Tank Features

[FlyingR]

I don't know how you want to implement tanks, and maybe you are already doing it this way, or at least thinking about it!

1) I hope you are implementing the tanks and overall vehicles like WWIIO where you have a gearbox and you can turn on and off the engines. The latter one is extremely important. I was playing PR and we were doing a tank battle and in order to hear the enemy tank getting near the driver had to get out of the tank to turn off the engine and to listen to where the tank was coming from. It would be much more efficient to just press let's say "E" so you could turn on and off the engine.

2) It would be cool to have the ability to escape through bottom (or any other) hatches.

3) Please make it so that if you want to get in the tank, you must get on top, or jump on top of the tank rather than getting in from any position.

4) Make it possible so that the tanks can bring/transport at least a full section (8 men) on top of the tank.

5) Tanks should have radios to coordinate between them and the Commander. There should be a person in charge of that (multi-crew tank of course). It would be cool if the radios were manual, so you'd have to click or whatever the radio to contact other tanks/sections/commander (I don't care if it's 3d or 2d). The radio operator would be the commander of the tank in case of the Germans, and as for the British I suppose co-driver/gunner (?).

6) There should be a warm-up starting time for the engine.

 

[drummer93]

I was playing PR and we were doing a tank battle and in order to hear the enemy tank getting near the driver had to get out of the tank to turn off the engine and to listen to where the tank was coming from. It would be much more efficient to just press let's say "E" so you could turn on and off the engine.

You can't turn on and off a tank like a car xD. Was more complicated

 

[FlyingR]

You can't turn on and off a tank like a car xD. Was more complicated

I know, but I'm talking about simplifying (like in WWIIO), unless they want to go full realism with it which I don't mind either!

 

[drummer93]

I know, but I'm talking about simplifying (like in WWIIO), unless they want to go full realism with it which I don't mind either!

Full realism in this case is just tedious, I know. But the more simple option, for me, is not put a turn on/off button. The noisy is an important factor, and I don't like the idea of turning on and off the engine around the map to be a "phantom tank".

This is the more simple and realistic option, talking about code, engines and combat tactics

 

[FlyingR]

Full realism in this case is just tedious, I know. But the more simple option, for me, is not put a turn on/off button. The noisy is an important factor, and I don't like the idea of turning on and off the engine around the map to be a "phantom tank".

This is the more simple and realistic option, talking about code, engines and combat tactics

So make it like PR:WWII? Just get in and you are able to drive? I've added on top the point #6 which is having an engine warm up starting time, maybe 30 seconds or 1 minute so that it's not that easy to just get in and drive off therefore you would sort of have to plan where would you turn on and off the engine.

 

[drummer93]

So make it like PR:WWII? Just get in and you are able to drive?

That's an option, the tank could be already on. In other hand I don't know how will be implemented the spawn, but maybe you will spawn inside the tank as a tank crew, and the turning on is not a problem, because again, is already on. I mean, the tank is always on.

The warm-up time is other option. I thought in it. That would avoid what I said in my other comment. You will turn off the tank if you really need it (I don't know why you need it, but well... )

 

[FlyingR]

That's an option, the tank could be already on. In other hand I don't know how will be implemented the spawn, but maybe you will spawn inside the tank as a tank crew, and the turning on is not a problem, because again, is already on. I mean, the tank is always on.

The warm-up time is other option. I thought in it. That would avoid what I said in my other comment. You will turn off the tank if you really need it (I don't know why you need it, but well... )

I personally don't like the idea of spawning in the tank, although it makes everything much easier (no need for kits, tank is already on, etc.). I prefer to run up the tank and get in. As I mentioned in my first post, and being that this game is not that realistic so there are quite a few scenarios where turning off the engine would be suitable.

I suppose maps will be big in Chapter 2 due to having tanks, so could fuel be a factor? If a tank would be lightly damaged, could it return to the main base to repair/refuel/re-stock on ammo?

 

[drummer93]

I suppose maps will be big in Chapter 2 due to having tanks, so could fuel be a factor?

I think no. For example, the operational range of the Panzer IV was 200 km on road and 120 km on cross country. I think it is not an important factor in the game.

