Control Zones and believable reaslistic Tanks

[Noblesse Oblige [KG] ⳩]

Is it possible to make the tanks less gamey and more like their modern counterparts in terms of the way the armor works?

I have been trying to like Broken Arrow but just can't. I just love the Eugen interface so much more, the commands like counter battery make Eugen games a cut above the rest. Broken Arrow is so twitch driven in comparison. However the long and short of it is that I just cannot believe the way the tank damage works. I don't believe when I see tanks taking so many hits from both things that should and should not penetrate or kill them. Of course their are some instances where luck should play a part, but if your tank gets hit and penetrated I cannot get my head around how HEAT especially does not just melt the inside of the tank and make the crew at least bail out.
Perhaps a fix for this is to get the crew to bail after penetration and have them board again once moral has recovered.
Another suggestion would be to have "non-critical" penetrations or don't call them penetrations at all unless they take large chunks of health. Instead call them "wrong angle" or "failed to burn through" but take some health because some armor is damaged. But reporting penetrations and then having the tank ignore them seems crazy. I mean most penetrations would get into the crew compartment right? If not the engine or something else critical? How about a report for penetration "minor damage" ??? That might do it.

As for Control Zones. A new game mode that might make things less predictable for artillery might be to do a front line steel division 2 system without showing exactly where the frontline is might be to cover the entire map with massive control zones. This way you can capture control zones and still have nobody know where you are exactly. OR you just don't bother capping the zone (or have an option for turning off capping on command vehicles) at all if you don't want the enemy to know about a flanking move.

Alternately use the frontline system from steel division2 and give all troops the option to be like recon and not affect the frontline. Therefore hiding your advance. I think this is the main problem people had with the excellent SD2 frontlines.

[GAINSB]

Idk man, a more complex damage system for individual tanks would make the game much less readable and micro heavy.
Altough if I remember well, Wargame EU had a more technical failures happening to vehicles, and much more different possible failures, I loved that stuff, wish it was in Warno aswell.

[Gordons]

I recall in red dragon if you took your tanks off road / through woods there was a chance they would get stuck for a while, which i liked it made fighting for roads more relevant where as now it well supported tanks with inf in woodland have no downsides i don't think

[Radegast]

What you see on net videos from UE are cutted materials. There are verifier reports from Syria. Its only Hollywood imagine,that vehicles blow up after being hit.

[b4ry]

Go for Armored Brigade 2

[Noblesse Oblige [KG] ⳩]

AB2 is single player and the wheels on vehicles don't move ;)

I don't necessarily need a more complex mechanic. Just one that makes more sense than bean counter bar tank wars.

[Ahriman]

There are two notable flaws that end up happening as a result of adding features such as expanded critical effects akin to what we see in Steel Division as an example.

Due to the amount of units we have in the game, which is all things considered on the lower side, especially when you compare it to SD, a large list of critical effects ranging from Bail Out to Track Damage, could very, very easily lead up to incredible frustrations where you launch an offensive perfectly by the book, only to see the first volley of ATGMs from 10 BMP-1s hit 4 of your tanks, see two of them Bail Out, and one with their main gun destroyed, which now means the two Bailed Out tanks are dead as artillery will immediately follow, alternatively a single tank will come over to finish them off.

The other is simply engine limitations, there is not much they can do to add to make Tank Combat more 'engaging'. The more they'd try to work around it, the more it circles back to the way the tanks were designed to begin with. Less about critical damage, and being blown up/disabled in one hit, and more about giving players the chance to retreat for repairs.

[DasaKamov]

Originally posted by Ahriman:

the volley of ATGMs from 10 BMP-1s hit 4 of your tanks, see two of them Bail Out, and one with their main gun destroyed, which now means the two Bailed Out tanks are dead as artillery will immediately follow, alternatively a single tank will come over to finish them off.

I don't see how that's any worse than the current situation where 10 BMPs fire ATGMs at 4 tanks, and two of the tanks just die. The end result is the same, except with the Critical Hits, the player has a chance to recover the Bailed Out vehicles.

