Big question for the devs...

[Mongooser]

Definitely a big question: What is you view on reality? Is this a “game”, or a “sim”. I have played many “tank” games and the vast majority are comedic at best. The best tank sim that I ever played(besides the tank sims used in the Army, believe it or not they play just like a video game) is probably M1 Tank Platoon 2.(on the Amiga, but that was 1998)

To better pose the question... In ww2, Germany had the armor and pen, the US had an “acceptable” cheap all arounder.(Sherman) and the Russians had the fire ants(over 84,000 t-34's were built in ww2) that just swarmed you. Will this be represented in the game?

For example if I am a German company, would I be expected to make high armor and big gun tanks, and if I were a Russian company would I be expected to make cheap cannon fodder that just swarmed the enemy? Or is the game balanced such as making “all arounders” for all countries and companies?

How are the era's represented? In my example above, their were massive differences in WW2 tanks between countries, this was also the case in WW1, when tanks were first created. However today is much different with nato tanks being close to other nato countries tanks(US M1 and say German kF51) and then you have russia trying to keep up with the T72's and the T14 Armada, and if even want to consider China which is probably still using 1980's technologies. So if I play a Russian company will it feel "Russian" or will it be balanced out to be comparable with all the other countries in the world?

Just curious...

[blackhand_lost]

For an American boomer with no knowledge about tanks and kindergarten understanding of war history you're too concerned about proper simulation of "reality"

[Legata Flavia]

Simple.

There are opfor countries whose are based on the real ones. So Germans are about to build their stuff, while other countries will build theirs. Dont expect soviets to rely on Tigers {KV / IS}, or germans to rely on T-34s {Panthers}.

You choose one of the countries of your liking and its UP TO YOU what doctrine you will pursue. You can choose brits and make anything from few supertanks, or mass produce american ronson lighters.

[Mongooser]

Originally posted by blackhand_lost:

For an American boomer with no knowledge about tanks and kindergarten understanding of war history you're too concerned about proper simulation of "reality":lunar2019grinningpig:

You should read more... I am not a boomer, however my parents were. You say I have no knowledge of tanks, yet I was a crewman on both the M60A3, and a gunner on the M1. You say I have a kindergarten understanding of history, Yet I was on active duty in the middle of the cold war as a gunner... You should probably try more to contribute to a thread...

[Mongooser]

Originally posted by 𝕲𝖊𝖗𝖒𝖆𝖓𝖎𝖆:

Simple.

There are opfor countries whose are based on the real ones. So Germans are about to build their stuff, while other countries will build theirs. Dont expect soviets to rely on Tigers {KV / IS}, or germans to rely on T-34s {Panthers}.

You choose one of the countries of your liking and its UP TO YOU what doctrine you will pursue. You can choose brits and make anything from few supertanks, or mass produce american ronson lighters.

O.K. well that makes a lot more sense, although I am sure they will have restrictions such as a German company cannot be making tanks for say UK or USA in ww2.

[blackhand_lost]

Originally posted by Mongooser:

You should read more... I am not a boomer, however my parents were. You say I have no knowledge of tanks, yet I was a crewman on both the M60A3, and a gunner on the M1. You say I have a kindergarten understanding of history, Yet I was on active duty in the middle of the cold war as a gunner... You should probably try more to contribute to a thread...

I see, but military service only gives you knowledge about things you yourself deal with.
Don't really want to turn this thread into an argument, but the whole point of your question seems to derive from 40 years old stereotypes.

If we're talking about WW2, then both German and USSR armored forces change significantly throughout the war. Roughly 1939, 41, 43 and late 44/45 are the stages of this change.

Germans don't get a heavy tank before mid-43, it's halfway through the war. Considering the speed of tech research in the game, you'll spend quite some time designing light pz I, II and 38, and a chunk of varieties of medium Pz III and IV, and probably self-propelled artillery based on these platforms.

You could roughly say that late German tanks(Panther and Tigers) are about armor and pen, but it comes down to how the devs tune the contracts, maybe someone will want an advanced version of a lighter anti-infantry tank with later techs and you'll be popping out Pz IIIs armed with twin-20mm autocanons in 1945.

As for Soviets, they've got proper heavy tanks from interwar t-35 to later kv-1 and 2(152mm howitzer) and IS.
IS-2 was a good tank, heavily armored with a 122mm long canon. More than 3k were built, compared to about 2k of both Tigers combined. Add to this self-propelled artillery on kv and is chassis armed with 122mm and 152mm canons.
So, here you've got armor and big guns as well. Early war USSR is more about a plethora of light tanks though

T-34-85 from 1944 had a new turret with 85mm gun, inferior to German Tiger's 88, of course, but decent for its class. I wouldn't say that mass production was its only defining feature.
Early 34s are quite comparable to Shermans, at least in terms of this game, as it's a tycoon, and not a tank sim. More repairability for one, more crue comfort and safety for the other, etc.

So, in general you'll be producing all kinds of tanks regardless what country you choose, and reverse engineering lets you aquire all kinds of guns and chassis if you're lacking in some departments. Not all parts are compatible though, but it's definitely not realistic from engineering standpoint, of course.

As for later periods, tanks design was kinda streamlined compared to WW2, so I see less variety there, but canons for MBTs will still probably be interchangeable. I'm fairly sure we won't see it at least this year though.

Regarding your later question, you can't sell tanks to countries your Motherland is at war with. But now we only have the sandbox campaign where wars and alliances are not predetermined. Historic campaign coming later

TL;DR A wall of text really, but I had to illustrate my point.