 

[Aniallator]

I don't know how you want to implement tanks, and maybe you are already doing it this way, or at least thinking about it!

1) I hope you are implementing the tanks and overall vehicles like WWIIO where you have a gearbox and you can turn on and off the engines. The latter one is extremely important. I was playing PR and we were doing a tank battle and in order to hear the enemy tank getting near the driver had to get out of the tank to turn off the engine and to listen to where the tank was coming from. It would be much more efficient to just press let's say "E" so you could turn on and off the engine.

Yeah, you shouldn't be able to manually turn your engine on and off... wouldn't result in good gameplay, IMO.

2) It would be cool to have the ability to escape through bottom (or any other) hatches.

You mean rather than through the main hatch?

3) Please make it so that if you want to get in the tank, you must get on top, or jump on top of the tank rather than getting in from any position.

This should apply to all vehicles, so where you're seated depends on your point of entry. On a truck, for example, enter next to the rear and you'll be seated in the troop bay, enter next to the passenger door and you'll be seated in the passenger seat, try to enter next to the truck's side and nothing will happen. The main hatch is the only point of entry on tanks, of course, and where you're seated depends on your role (commander, driver, et cetera).

4) Make it possible so that the tanks can bring/transport at least a full section (8 men) on top of the tank.

I don't know why so many games forget this, but yes, allowing players to sit atop tanks is necessary. The number of players than can ride on a tank should depend on the kind of tank.

5) Tanks should have radios to coordinate between them and the Commander. There should be a person in charge of that (multi-crew tank of course). It would be cool if the radios were manual, so you'd have to click or whatever the radio to contact other tanks/sections/commander (I don't care if it's 3d or 2d). The radio operator would be the commander of the tank in case of the Germans, and as for the British I suppose co-driver/gunner (?).

No need to complicate things, the matter of tank-to-tank communication is resolved by how I imagine multi-crew tanks being implemented. There'd be tank sections as well as normal sections, a tank section allowing one bow gunner, one commander, one driver, and one gunner role. The commander role is, of course, the SL, thus he can use the non-positional VOIP available to SLs to talk to other tank SLs.

6) There should be a warm-up starting time for the engine.

Yeah, like 30-60 seconds of warm up time. Perhaps realistic warm up times can even be implemented for different tanks?

 

[FlyingR]

Yeah, you shouldn't be able to manually turn your engine on and off... wouldn't result in good gameplay, IMO.

Why not?

You mean rather than through the main hatch?

Have the option of getting out from different hatches. Also, the driver would get out of the driver's hatch if there's any.

This should apply to all vehicles, so where you're seated depends on your point of entry. On a truck, for example, enter next to the rear and you'll be seated in the troop bay, enter next to the passenger door and you'll be seated in the passenger seat, try to enter next to the truck's side and nothing will happen. The main hatch is the only point of entry on tanks, of course, and where you're seated depends on your role (commander, driver, et cetera).

Exactly!

I don't know why so many games forget this, but yes, allowing players to sit atop tanks is necessary. The number of players than can ride on a tank should depend on the kind of tank.

I think 8 people on any tank shouldn't be a problem, you can always find some space in it.

No need to complicate things, the matter of tank-to-tank communication is resolved by how I imagine multi-crew tanks being implemented. There'd be tank sections as well as normal sections, a tank section allowing one bow gunner, one commander, one driver, and one gunner role. The commander role is, of course, the SL, thus he can use the non-positional VOIP available to SLs to talk to other tank SLs.

Sure, yeah that works too, sometimes is fun to make it a bit more complex

Yeah, like 30-60 seconds of warm up time. Perhaps realistic warm up times can even be implemented for different tanks?

Yea sure!

 

[Aniallator]

Why not?

On one hand I just don't like the idea of, as [MENTION=1152]drummer93[/MENTION] put it, "phantom tanks" going around and shutting off their engines, but in general - as a tank commander - shutting off your engine is an awful idea. The chances of the enemy finding you are still high, only this time you'll be the definition of a sitting duck for 30-60 seconds. IRL, I doubt tank crews would have shut off their engine in a combat zone.

Have the option of getting out from different hatches. Also, the driver would get out of the driver's hatch if there's any.