I'm all for greater chances of Critical Hit Effects - the ones we have in-game are promising, but trigger FAR too rarely IMO - in 300+ hours of gameplay, I recall only 3-4 times I've had such effects on tanks (one Engine Fire and two Turrets Stuck).

Increasing the probability of Critical Hits expands tactical options, for one. One tank in a player's armored platoon takes Engine Damage, halving its speed - does the player continue pushing one with the rest of their tanks? Do they slow the rest of their platoon to cover their damaged comrade? Do they halt their advance long enough to allow the damaged tank to be repaired? All options are valid and require the player to weigh the pros and cons the situation.

It also allows for much more memorable battles if the player can say "Sgt. Vladislav's T-62 took a TOW hit, igniting the fuel canisters, but the crew was able to pull back under intense enemy fire, extinguish the flames, make the necessary repairs, and return to battle with blood in their mouth and revenge on their mind!"

[maroder11223]

in these game attacking is always much harder then defending what you want would make it much more unpredictable and difficult for attacker.

[Noblesse Oblige [KG] ⳩]

Originally posted by maroder11223:

in these game attacking is always much harder then defending what you want would make it much more unpredictable and difficult for attacker.

I am less concerned with arbitrarily gamifying the act of attacking and more concerned with suspension of disbelief. Otherwise it may as well be alice in wonderland walking cards rather than a tank.

THe devs will not add things like paratroopers and engineering vehicles but they add this backwards tank damage system that is much worse in terms of realism than steel division 2's one. To me it's a little contradictory. I am not asking for randomness. Everybody is stuck on the random criticals problem. All I want is a reason that all these penetrations are doing virtually no damage but are still doing some damage. Soem weapons doing damage even when the stats say they should not. It's strange and unintuitive, but it does give tanks more survivability which is what the devs wanted.

Ask yourself how long real life tanks stay operational and crewed after being penetrated? Well in WARNO it's a constant that they survive any and all penetrations eventually losing all of their health bar, just like a world of warcraft tank.

Of course at close range hit from the side they may die right away, but this is not the rule and a rare thing.

If tanks sustain multiple penetrations as a constant and remain operational in real life I am happy. But I suspect they survive the glancing blows or non penetrations not the penetrations. Penetrations would either knock out some systems or crew at a minimum or at worst simply destroy the tank on a REGULAR basis. In a lot of cases I think crew simply bail when they think the smallest thing is wrong. Cabin fills with smoke and your bailing.

Apart from this tank system most other things in game are pretty congruous for the games level of wargaminess. A few small things like ranges being wrong but nothing glaringly strange like tanks not going down once penetrated successfully.

[maroder11223]

Originally posted by ᛒᚨᚱᛟᚾ ᛊᛟᛚᚨᛗᚾᛁᚲ KG ⳩:

Apart from this tank system most other things in game are pretty congruous for the games level of wargaminess. A few small things like ranges being wrong but nothing glaringly strange like tanks not going down once penetrated successfully.

no its not. nothing works in these game like it should and everything is surviving more damage then it would in real life.
helicopters should not surviving manpads hits same goes for planes. it should be 1 hit 1 kill system.
infantry should not be face tanking tanks shots or small arms fire.

and while you have problem with tanks in reality all branches of army face same problem so if you change it only for tanks you are just making them weaker compared to other units while other units are still getting there unrealistic buffs.

really realistic combat just would not be fun for 90% of players if not more and it should be played differently

[PAnz3r]

I recently buy SD2, unfortunately I discovered it too late to be in the climax of the game, however the damage system for tanks look more intriguing and realistic. I know that some WW2 tank's events are quite difficult to replicate with moder tanks...but the SD2 system feel better (no so much in regards to Infantry ability to easily destroy tanks...maybe with manual launched AT handgranates...).

For the control zone vs front line I totally prefer SD2's frontline system and command units...sniping commands is so bad and unrealistic, more over: how much it feels stupid when you got a whole mech inf. Coy with supports in a zone but it's not captured until some kinky command come to do the job? A lot in my opinion.

[maroder11223]

i think it's to late to change at these point