keep the minimap, and just require people to manually light up targets after they spot them?
this shit ain't ground-breaking.
[editline]a[/editline]
[QUOTE=gonedead0;44955764][B]Tanks had radios during WW2[/B] and the minimap is one solution, albeit not a very good one, in portraying that radio.[/QUOTE]
something about a russian radio shortage, and something about only company commanders having radios
gotta say though, watching pubbies trying to communicate with signal flags would be [B]very [/B]entertaining
[QUOTE=PsiSoldier;44957022]keep the minimap, and just require people to manually light up targets after they spot them?
this shit ain't ground-breaking.
[editline]a[/editline]
something about a russian radio shortage, and something about only company commanders having radios
gotta say though, watching pubbies trying to communicate with signal flags would be [B]very [/B]entertaining[/QUOTE]
something about masterrace german tanks with radios, and something about if it was completely historically accurate there would be 10 t-34s per tiger.
[QUOTE=gonedead0;44957035]something about [B]masterrace german tanks[/B] with radios, and something about if it was completely historically accurate there would be 10 t-34s per tiger.[/QUOTE]
just pointing out that justifying the minimap as a game mechanic with "tanks had radios" ain't exactly perfect reasoning.
no need to insinuate i'm one of those people that furiously jerks off to pictures of german tanks, and puts them on a unrealistic pedestals of superiority, or some shit.
I'm finding that low tier German tanks are a lot less frustrating to play than low tier Soviet tanks. Does it stay the same all the way to top tier?
[QUOTE=PsiSoldier;44957156]just pointing out that justifying the minimap as a game mechanic with "tanks had radios" ain't exactly perfect reasoning.[/QUOTE]
Yeah you're right, it's also a game mechanic to simulate [I]your[/I] crew's sightlines as well. It's also completely unimplemented.
[QUOTE=Mbbird;44957239]Yeah you're right, it's also a game mechanic to simulate [I]your[/I] crew's sightlines as well. It's also completely unimplemented.[/QUOTE]
i think the third person camera does a good enough job of simulating your crew's sightlines
Just encountered an odd bug:
My APCR shells magically morphed into HEAT on my Stug Ausf F, but it also wouldn't let me spawn at point 2 on Karelia with 27 of them on my 2nd respawn. this happened in multiple games.
[QUOTE=fishyfish777;44957382]i think the third person camera does a good enough job of simulating your crew's sightlines[/QUOTE]
Haha nah.
Honest opinions on this? I love WWII plane simulators. Is this another P2Win game, or is it balanced to worth looking into?
[QUOTE=Code3Response;44957690]Honest opinions on this? I love WWII plane simulators. Is this another P2Win game, or is it balanced to worth looking into?[/QUOTE]
Its not pay to win but it's not excessively well balanced either.
That said I'd recommend trying it and hoping you aren't as unlucky/bad/both as I am.
[editline]31st May 2014[/editline]
Also after a day of trying it, combined arms really isn't that great. Planes and tanks kinda do their own thing with not much interaction. Occasionally I'll bomb a player but most of my time was just spent fighting planes since once I dropped all my bombs it was a 10 minute round trip to the airfield and back in game modes that last about 7 minutes. Absolutely nothing changes for ground forces other than SPAA become noticeably more fun and the occasional death by sky god.
I feel bad for realistic/sim tank players who now have to deal with 3/4ths of their team in planes doing nothing to win.
[editline]31st May 2014[/editline]
What's a good plane tree(s) to go down if I want solid all arounders that are easy to do decent with? Preferably not a tree that comes into it's own 20 or 50 hours into the grind but one that starts off fun by the beginning of Era 2.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;44957790]Its not pay to win but it's not excessively well balanced either.
That said I'd recommend trying it and hoping you aren't as unlucky/bad/both as I am.
[editline]31st May 2014[/editline]
Also after a day of trying it, combined arms really isn't that great. Planes and tanks kinda do their own thing with not much interaction. Occasionally I'll bomb a player but most of my time was just spent fighting planes since once I dropped all my bombs it was a 10 minute round trip to the airfield and back in game modes that last about 7 minutes. Absolutely nothing changes for ground forces other than SPAA become noticeably more fun and the occasional death by sky god.
I feel bad for realistic/sim tank players who now have to deal with 3/4ths of their team in planes doing nothing to win.
[editline]31st May 2014[/editline]
What's a good plane tree(s) to go down if I want solid all arounders that are easy to do decent with? Preferably not a tree that comes into it's own 20 or 50 hours into the grind but one that starts off fun by the beginning of Era 2.[/QUOTE]
I sort of like how they SORT OF do their own thing, although attack craft will come in now and again. Gaijin just needs to remove their 30 person restriction.
