I have been watching this mod for a while and decided to come back now that it seems to be in full swing. Hey guys, I was just wondering how tanks are going to handled. What will the visibility out of tanks be like and what steps will you take to make tanks feel like the steel death traps they really are. Will there be damage? It would be really nice if it would be possible to immobilize enemy tanks with weapons that couldn't knock them out easy. By allowing individual components of a tank to be damaged it would add an awesome level of immersion.
-
Welcome to the Vanguard Community
These forums date back to the game's origins as the Crysis mod Traction Wars. Over the years the game and internet habits have evolved and discord.gg/vanguardww2 is now the principle home of the community.
The team continue to read and reply to posts here, but we can be contacted more quickly on Discord.
Tank Damage
- Thread starter Pascucci
- Start date
- Status
CanadianSquirrel
Member
I like that, having a Tiger would require talent!
Imagine a regular riflemen have to put a fragmentation Grenade into the tank's tracks to imobilize him until the Piat Comes in
Turret ring blocks, Canon electric fire stops functionning, Tracks broken?
Ammo-rack hit and instant explosion ?
With such things nobody will even adventure himself alone in a town
Just being scared to get jumped on and imobilized/destroyed
Also, having to repair tracks from the outside is the only realist way
Cordialement,
Squirrel
Imagine a regular riflemen have to put a fragmentation Grenade into the tank's tracks to imobilize him until the Piat Comes in
Turret ring blocks, Canon electric fire stops functionning, Tracks broken?
Ammo-rack hit and instant explosion ?
With such things nobody will even adventure himself alone in a town
Just being scared to get jumped on and imobilized/destroyed
Also, having to repair tracks from the outside is the only realist way
Cordialement,
Squirrel
Moody
Member
I would refer this to tanking in Red Orchestra 2. Even though there is only one tank on either side, they're both extremely detailed, and they really do feel like death traps when not supported by infantry. Unfortunately RO2's poor map design for most maps meant that combined arms wasn't very fun, and the tanking maps were simply frag fests. It would be a lot of work to make such a detailed interior, but the best way to make tanks feel like the hulking metal boxes they are is to have a detailed interior.
I would say that it doesn't have to be as detailed as RO2 (which has animated loader and crew positions). But having the ability to look through different view ports or unbutton to get a better look around would be awesome.
I would say that it doesn't have to be as detailed as RO2 (which has animated loader and crew positions). But having the ability to look through different view ports or unbutton to get a better look around would be awesome.
CanadianSquirrel
Member
I have already posted this idea but it's here anyways :
Whynot using tracks differently ? We ain't driving cars! Those are tanks! Whynot use the Q and A keys for left track and E-D or W-S tu use the right track ?
Also, having a track broken should not stop the tank from turning around in circles!
Cordialement,
Squirrel
Whynot using tracks differently ? We ain't driving cars! Those are tanks! Whynot use the Q and A keys for left track and E-D or W-S tu use the right track ?
Also, having a track broken should not stop the tank from turning around in circles!
Cordialement,
Squirrel
CanadianSquirrel
Member
Double-Posting is Fun'Z!
I was watching a Documentary today and it showed that Shermans had a Star in the bottom front plate
(That thing that attaches Upper and Lower body). For germans it was a designated target for an Auto-Boom.
It, apparently, Destroyed transmition -> Gas tank -> Ammo Rack and BOOM. Turret went flying leaving the Poor shermy on Fire.
Was removed a few weeks after, people noticed the Germans were aiming at those sweet spots
'Dem bananas
-Squirrel
I was watching a Documentary today and it showed that Shermans had a Star in the bottom front plate
(That thing that attaches Upper and Lower body). For germans it was a designated target for an Auto-Boom.
It, apparently, Destroyed transmition -> Gas tank -> Ammo Rack and BOOM. Turret went flying leaving the Poor shermy on Fire.
