, one player would be responsible for Commander / Driver functions and another player would be responsible for the Gunner / Hull MG functions. Theoretically then, you'd only need two players to efficiently team-tank. This would be a decent compromise between needing 3 or 4 players in each tank which takes away from the ranks of your team, and the current DH / RO ridiculousness of having one almighty tank lord jumping between all positions.

 

Tauchpanzer, on 07 Apr 2015 - 05:18 AM, said:
 

No complicated tank interiors
I'd be perfectly happy with 2D interiors, like Iron Front had , and a 1st person pop-out view. I don't think that detailed 3D interiors give enough boost to immersion to be worth the dev time, and would rather see a greater variety in vehicles instead.

 

 

Yes to this a million times.



Posted Image


#95 'DeadlyDad' Olson

'DeadlyDad' Olson

    Veteran

  • Festung Europa Tester
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 990 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 09 October 2015 - 12:09 AM

Yes x 20!  Just had another thought about directing the driver, whether solo or team tanking: a clock face on the HUD, where the outer face is the 12 directions to turn to, and the distance from center is the desired speed.  For example, just to the left of center and up a bit would signal to the driver "Turn to 10 o'clock, dead slow.", while the bottom of the clock face would mean "Turn completely around, full speed!"  Alternatively, a horizontal bar for clock direction, and vertical bar for speed.  (Perhaps left-click for relative directions, and right-click for absolute?)  Communicating even to a human driver in DH1 can be a right royal pain, considering how the vehicle VOIP channel is disabled for some reason.  This would enable the commander to give precise directions for the human/AI driver to follow.

 

(...and yes, I am well aware that a clock face floating in midair isn't completely realistic, but neither is not having a proper way to indicate to the driver what you want him to do.)


"Keep calm, and tell me all about it."

Need help? Friend me:
Posted Image

#96 'DeadlyDad' Olson

'DeadlyDad' Olson

    Veteran

  • Festung Europa Tester
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 990 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 29 October 2015 - 05:53 PM

  • As someone who has spent probably a few hundred hours in DH tanks, both as driver and commander, I can tell you that the commander communicating to a driver which direction he wants him to face is extremely frustrating.  Here's a simple addition that would make communicating direction to your driver MUCH easier:  the commander hitting a key would use the vector for the direction that he is looking to put a v-arrow '>' on the driver's clock compass that maintains an absolute heading, so he can easily turn the tank in the exact direction that the commander wants.  All of the data needed is already available; it only needs massaging and an overlay on the HUD.  How possible is it?
  • Epic realistic team tanking.  Epic realistic solo tanking.  Though the first is clearly the best (...at least when you have a semi-competent driver), both should be an option.  Most players that I've talked to agree with me.  In fact, most tankers, when you jump into 'their' tank, will ask/order you to get out; they clearly are as fed up with trying to team tank as (almost) everyone else is.  (Yes, I know that there are a few very vocal opponents of solo tanking, but the sheer popularity of games like War Thunder and World of Tanks shows just how much in the minority they are.)  Let's face it; the less popular any multiplayer game is, the fewer players there will be, and thus the less fun it is for those who still play it.  The fact that DH is still played is completely due to a couple of clans that are loyal to it.  If they shut down their servers, DH is done.  Allowing solo tanking, while it will make a very diehards froth at the mouth, will increase DH's popularity at a time when it is almost dead.
    WHY DO WE KEEP HAVING TO EXPLAIN THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHEN THE FACTS ARE AS CLEAR AS DAY?!?!?!?!?!?

"Keep calm, and tell me all about it."

Need help? Friend me:
Posted Image

#97 5th SS Div Wiking

5th SS Div Wiking

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts

Posted 05 January 2016 - 11:30 AM

Me and my brother used to team-tank, using Skype for comms and we were booted from servers more than once for 'cheating' (being too good). It doesn't require special systems to be added, it simply requires practice and a mutually worked-out verbal system.

 

I agree with everything that's been said about a hugely more complex component-system for tanks and the ability for a repair-vehicle to be available. I recall playing a WW2 mod for ArmA where we had a tank disabled and spent about half an hour getting a brave soul to find us with his repair-truck, angle it correctly against our tank and get it running again. It was fraught with frustration but highly enjoyable. DH is very basic and abstract in this regard but probably needs to be, given that day-long battles are compressed into one-hour montages.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users