l 5th l Col.WeissmanPersonally, I wish they would ax the external camera views as well. A floating camera behind my tank?? Riiiiiight. Nice arcade touch, Dice. Even with modern viewing prisms and other innovations, it is still pretty difficult to get an accurate picture of what is around you. There again, teamwork.
Yes, you have the chase cam, and the other cam views. But IRL the tank commander had a 360 view even while buttoned up, with his vision slits in the commanders cuppola. Tanks had limited views, but not tunnel vision to the front.
Again, as elsewhere in the game, SOME sacrifices are made to realism in order to simulate how things actually worked and to do a rough recreation WITHIN the limits of the game engine.
In real life, when one is flying a plane:
1.) One is not constrained to staring straight ahead. You can (and SHOULD) be looking all around while flying, all the time. This is why bubble cockpits are better than the cockpit on, say, a BF-109 or a P-51B. Even in a "space combat" sim like the original Wing Commander, you could check your 3, 9, and 6 o'clock via a pre-set view. In BF1942, this is not possible. So, we have chasecam and tailcam.
2.) One's view while flying is not nearly as obstructed in the cockpit as BF1942 might have you believe. You might have the nose of the plane block your view when you're taking off, but regular flying does not place this gigantic obelisk in your face. Visibility overall is MUCH better. But, since that's not possible in the game, we have the nosecam.
My point? Sacrifices to realism are made all the time in order to make the game playable. Chasecams and such should be left alone, unless you provide the players with other options to simulate proper visibility conditions.
That said, unless and until there are destructible environments, the role of the combat engineer is severely limited. Essentially, you could roll him into the AT class, give the AT trooper mines in addition to the AT weapon, and that'd be that. Since we don't have flamethrowers and we don't have destructible terrain or objects (aside from vehicles), there's really not a ton for the engineers to be doing in the game. As I've said elsewhere, you always have to consider the ROLE of the weapon you're employing. IE: You don't put a Jagdpanzer on a map with no other tanks.
I think the satchel charge idea is cool (and is certainly more accurate than expacks -- satchels were actually used to kill tanks here and there), but its damage is going to have to be balanced pretty well. Maybe magnetic or sticky bombs would be a better anti-tank solution.
I don't know why they don't add a commander seat to every tank... they should. The StuG III G's commander position rocks. It's very useful. Maybe it should be more realistic, and work more like a turret with a smaller viewing area and so on, but at least it's there.
Because then tanks would operate like artillery -- you'd need one guy driving and/or firing, and the other guy in the commander's cupola. The system we've got currently is about as good as it gets, I think. The only thing that would help more is if 0.62 fixes ALL of the top MG positions and/or adds hull MGs to all the tanks that actually had 'em.
Solo4114Maybe magnetic or sticky bombs would be a better anti-tank solution.
But then Engineers would be just as deadly as they are now. Yes, you have to get RIGHT close, but most engineers now do anyway to toss a detpack at it. Dets just allow you to set a trap, which most tank drivers see and avoid anyway. With sticky or magnetic bombs, you just hide, slap in on a MOVING tank easily, and run. This would be cool, but isn't the point to decrease the AT ability of engineers while trying to keep realistic? With 5 sec satchels, if you manage to toss that thing on the back of a moving tank you deserve the kill. Or, if he's sitting still, he deserves to die. I wonder, will a satchel underneith the tank do as much damage as one ontop of the engine housing?
Solo4114 The only thing that would help more is if 0.62 fixes ALL of the top MG positions and/or adds hull MGs to all the tanks that actually had 'em.
Yes......i have been bringing that up for ages....before FH 0.5 even.
I don't know why the devs never say something about this, why tanks don't have hull mg position but the model is clearly showing one.
Tanks need to be deadlier to infantry, wich was historically a tanks most common target. Even Tigers fought infantry >80 % of the time, wich can clearly be read in the Tiger fibel. Over half of a Tiger's ammo was HE against infantry type targets, and it carried an abundance of MG ammo. Wasting cannon rounds on targets that could be killed with MG rounds was stricly forbidden !
The lack of a choice between HE or AP muniton is already a crucial drawback when it comes to fighting infantry with tanks.......if they also do not have their real life MG positions they are very weak against infantry, where the real life tanks were designed to kill infantry. That separates a tank from a tank destroyer......although most late war tanks were also very effective anti tank units too.
But we are talking Sherman, T34, PanzerIV ( the versions that don't have them ) and future Panzer III and Panzer 38t here....
I am also convinced if versions existed with hull mg, such as the brummbar that version should be in FH, not the one without. FH units operate without the protection of whole infantry bataljons the real vehicles had......that is why it is nessesary they can defend themselves when running into infantry.
Same goes for the Wespe, that really had a MG34 onboard right out of the factory......it could be mounted on top of the gunshield when it ran into enemy infantry. I guess if it had been modelled by FH devs they automaticly had run into the boxes for the MG34 and it's munitions in the fighting compartment when they studied the blueprints.....
They have said before which they simply havent had time to add the hull MG to everything yet, but that they plan to add them all at some point.
LordKhaineThey have said before which they simply havent had time to add the hull MG to everything yet, but that they plan to add them all at some point.
I never read that anywhere........but if you say so i guess they did.
I just wish the brummbar didn't suck, I can live with the open MG ;). I used to love it in 0.5, but in 0.6 it really seems to lack. For such a huge shell and blast, it really seems to do little damage. Maybe it's just me
Solo4114Because then tanks would operate like artillery -- you'd need one guy driving and/or firing, and the other guy in the commander's cupola. The system we've got currently is about as good as it gets, I think. The only thing that would help more is if 0.62 fixes ALL of the top MG positions and/or adds hull MGs to all the tanks that actually had 'em.
Uh? I'm not sure what you mean. A commander position != driver and gunner separated. That's the last thing we need. It's just that the commander could keep on lookout for the enemies much better than the driver-gunner. Or do like I do when alone in a StuG currently - when still and no enemies ahead, I pop into the commander slot to take a good look around. The commander position would by no means be a required slot to be filled, but when filled would be useful. By the way, as the StuG commander for example can call artillery, the commander view should have a crosshair so you could actually call in proper artillery strikes too. Currently you can't really see where you're pointing at. In all there is improving to be done to the current system. The bow machine guns and such on the tanks that are still missing them being one big thing. Some tanks already have them, which is nice, but unsurprisingly those tanks are most German ones :rolleyes: I'd love to get the hull MG to my dear T-34 in 0.62 already.