I just don't think it'd really make a difference, though; IMO just keep entering/exiting to the main hatch.

 

[FlyingR]

On one hand I just don't like the idea of, as @drummer93 put it, "phantom tanks" going around and shutting off their engines, but in general - as a tank commander - shutting off your engine is an awful idea. The chances of the enemy finding you are still high, only this time you'll be the definition of a sitting duck for 30-60 seconds. IRL, I doubt tank crews would have shut off their engine in a combat zone.

Yes that I get, but this is a game. Imagine that Chapter 2 will feature the French countryside with hedgerows and such, where ambushes will be constant. Of course you would have to plan where and when exactly turn on/off your engine. In my opinion it would make the game more exciting for tanks, seeing as you can ambush or surprise the enemy with success.

Also maybe if there you can repair/re-arm your tank at main, you should be able to turn off your engine so that you can do it.

I just don't think it'd really make a difference, though; IMO just keep entering/exiting to the main hatch.

I was thinking maybe when your tank is damaged, it would be cool to just go under the bottom hatch, and crawl and nobody sees you

 

[Aniallator]

Yes that I get, but this is a game. Imagine that Chapter 2 will feature the French countryside with hedgerows and such, where ambushes will be constant. Of course you would have to plan where and when exactly turn on/off your engine. In my opinion it would make the game more exciting for tanks, seeing as you can ambush or surprise the enemy with success.

Also maybe if there you can repair/re-arm your tank at main, you should be able to turn off your engine so that you can do it.

Well, I'm kind of torn xD Oh, and we won't be able to repair tanks, and I doubt we'll be able to rearm them.

Another tank feature I really want to see is a walking pace forward speed. IMO a full-on gear shift system is over the top, but something simple like you hold W for normal forward speed and hold Shift and W for walking pace forward speed, the point of course being to allow infantry and tanks to keep pace. Imagine your section advancing into a town behind a tank!

 

[FlyingR]

Well, I'm kind of torn xD Oh, and we won't be able to repair tanks, and I doubt we'll be able to rearm them.

Well it all depends how they want to make the damage system for the tanks, for example if they make it so that if the tank gets shot and the turret is damaged, I think you should be able to bring it back to main to repair it.

As for the rearming, if the tank can be repaired then it should also be able to be re-armed. The point is that if the tank is damaged or out of ammo (somehow), we shouldn't just ditch the tank in the middle of the map, or else it won't be used again. It should be used until it's completely destroyed so it can respawn.

Another tank feature I really want to see is a walking pace forward speed. IMO a full-on gear shift system is over the top, but something simple like you hold W for normal forward speed and hold Shift and W for walking pace forward speed, the point of course being to allow infantry and tanks to keep pace. Imagine your section advancing into a town behind a tank!

That works, but it would be better if it had gear shift, for example in WWIIO you use "[" and "]" to shift the gears up or down. Something similar could be used in TW, maybe the driver could use the "Q" and "E" keys.

 

[drummer93]

That works, but it would be better if it had gear shift, for example in WWIIO you use "[" and "]" to shift the gears up or down. Something similar could be used in TW, maybe the driver could use the "Q" and "E" keys.

yes, I want this. Gear shift is the best option and is very funny to use. It works very well in WWIIO

 

[Aniallator]

Well it all depends how they want to make the damage system for the tanks, for example if they make it so that if the tank gets shot and the turret is damaged, I think you should be able to bring it back to main to repair it.

As for the rearming, if the tank can be repaired then it should also be able to be re-armed. The point is that if the tank is damaged or out of ammo (somehow), we shouldn't just ditch the tank in the middle of the map, or else it won't be used again. It should be used until it's completely destroyed so it can respawn.

Repairs to vehicles, let alone to tanks, are totally unrealistic. If your tank is damaged, it's damaged, and you have to adjust your tactics to compensate for that or abandon the tank altogether. Took a round to the turret, killing the commander and damaging the turret ring enough to prevent the turret from traversing? Stay out of urban areas, and keep at least a hundred meters between you and the enemy so the driver only has to maneuver in small increments to get the gunner a shot. You shouldn't magically be able to get a new turret ring. But as you pointed out, what happens when a tank has been damaged but not destroyed, and abandoned by its crew? Sitting there, useless, preventing another tank from spawning? Simple. When a tank has suffered, say, at least 50% damage to two or more components (left track, right track, turret mantlet, et cetera) and has been unoccupied for five minutes, it gets destroyed, thus triggering the respawn time for another tank.