[QUOTE=Mbbird;44957886]I sort of like how they SORT OF do their own thing, although attack craft will come in now and again. Gaijin just needs to remove their 30 person restriction.[/QUOTE]
Changing the way respawns work would help too. I don't know why you have to respawn only one plane and one ground vehicle. I'd really like to be able to spawn as SPAA at the beginning to shoot down planes then come back as a tank, or just go on more than one bombing run.
That said it does have it's moments. I killed two T-34's with one bomb and then shot down 3 planes at the very beginning of the next match with the Sdfz 6/2.
Honestly in terms of time spent/fun ratios the SPAA is probably my favorite unit.
Am I the only one who really just can't have fun above BR 4? It just isn't possible. It's so fucking [I]dull[/I] when everyone knows what to do. It's amazing that that's a problem this game can have. Sim is okay above that but for realistic, these arena maps SERIOUSLY encourage abusing map knowledge and tending to specific killzones.
[editline]31st May 2014[/editline]
I had so much fun in the PzIV H but seriously the only times I've quit playing since I got the Panther have been in crashes and ragequits.
Bergetiger when.
[QUOTE=Skwee;44954962]Also sim tanks isn't sim at all. It is just no name tag stare-at-minimap-fest
[sp]tanks don't have minimaps in real life[/sp][/QUOTE]
Tanks also weren't limited to only a single person looking for enemies within the tank, it was usually closer to from three to five or more, depending on the tank, and there has to be something to aggregate the combined lines of sight.
Furthermore, it's far far easier to actually see and distinguish something IRL at the distance than it is on the screen with limited resolution, flawed shading, etc. (I am playing at 1920x1200 and at practically full settings) and you STILL can't see things anywhere near as well as you could IRL.
The current minimap implementation is far far far from ideal, but something that gives you an idea about enemies without you having to pixel hunt for them should (and probably will) definitely stay.
I mostly play Simulator over Realism because even tho you can still spot people on the minimap, it mostly eliminates shooting-at-things-through-trees which is completely necessary to do in Realism if you want to stay competitive, and I fucking HATE that crap.
Sim spotting is unfinished but leaps and bounds better than Realism and Arcade spotting, which I loathe with passion.
[QUOTE=Orkel;44951906][t]http://horobox.co.uk/u/orkel_1401551758.jpg[/t]
This guy flanked me, but his crew/ammo was so fucked he just sat there for a minute unable to load a new shot in, before one of my teammates blew his turret off. I felt bad for him.[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure I was in this battle. The guy i was platooning with was giving me directions to come and help you but when I arrived the Panther just died. :v:
[QUOTE=Doom14;44955560]What Sim gets right and has over RB:
- Tanks still being extremely easy to control. Zero engine/gear management.
[/quote]
Don't you dare to imply forced gear shifting should be in Simulator. That's completely laughable.
Even today, the driver is always a separate crew member who never shares the position of commander, even tho Commander was historically often the loader or even both loader and gunner. You can't imply it's realistic to, in one person, spot targets, aim at them, and at the same time deal with gearing and engine management, that's ridiculous. That's not simulation, that's octopus tanks. The handling of vehicles is in simulator as it should stay. Adding forced gear control or delay to controls is nonsense.
[quote]
- Influence of squads mean with low player counts mean that the one with three people calling out locations to one another is going to rip any other team to shit. (As in balance squad counts already, MM.)[/QUOTE]
Well guess what that applies to any tactical game ever.
[editline]31st May 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Skwee;44955804]I think actual SB tanks is a pretty unrealistic expectation altogether.
Tanks are a group of people working together to work a vehicle. Any fighter plane is just one man
Pull off snappy maneuvers all you want, how are you gonna be making your gunner point at the enemy and shoot him?
I agree with all of this, but in no way is any of this possible when it comes to tanks in a SIMULATION format. You cannot work two throttes/breaks and turn the gun up/down and left/right at the same time. It was not possible at the time. Maybe nowadays, if they made a tank controlled by WASD and aimed with the mouse, but not in WW2.
When it comes to airplane simulation, we have reached an acceptable compromise. We look at a 2d screen, and we don't feel the actual forces of the airplane. When it comes to tank simulation, we haven't reached that yet, not at all in my mind. Tanks are multiple people. I shouldn't have to think of how the tank is moving if I am the gunner, I should just think of what my gun should be doing according to how I am instructed it should be. And that is what I think most people are interested in. Shooting things. So if you are the gunner, why are you having to control where the tank is? What your target priority is? That is the commanders job. He tells people what to do, but he doesn't actually do those things. There isn't an instant reaction to commands given
I dunno man. Sim tanks I think is actually fun, but I don't think it is a simulation.