Was removed a few weeks after, people noticed the Germans were aiming at those sweet spots
'Dem bananas
-Squirrel
![[JR]Hussar](/community/data/avatars/m/0/532.jpg?1534595482){kind=avatar}
[JR]Hussar
Member
RO2s interior for tanks is good and ironically, by allowing you to look into the open spaces inside, you feel more isolated; obviously graphics wise cryengine 3 looks better, but for actual tanking; throw the RO2 template away as it's nonsense. Look more at the importance of angling armour seen in RO1 and some of the damage factors of Darkest Hour (which is a free mod to RO1).
Now those games both allow things like de-tracking and destruction of the lighter armoured engine compartments and if it can be achieved on an engine like those on games 6-7 years old then I'm positive it can be replicated here.
At the end of the day, if you're going to have armour and the game is going to be realistic (which it may as well because it's a looker, so a looker+ personality= epic win) you need yo have values like this built in. It is the kind of characteristic which will make that guy in the Jagdpanther more nervous when traversing ground, in the knowledge that someone could be lurking in the low riding and nimble Cromwell; because one of those HE (or even AP) rounds from that QF75 coming into contact is going to equal "bye bye" to a wheel or break the tracks etc and an assault gun that cannot pirouette is a combat ineffective platform and will present itself as an easy target for a Firefly, Comet, PIAT team or just some guy with a satchel full of explosives. Of course tanks such as Tigers will not be as vulnerable as their turret can still traverse and therefore whilst they are stationary and easily outflanked, they will be able to track targets...but even so they will not be combat effective as anyone with a pinch of common sense will see a way around them. Of course if their engine has been killed then they are saying bye bye to powering their turret as it had hydraulic powering so engine off meant hand cranking. Now the Tigers turret took just over 60secs (compare that with about 14 seconds for Chally 2) to turn 1 revolution when powered, it was much slower when handcranked and therefore unless you're driving head on, in open ground right at them, they won't be able to track you and therefore they won't stand a chance. What this does is balances it out slightly, which makes games such as Darkest Hour (and to a lesser extent RO1 and even less again RO2) alot more fun/ interesting/ exciting. I often take a Crommie to do forward Recce on DH and spend alot of my time stalking heavies and disabling them, on some maps they have the Mk1 Cromwell which had the 57mm 6Pndr gun and therefore it is possible to actually kill some heavies from the rear and sides (and from the front with Panthers that are reasonably close) Of course with Panthers, it's not such a massive issue as despite their heavy frontal armour (thicker than Tiger's due to angle) their side and rear armour was fairly easily defeated by even the 75mm at moderate ranges. Another feature that DH includes that this game should have is damagable turret rings and individual areas within a tank. What these do respectively is allow you to jam turrets by hitting a sweet spot, a very handy (but lucky) shot to make against German heavies (in particular the Tiger 1) and the individual zones mean that rather than a tank always going up in flames on a healthbar system, you can have a penetration with no detonation, if the round passes through the front you can kill a driver or front mg or both, or a gunner/ commander etc, this just adds to realism and makes it less generic.
2 things that DH doesn't have which would be cool for this game is 1) Cherries, the red hot circles that formed around holes formed by AP rounds penetrating a tanks armour and 2) other crew members. Before I suggested it like DH which means if you lone wolf then it is you and 2 empty slots (1 in some vehicles like the firefly and assault guns due to a lack of bow mg and commander and gunner being the same position) I think, given Moody's reference to RO2, that is actually a better way of doing it. It makes it slightly more functional but still, some humans with voice comms would have the advantage, so it'd still be pushing the envelope for team play, which should certainly be concentrated on when we're looking at a REALISM game as opposed to an ARCADE game.
*edit* going back to the RO2 style crewing, the other thing is the changing of positions, when all crew are alive then it's a quick change between the postions, but if you're changing into a station where the crewman is dead then you actually have to climb through the tank (it's an animation and you don't control it) this is well worth putting in as the split second changes into empty positions on RO1 and DH doesn't feel realistic. RO2 got it right with that
Anyway, that's my 2 cents, good to see healthy debate going on in the forum, as always its a pleasure to come, discuss and suggest!