If we see tank rearming, there's no need to turn off your tank's engine anyway.

How many gears do WW2O tanks use?

 

[drummer93]

Repairs to vehicles, let alone to tanks, are totally unrealistic. If your tank is damaged, it's damaged, and you have to adjust your tactics to compensate for that or abandon the tank altogether. Took a round to the turret, killing the commander and damaging the turret ring enough to prevent the turret from traversing? Stay out of urban areas, and keep at least a hundred meters between you and the enemy so the driver only has to maneuver in small increments to get the gunner a shot. You shouldn't magically be able to get a new turret ring. But as you pointed out, what happens when a tank has been damaged but not destroyed, and abandoned by its crew? Sitting there, useless, preventing another tank from spawning? Simple. When a tank has suffered, say, at least 50% damage to two or more components (left track, right track, turret mantlet, et cetera) and has been unoccupied for five minutes, it gets destroyed, thus triggering the respawn time for another tank.

What about the tank crew having the capability of destroy the tank if it is heavy damaged?

How many gears do WW2O tanks use?

I don't remember, but a lot. Could be interesting that each tank has the real amount gears

 

[FlyingR]

Repairs to vehicles, let alone to tanks, are totally unrealistic. If your tank is damaged, it's damaged, and you have to adjust your tactics to compensate for that or abandon the tank altogether. Took a round to the turret, killing the commander and damaging the turret ring enough to prevent the turret from traversing? Stay out of urban areas, and keep at least a hundred meters between you and the enemy so the driver only has to maneuver in small increments to get the gunner a shot. You shouldn't magically be able to get a new turret ring. But as you pointed out, what happens when a tank has been damaged but not destroyed, and abandoned by its crew? Sitting there, useless, preventing another tank from spawning? Simple. When a tank has suffered, say, at least 50% damage to two or more components (left track, right track, turret mantlet, et cetera) and has been unoccupied for five minutes, it gets destroyed, thus triggering the respawn time for another tank.

If we see tank rearming, there's no need to turn off your tank's engine anyway.

How many gears do WW2O tanks use?

Fair points, but I think this is one of the parts that the devs would have to decide between realism and fun. I think just for the sake of gameplay there should repairing because once the tank is lost, it should be lost for a long time (15 mins give or take). This means that the crew should know when to retreat to repair and when to fight. Repairing would take a long time, and I find retreating and repairing a tank more realistic than a tank destroying itself. If a tank would be abandoned, it should be left there until it is destroyed by someone and not by itself, because people will have that "oh well, it's damaged so let's get out and it will respawn itself" mentality. Sometimes you have to be in an urban area to defend or sometimes you can't just be at least a hundred meters from your enemy. That's why I insist that if you have to or plan to be in this situation it would work out to turn off your engine so you would be in an advantage.


If I remember correctly, they have somewhat realistic gear. I think the Tiger had 7?

 

[LuckyOne]

I don't know about repairing, but considering that it's possible that a medic system will be implemented in later chapters I'd say the tankers should get something similar at least. Of course heavy damage should not be possible to fix, but something like fixing a thrown track or replacing a vision block (if implemented) should be doable. Maybe some minor engine leaks too ...

 

[FlyingR]

I don't know about repairing, but considering that it's possible that a medic system will be implemented in later chapters I'd say the tankers should get something similar at least. Of course heavy damage should not be possible to fix, but something like fixing a thrown track or replacing a vision block (if implemented) should be doable. Maybe some minor engine leaks too ...

I'm ok with this, but how would you fix a tracked tank? You mean like PR where a logi truck drops a repair station?

Maybe the crewman kit should have a wrench or something or maybe the crewman kit would come with different tools (hammer, wrench, etc.) and you would need a combination of 3 or 4 tools/crew members to actually fix the tank, and it would take a long time to fix it of course. This would definitely aid the teamwork and the obligatory need of more than at least 3 players in a tank.

Lucky, what do you think of turning on and off the engine?