Yes, one person had to tell everyone what to do, but that was his concentration, he didn't have to concentrate on how to actually complete those commands that would be enacted by multiple people after he had given them, he had to give the command, and one person had to enact one part of the command, another person had to enact another part of the command, etc. There was no single conscious decision to complete this group of actions.[/QUOTE]
Maybe they should stop pussying out and implement fourth mode, the MULTI-SIMULATOR, where multiple people crew the tank, each one position. Most of the time, 2 people per tank would be fine, maybe 3 tops.
THAT could have zero cues and maps whatsoever, manual transmission and shit, and imho would be fucking amazing and fun. THAT'S something they should strive for.
that would be a clusterfuck
[QUOTE=mastfire;44958773]that would be a clusterfuck[/QUOTE]
It would be pretty much squad-only business but I think it would be fucking fantastic with friends.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;44957690]Honest opinions on this? I love WWII plane simulators. Is this another P2Win game, or is it balanced to worth looking into?[/QUOTE]
It's not specifically an IL-2 style simulator, if that's what you're looking for, but it isn't really arcadey either. It's some weird hybrid. Balance is mostly fine in aircraft at ranks 1-3 (like 75% of the game), kinda bad in tanks.
[t]http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/579023944529841838/52E3D2AD29825DAFD0765E813EAB49866C80B7E1/[/t]
Era 4 game. What the hell
[QUOTE=Azaz3l;44959523][t]http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/579023944529841838/52E3D2AD29825DAFD0765E813EAB49866C80B7E1/[/t]
Era 4 game. What the hell[/QUOTE]
"Aim here!"- King Tiger, 1944
Do the IS-3's sides here have similarly bullshit shell-eating spaced armor like in WoT?
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;44958520]The handling of vehicles is in simulator as it should stay. Adding forced gear control or delay to controls is nonsense.[/QUOTE]
While I agree that forcing manual transmission control onto players wouldn't be a good move towards a "realistic"/"simulation" game mechanic, I feel that a delay in movement and/or gun control would be completely in-line with the idea that the player is the commander of a crewed tank. Would it make the game needlessly challenging? Yeah, it would. Would it make the game more realistic and less arcade-y? I think so. Commanders' orders don't result in instantaneous action, and a delay in something like moving forward or firing the gun would be expected if the player were acting as tank commander. It would make sense to only delay actions that any given tank's commander was historically responsible for. If a crew were to be knocked out, an even more pronounced delay could be added to replicate the loss of that dedicated operator, which is already in the game.
Gaijin could even go one step further and add multiple crew positions to tanks. Planes already have this with gunners being player-controllable but still AI controlled when the player is acting as pilot, so having this functionality in tanks would be more in line with War Thunder's already-established convention. Have an easy-to-use position switcher, and let the player switch crew positions in the tank to have direct control over certain tank functions. This would essentially give a buff to whichever crew position is being player-controlled, while the other tank functions would be delayed. If a crew position were to be knocked out, the player could still switch to that position and use it, but it would otherwise be unresponsive and the position the player was in beforehand would become unresponsive if they were to switch to the knocked out position.
I know it sounds really over-complicated, but this would all make tanks more difficult to master, while still being [relatively] easy to use in general. Of course this complexity could be eliminated in Arcade and be toned down in Realistic, but this would make the accessibility and complexity of Simulator battles more closely follow that of planes. Whether this is a direction Gaijin should take the game or not isn't really what I'm addressing, though I'd be in favor of War Thunder pointing more towards a simulator than an arcade war game.
[QUOTE=MrWhite;44960068]While I agree that forcing manual transmission control onto players wouldn't be a good move towards a "realistic"/"simulation" game mechanic, I feel that a delay in movement and/or gun control would be completely in-line with the idea that the player is the commander of a crewed tank. Would it make the game needlessly challenging? Yeah, it would. Would it make the game more realistic and less arcade-y? I think so. Commanders' orders don't result in instantaneous action, and a delay in something like moving forward or firing the gun would be expected if the player were acting as tank commander. It would make sense to only delay actions that any given tank's commander was historically responsible for. If a crew were to be knocked out, an even more pronounced delay could be added to replicate the loss of that dedicated operator, which is already in the game.
Gaijin could even go one step further and add multiple crew positions to tanks. Planes already have this with gunners being player-controllable but still AI controlled when the player is acting as pilot, so having this functionality in tanks would be more in line with War Thunder's already-established convention. Have an easy-to-use position switcher, and let the player switch crew positions in the tank to have direct control over certain tank functions. This would essentially give a buff to whichever crew position is being player-controlled, while the other tank functions would be delayed. If a crew position were to be knocked out, the player could still switch to that position and use it, but it would otherwise be unresponsive and the position the player was in beforehand would become unresponsive if they were to switch to the knocked out position.