Cheers,
Ollie
Now those games both allow things like de-tracking and destruction of the lighter armoured engine compartments and if it can be achieved on an engine like those on games 6-7 years old then I'm positive it can be replicated here.
At the end of the day, if you're going to have armour and the game is going to be realistic (which it may as well because it's a looker, so a looker+ personality= epic win) you need yo have values like this built in. It is the kind of characteristic which will make that guy in the Jagdpanther more nervous when traversing ground, in the knowledge that someone could be lurking in the low riding and nimble Cromwell; because one of those HE (or even AP) rounds from that QF75 coming into contact is going to equal "bye bye" to a wheel or break the tracks etc and an assault gun that cannot pirouette is a combat ineffective platform and will present itself as an easy target for a Firefly, Comet, PIAT team or just some guy with a satchel full of explosives. Of course tanks such as Tigers will not be as vulnerable as their turret can still traverse and therefore whilst they are stationary and easily outflanked, they will be able to track targets...but even so they will not be combat effective as anyone with a pinch of common sense will see a way around them. Of course if their engine has been killed then they are saying bye bye to powering their turret as it had hydraulic powering so engine off meant hand cranking. Now the Tigers turret took just over 60secs (compare that with about 14 seconds for Chally 2) to turn 1 revolution when powered, it was much slower when handcranked and therefore unless you're driving head on, in open ground right at them, they won't be able to track you and therefore they won't stand a chance. What this does is balances it out slightly, which makes games such as Darkest Hour (and to a lesser extent RO1 and even less again RO2) alot more fun/ interesting/ exciting. I often take a Crommie to do forward Recce on DH and spend alot of my time stalking heavies and disabling them, on some maps they have the Mk1 Cromwell which had the 57mm 6Pndr gun and therefore it is possible to actually kill some heavies from the rear and sides (and from the front with Panthers that are reasonably close) Of course with Panthers, it's not such a massive issue as despite their heavy frontal armour (thicker than Tiger's due to angle) their side and rear armour was fairly easily defeated by even the 75mm at moderate ranges. Another feature that DH includes that this game should have is damagable turret rings and individual areas within a tank. What these do respectively is allow you to jam turrets by hitting a sweet spot, a very handy (but lucky) shot to make against German heavies (in particular the Tiger 1) and the individual zones mean that rather than a tank always going up in flames on a healthbar system, you can have a penetration with no detonation, if the round passes through the front you can kill a driver or front mg or both, or a gunner/ commander etc, this just adds to realism and makes it less generic.
2 things that DH doesn't have which would be cool for this game is 1) Cherries, the red hot circles that formed around holes formed by AP rounds penetrating a tanks armour and 2) other crew members. Before I suggested it like DH which means if you lone wolf then it is you and 2 empty slots (1 in some vehicles like the firefly and assault guns due to a lack of bow mg and commander and gunner being the same position) I think, given Moody's reference to RO2, that is actually a better way of doing it. It makes it slightly more functional but still, some humans with voice comms would have the advantage, so it'd still be pushing the envelope for team play, which should certainly be concentrated on when we're looking at a REALISM game as opposed to an ARCADE game.
*edit* going back to the RO2 style crewing, the other thing is the changing of positions, when all crew are alive then it's a quick change between the postions, but if you're changing into a station where the crewman is dead then you actually have to climb through the tank (it's an animation and you don't control it) this is well worth putting in as the split second changes into empty positions on RO1 and DH doesn't feel realistic. RO2 got it right with that
Anyway, that's my 2 cents, good to see healthy debate going on in the forum, as always its a pleasure to come, discuss and suggest!
Cheers,
Ollie
Last edited:
VonMudra
Well-known member
We will be trying to make tank combat as realistic as possible, though I'm unsure if we can denote various parts of the tank as damaged or not.
However, I should note that, at least I, am very strongly against multi-crew tanks. The problems are multiple. For starters, it limits the numbers of tanks and infantry that can be on a map if a minimum of 2-3 people is needed per tank. That quickly can turn a 64 player server into a ghost town. Next, communication only works if the people are A) Able to communicate, B) Willing to communicated and C) Willing to take and understand orders from each other person. Outside of well trained, organized gaming clans, this can be neigh-impossible on a gaming server. Next, that brings us to the next issue. A well trained tank crew trained together for months if not years. They operated as a single individual, a well oiled machine that was capable, through simple commands and motions (in the case of russian tanks, foot jabs) to operate the entire tank. This is simply impossible ingame. Not only does lag cause tank operations to slow with each step of command, it also would be lacking that physical connection and bond made by a tank crew. In the end, the only way of realistically portraying how a tank would function in the field is, in fact, to have single player controlled tanks.
However, I should note that, at least I, am very strongly against multi-crew tanks. The problems are multiple. For starters, it limits the numbers of tanks and infantry that can be on a map if a minimum of 2-3 people is needed per tank. That quickly can turn a 64 player server into a ghost town. Next, communication only works if the people are A) Able to communicate, B) Willing to communicated and C) Willing to take and understand orders from each other person. Outside of well trained, organized gaming clans, this can be neigh-impossible on a gaming server. Next, that brings us to the next issue. A well trained tank crew trained together for months if not years. They operated as a single individual, a well oiled machine that was capable, through simple commands and motions (in the case of russian tanks, foot jabs) to operate the entire tank. This is simply impossible ingame. Not only does lag cause tank operations to slow with each step of command, it also would be lacking that physical connection and bond made by a tank crew. In the end, the only way of realistically portraying how a tank would function in the field is, in fact, to have single player controlled tanks.
Moody
Member
All fair points VonMundra, but something about single crewed tanks just doesn't sit well with me. I think that having that communication and actual interaction with other players as a crew is at least half the fun of crewing a tank. Most of my tanking experience comes from RO1 and Darkest Hour. To me not having multiple crew spots is like taking away the assistant/loader for an MG team. In real life the MG team would communicate, train together, and work like a well oiled machine, just like the tank crew, so using the same type of logic, taking away the MG assistant would help the MG gunner move and fire as efficiently as in real life, But it sacrifices the additional teamwork and small sense of camaraderie that comes with it. I'm not trying to say that your view is bad, I see it's merits, I just feel like going down that route would be trading the teamwork and communication aspects of tanking for realism and functionality, and that I'd personally prefer to have the teamwork and communication.
I think most of the communication problems can be solved with a more intuitive crewing system, as well as a decent spotting/commands system. Tanks would only be a 2 man crew, driver and gunner. The gunner is simply in charge of the main cannon and attached MG, meanwhile the driver gets to drive and command the tank. The driver can switch between the driver's seat, and the commander's seat (but the driver can still drive the tank around from the commander's seat). From the driver's seat, the driver can use the view ports, and unbutton for some more situational awareness. From the commander's seat the driver can use the commander's view ports, or unbutton to get a better look and use the 50 cal. The driver and gunner can also mark targets on the screen that the other can see (not realistic, but it makes up for the lack of precise communication). The gunner can also give instantaneous movement commands with the wasd keys (s to halt, w for forward, a or d to rotate 45*, double tap a or d to rotate 90*), as well as a panic button (space or q) that yells at the driver to get us the hell outta here.
It's not perfect, I don't think it will ever be. But like I said earlier, the opportunity to crew a tank together with friends and/or strangers is what injects that feeling of camaraderie and teamwork into a game. I also think it looks and feels more human to fight against a multi crewed tank, you can sometimes see their panic just by looking at them. Besides, getting blown up with other people is always more enjoyable than getting blown up alone.
I think most of the communication problems can be solved with a more intuitive crewing system, as well as a decent spotting/commands system. Tanks would only be a 2 man crew, driver and gunner. The gunner is simply in charge of the main cannon and attached MG, meanwhile the driver gets to drive and command the tank. The driver can switch between the driver's seat, and the commander's seat (but the driver can still drive the tank around from the commander's seat). From the driver's seat, the driver can use the view ports, and unbutton for some more situational awareness. From the commander's seat the driver can use the commander's view ports, or unbutton to get a better look and use the 50 cal. The driver and gunner can also mark targets on the screen that the other can see (not realistic, but it makes up for the lack of precise communication). The gunner can also give instantaneous movement commands with the wasd keys (s to halt, w for forward, a or d to rotate 45*, double tap a or d to rotate 90*), as well as a panic button (space or q) that yells at the driver to get us the hell outta here.