I know it sounds really over-complicated, but this would all make tanks more difficult to master, while still being [relatively] easy to use in general. Of course this complexity could be eliminated in Arcade and be toned down in Realistic, but this would make the accessibility and complexity of Simulator battles more closely follow that of planes. Whether this is a direction Gaijin should take the game or not isn't really what I'm addressing, though I'd be in favor of War Thunder pointing more towards a simulator than an arcade war game.[/QUOTE]
Red Orchestra uses a similar crew slot swapping system and I think it works well! It isn't too complicated, it just requires a bit more thinking and forward planning. I understand people not wanting to control gears and clutch and such in this game but not every game mode will appeal to everybody.
The game would need a hell of a lot more infrastructure if they want to do the "you're the commander of the tank" thing. That said, I'd very much like a 4th "Commander Simulator" mode, in which you have a platoon (3 or 4 depending on nation) of tanks under your command, and even for "your" tank, you are merely giving orders. It would fully utilize all crew skills, populate what would be an otherwise unpopulated gamemode with lots of tanks, and allow for some really interesting individual freedom. That is to say, one player could affect a match a lot more than they could with 3 tanks than they could with 1, even if everyone else has 3. The potential power is just way higher.
I'd say both WT's engine and current level of development could totally support a gamemode like that. I faintly recall "commanding more than one tank" a while ago, so maybe I have some hope.
[editline]31st May 2014[/editline]
It's worth mentioning that there are [B]no[/B] games on the market with populated multiplayer in which you command [U]a[/U] small platoons of units around. Arma with large pop, community/clan servers is the only thing that comes close.
Is it just me or does the game have real difficulty calculating armor past the first ding
I have bounced so much 76mm+ rounds off the front of Pz IIs for no reason
The amount of people complaining about RB in mixed battles is great.
"omg you have to land to reload?"
:v:
[QUOTE=fishyfish777;44960379]Is it just me or does the game have real difficulty calculating armor past the first ding
I have bounced so much 76mm+ rounds off the front of Pz IIs for no reason[/QUOTE]
There's a random ricochet chance for any rounds hitting any armor thickness, and the chance goes up the higher the angle, but it still exists even for almost flat armors. The chances vary between round types. A graph was posted a while back. Technically you could bounce a Jagdtiger shell off the Pz.II if you get that lucky ricochet roll.
[QUOTE=MrWhite;44960068]While I agree that forcing manual transmission control onto players wouldn't be a good move towards a "realistic"/"simulation" game mechanic, I feel that a delay in movement and/or gun control would be completely in-line with the idea that the player is the commander of a crewed tank. Would it make the game needlessly challenging? Yeah, it would. Would it make the game more realistic and less arcade-y? I think so. Commanders' orders don't result in instantaneous action, and a delay in something like moving forward or firing the gun would be expected if the player were acting as tank commander. It would make sense to only delay actions that any given tank's commander was historically responsible for. If a crew were to be knocked out, an even more pronounced delay could be added to replicate the loss of that dedicated operator, which is already in the game.
Gaijin could even go one step further and add multiple crew positions to tanks. Planes already have this with gunners being player-controllable but still AI controlled when the player is acting as pilot, so having this functionality in tanks would be more in line with War Thunder's already-established convention. Have an easy-to-use position switcher, and let the player switch crew positions in the tank to have direct control over certain tank functions. This would essentially give a buff to whichever crew position is being player-controlled, while the other tank functions would be delayed. If a crew position were to be knocked out, the player could still switch to that position and use it, but it would otherwise be unresponsive and the position the player was in beforehand would become unresponsive if they were to switch to the knocked out position.
I know it sounds really over-complicated, but this would all make tanks more difficult to master, while still being [relatively] easy to use in general. Of course this complexity could be eliminated in Arcade and be toned down in Realistic, but this would make the accessibility and complexity of Simulator battles more closely follow that of planes. Whether this is a direction Gaijin should take the game or not isn't really what I'm addressing, though I'd be in favor of War Thunder pointing more towards a simulator than an arcade war game.[/QUOTE]
You aren't the commander.
If you were the commander, the death of the commander would knock the tank out.
It's stupid to assume the Driver is braindead and has zero initiative of their own and thus you have to tell them every second which way to drive and they slowly react every time.
[editline]31st May 2014[/editline]
Anybody up to some ~rank 3 Germany squadding in combined battles?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