It's not perfect, I don't think it will ever be. But like I said earlier, the opportunity to crew a tank together with friends and/or strangers is what injects that feeling of camaraderie and teamwork into a game. I also think it looks and feels more human to fight against a multi crewed tank, you can sometimes see their panic just by looking at them. Besides, getting blown up with other people is always more enjoyable than getting blown up alone.
[JR]Hussar
Member
VonMudra,
With respect I cannot disagree with you more. Your suggestion that a single person tank will somehow replicate some sense of authenticity seems way off the mark. If you look at what I've said, you don't need 3 people in a tank, and in fact if you apply an RO2 or T34vsTiger approach which have AI crewmembers that follow your commands then all will be well, but in RO2 for instance it asks if you will allow fellow human player to take up positions in that tank. All you need is a comms system with a vehicles setting and people can communicate. Of course people could take the lone wolf option with their AI crew, but what this means is that you could have a system whereby penetrating shots could kill individual members of a tank. If you go for the single tank option then you risk the game becoming like battlefield, which is nothing to aim for.
As for the rendering of certain parts of a tank useless, surely that must be possible as many games implement such characteristics, otherwise what you'll end up with is a load of Heavy tanks dominating the battlefield and virtually untouchable. At least with de-tracking and engine immobilization some of the advantage can be balance out; otherwise you end up with a) no one wanting to play Allies on maps that include tanks or b) having to compromise, as in FH2, by allowing weapons that could not kill certain platforms to kill those platforms and before you know it you're on a healthbar style damage system which is far from realism.
Moody is spot on when he talks about multi positioning giving a sense of camaraderie and with a half well thought out communication system it can all go according to. 1 man tanking would still be possible with an AI crew but it would also make it feel more mature. 1 man tanking battlefield style= morons driving about doing their own thing and not really contributing to the game much. It's just not the way to do it.
Would I still play traction wars if this was the case? Yes, undoubtedly; but the real question is would it be what it has the potential to be and the answer would be a flat no. I no I have no idea who hard it is to build a game, and for anyone with those skills, I salute you; however you have put such a massive attention to detail so far on modelling and the lighting etc; it would be sad not to see you go the whole hog and give it the personality too!
With respect I cannot disagree with you more. Your suggestion that a single person tank will somehow replicate some sense of authenticity seems way off the mark. If you look at what I've said, you don't need 3 people in a tank, and in fact if you apply an RO2 or T34vsTiger approach which have AI crewmembers that follow your commands then all will be well, but in RO2 for instance it asks if you will allow fellow human player to take up positions in that tank. All you need is a comms system with a vehicles setting and people can communicate. Of course people could take the lone wolf option with their AI crew, but what this means is that you could have a system whereby penetrating shots could kill individual members of a tank. If you go for the single tank option then you risk the game becoming like battlefield, which is nothing to aim for.
As for the rendering of certain parts of a tank useless, surely that must be possible as many games implement such characteristics, otherwise what you'll end up with is a load of Heavy tanks dominating the battlefield and virtually untouchable. At least with de-tracking and engine immobilization some of the advantage can be balance out; otherwise you end up with a) no one wanting to play Allies on maps that include tanks or b) having to compromise, as in FH2, by allowing weapons that could not kill certain platforms to kill those platforms and before you know it you're on a healthbar style damage system which is far from realism.
Moody is spot on when he talks about multi positioning giving a sense of camaraderie and with a half well thought out communication system it can all go according to. 1 man tanking would still be possible with an AI crew but it would also make it feel more mature. 1 man tanking battlefield style= morons driving about doing their own thing and not really contributing to the game much. It's just not the way to do it.
Would I still play traction wars if this was the case? Yes, undoubtedly; but the real question is would it be what it has the potential to be and the answer would be a flat no. I no I have no idea who hard it is to build a game, and for anyone with those skills, I salute you; however you have put such a massive attention to detail so far on modelling and the lighting etc; it would be sad not to see you go the whole hog and give it the personality too!
The way I see it the problem is a matter of how you play the game. If you have a group of friends you play with regularly then 2 player tanks are brilliant and for me at takes the experience onto a whole new level.
On the other hand it's very hard if not impossible to make that experience accessible to players who are playing with strangers who may not even speak their language. Purely from my own point of view I think some form of combined approach which offers players the ability to play alone or alternatively as part of a multi-crew tank. After-all a multi-crew tank if done correctly has a major advantage over a 1-player tank. It would require careful balancing but I think it could work.
On the other hand it's very hard if not impossible to make that experience accessible to players who are playing with strangers who may not even speak their language. Purely from my own point of view I think some form of combined approach which offers players the ability to play alone or alternatively as part of a multi-crew tank. After-all a multi-crew tank if done correctly has a major advantage over a 1-player tank. It would require careful balancing but I think it could work.
[JR]Hussar
Member
Well a system similar to RO2s would allow just that, as I stress, a single player can operate a tank, the other positions could be done by AI but as soon as you press a number key, you switch into that position. If not driving you can control the tank with W,A,S,D whilst operating say, the turret which will give lone wolfers what they want, but equally if someone wants to play together then 1 could drive and the other could take care of the rest making it a more effective asset.
I have always stood against a BF Project Reality style system where the first man in can drive, but cannot access other areas of the tank.
More importantly though is damage areas which will change the dynamics of gameplay as will other aesthetics such as "ranging" as opposed to "oh I'll just aim into the sky and hope that it drops at the right rate" gunnery. These are the kinds of characteristics which have distinguished RO1, DH and RO2 from the rest of the pack.
Of course, you guys know what CAN be built into this game, I am merely submitting suggestions for discussion.
Cheers, Ollie
I have always stood against a BF Project Reality style system where the first man in can drive, but cannot access other areas of the tank.
More importantly though is damage areas which will change the dynamics of gameplay as will other aesthetics such as "ranging" as opposed to "oh I'll just aim into the sky and hope that it drops at the right rate" gunnery. These are the kinds of characteristics which have distinguished RO1, DH and RO2 from the rest of the pack.
Of course, you guys know what CAN be built into this game, I am merely submitting suggestions for discussion.
Cheers, Ollie
CanadianSquirrel
Member
That is a good plan.
Having Bots in the tanks, good, switching slots each time ? No.
I wonder what being a Tank commander looks like with bots.
Basically you could sort of mark targets, and there would be a delay (Not even long enough to be a delay )
Then, for example, the order you gave would be executed.
With Radio voices that'd be cool.
As far as it's not a GPS Voice like in ArmA 2 i'm in
Having Bots in the tanks, good, switching slots each time ? No.
I wonder what being a Tank commander looks like with bots.
Basically you could sort of mark targets, and there would be a delay (Not even long enough to be a delay
)Then, for example, the order you gave would be executed.
With Radio voices that'd be cool.
As far as it's not a GPS Voice like in ArmA 2 i'm in
I am also totally in favor of multicrew tanks, not sure about how to implement it, but I think it adds a much more detailed teamwork layer. This is something Mudra and I have always been divided on, mostly because I don't believe tanks functions as finely tuned machines. I really don't think the language barrier will be much of a problem and certainly not one to choose one man tanks over two man tanks for. In RO everything worked fine and it was a ton of fun to be in a fully crewed tank with like minded people. Of course RO and RO2 had a ton of historical inaccuracies, but I know you can do it better.
Moody
Member
I feel like simply having a really good VOIP system in game would help with stangers working together in tanks. VOIP in RO has never been great, it's been functional, but not all that intuitive. Having an easy to use, stable, and clear sounding VOIP for vehicles (obviously local VOIP would be ideal) would definitely increase cohesion between strangers in a tank, as long as 1 of them has a mic (many people have mics these days).
On top of that, if the select slot class system is how it's gonna be done, then a votekick/mutiny system for those special slots (tankers/MG/Squadleaders) would be a good idea, so if you do get two dopeheads in a tank, something can be done about it.
On top of that, if the select slot class system is how it's gonna be done, then a votekick/mutiny system for those special slots (tankers/MG/Squadleaders) would be a good idea, so if you do get two dopeheads in a tank, something can be done about it.
Swaffy
Member
Just an idea,
you can have the driver also control the turret, then you can have extra seats for other positions such as the .50 cal on top of a tank turret or those little hull MGs so that there are still available seats for other players to use.
You guys are the devs, so you know what gameplay you want to create.
you can have the driver also control the turret, then you can have extra seats for other positions such as the .50 cal on top of a tank turret or those little hull MGs so that there are still available seats for other players to use.
You guys are the devs, so you know what gameplay you want to create.
Hello, I want to ask some question about tank damage system.
Is there any ? I mean something similar with Theater of war 2 Kursk, Men of War Assault Squad or Iron Front 1944, World of Tanks
Does Cryengine 3 calculate quality, angle of surface, armor/material penetration under angle and these things ?
Thanks.
Is there any ? I mean something similar with Theater of war 2 Kursk, Men of War Assault Squad or Iron Front 1944, World of Tanks
Does Cryengine 3 calculate quality, angle of surface, armor/material penetration under angle and these things ?
Thanks.
[JR]Hussar
Member
Not sure. I'm going to go back to the latest edition of Darkest Hour (now a dead game after many years of good play) it was on an engine from 2005, took into account the weight of the shell, shell type, muzzle velocity, angle of armour, front/side/back/top/belly armour and took into account penetration (where a round could penetrated doing no damage, or kill some or all crew, or damage sights or jam turret or gun elevation).
Really, looking back, it was a remarkable system they eventually put in place and it made for some fantastic tanking. Indeed my clan, the Jolly Rodgers (hence [JR]) were the main tank clan on it and it was incredible. I used to love going allies in a Cromwell and taking on P4s, P3s and then avoiding the heavies (we had Panthers, Jagd Panthers, Tigers, King Tigers, Jagd Tigers etc) and I'd shoot HE at their tracks which would really annoy whoever was in them. Also the Crommie with the 57mm was great, good AP which could even take Panthers out when close. We learned to use the undulating terrain as well as structures and foliage to camoflage our movement, scroll mouse up when gunner and you came out of the hatch and scroll up again and you went to bino mode, found targets, used WSAD to move turret, into gun sights, shoot and then haul ass outta there!.
This is the kind of thing I know Tractions wars could accomplish. Sorry, went on a tangent there but yeah, it needs a decent damage system rather than a "healthbar" system.
Really, looking back, it was a remarkable system they eventually put in place and it made for some fantastic tanking. Indeed my clan, the Jolly Rodgers (hence [JR]) were the main tank clan on it and it was incredible. I used to love going allies in a Cromwell and taking on P4s, P3s and then avoiding the heavies (we had Panthers, Jagd Panthers, Tigers, King Tigers, Jagd Tigers etc) and I'd shoot HE at their tracks which would really annoy whoever was in them. Also the Crommie with the 57mm was great, good AP which could even take Panthers out when close. We learned to use the undulating terrain as well as structures and foliage to camoflage our movement, scroll mouse up when gunner and you came out of the hatch and scroll up again and you went to bino mode, found targets, used WSAD to move turret, into gun sights, shoot and then haul ass outta there!.
This is the kind of thing I know Tractions wars could accomplish. Sorry, went on a tangent there but yeah, it needs a decent damage system rather than a "healthbar" system.
[JR]Hussar
Member
As for the comms, you need an Arma style comms system. DH had a team, public and area (area channel never worked) so people ended up talking in public or typing. However the game did allow you to use the numpad for commands i.e. 8= forward, 4= left, 7= left a little....problem was most people didn't realise it existed as you needed to manually set it in key controls.
- Status