The game gives you freedom to produce a variety of different tanks, broader than historic stereotypes, at least in theory, because we don't know what tanks the devs are going to add in the future and how long the development takes

[Nightwolf]

Originally posted by Mongooser:

China which is probably still using 1980's technologies.

op's entire post is based off his experience in war thunder and world of tanks

but is considering himself "hard core" simmer....

this game is a simple econ sim, nothing more, itll be inaccurate in more than a few places. this is like going to bomber crew and whining the planes are not accurate...

[=[GcC]= SamuthNBS]

The devs for this game are European, so it's unlikely they will base the game on outdated American exceptionalism and old stereotypes - they'll probably base the tanks on how they were in real life.
Currently neither the US or Russia are in the game anyway (although they will be, of course) as it's only Western and Northern Europe represented at this time. Presumably the USA will join in 3 years time... ;)

[Mongooser]

Originally posted by Nightwolf:

Originally posted by Mongooser:

China which is probably still using 1980's technologies.

op's entire post is based off his experience in war thunder and world of tanks

but is considering himself "hard core" simmer....

this game is a simple econ sim, nothing more, itll be inaccurate in more than a few places. this is like going to bomber crew and whining the planes are not accurate...

it is a sign of the times when you children do not read the posts... My post was about MY REAL LIFE EXPERIENCES AS A GUNNER ON THE M1 tank, not the kiddie fantasy games such as war thunder or world of tanks. The whole point was to try and see what the devs intentions are with the game, is it going to be an arcade like, where most companies will have close to the same tech, or is it going to be more like a sim?

If it is going to be more like a sim than what is the plan to deal with massive differences in tech? Because after 1969, there has been nothing to deal with the M1,(not counting NATO counterparts, which share most of the tech) so what will be the plan to balance the game after 1969?

The reason I ask is because some titles have been released lately that are quite clueless to reality. The amount of training and armor that was put into Germany because Russia was coming through the Fulda Gap was extreme overkill, it never happened... Now we see Russia invade Ukraine and have to ask directions to town?(WTF?)

It is nice to play armchair general when you can sit and come up with all kinds of fantasy scenarios that are, actually nothing more than fantasy. But if I am going to purchase another title that thinks it takes 4-5 rounds of 120mm depleted uranium to pen a t54, I would rather look for something else. It seems like the devs are creating a "management" game, I was just trying to get a feel for the years and reality...

[Mongooser]

Originally posted by =GcC= SamuthNBS:

The devs for this game are European, so it's unlikely they will base the game on outdated American exceptionalism and old stereotypes - they'll probably base the tanks on how they were in real life.
Currently neither the US or Russia are in the game anyway (although they will be, of course) as it's only Western and Northern Europe represented at this time. Presumably the USA will join in 3 years time... ;)

It would be nice just to leave the US out of it. Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts, tried to be a game that allowed you to go from 1890 to late ww2 with your own design of ships, but by the start of ww2, the US had about 320 Battleships, that you simply could not beat, unless you strictly used player made ships and restricted the computer from using those ships. The whole point of this post was to try and find out how the devs were going to balance real life tech, with the game...

No one wants to rule the world without a challenge, as it is no fun, if the worm don't wiggle on the hook, why would the fish bite?

[=[GcC]= SamuthNBS]

Nobody has a problem with you asking the question - it's a very good one.
I think we were all rubbed up the wrong way by the "Americans good, Nazis tech supreme, Soviet cannon fodder" account of history as that's demonstrably not the case. It's true if you simplify it down to Shermans, Tigers and T34s but that doesn't represent reality either.

I'm intrigued to know which parts of the M1 other NATO tanks share.

[Mongooser]

Originally posted by =GcC= SamuthNBS:

Nobody has a problem with you asking the question - it's a very good one.
I think we were all rubbed up the wrong way by the "Americans good, Nazis tech supreme, Soviet cannon fodder" account of history as that's demonstrably not the case. It's true if you simplify it down to Shermans, Tigers and T34s but that doesn't represent reality either.

I'm intrigued to know which parts of the M1 other NATO tanks share.

no no no, I am so sorry as it seems I was misunderstood... Americans not good at all before the M1, the m60a3 was "ok" but IMO the sherman was CRAP. I know they call it the "tank that won the war", but that is pure BS. The damn thing caught fire if you farted on it, paper armor and an extremely weak gun. I greatly admire the ww2 German tanks as it had 2 of the 3 needed attributes for greatness, Armor and Gun.(which sucks cause the lack of mobility, attribute #3, killed it)

When I mention the "Soviet cannon fodder" I meant that Russia focused on quantity, not quality, which won them their part of the war. War is hell, and you have to do WHATEVER you can to win, Russia did what it needed to do to win.

Because of my military background, I am very critical of things that I feel are combat "blunders", EVERYONE screwed up in WW2 pretty bad:

The US had its hands around Japan's throat with oil, and thought they would do nothing. The attack on Pearl Harbor was on radar and was ignored due to incompetence. Hitler, who quite a few people feel he was "intelligent" committed the most "stupidest" thing possible, opening a front 180 degrees from the front you are already fighting on??? And Russia, the Great Purge... I guess paranoia can destroy ya.

P.S. As far as what NATO tank share with the M1? Well the M1 never even had an american gun, thanks to Germany.(M1 uses German made L44 - M256) There are also classified "parts" on the M1 which were sourced from the UK. If you look at the NATO tanks Abrahms,(US) Leopard,(Germany) K2 Black Panther(South Korea) Challenger(UK) Merkava, (Israel) Leclerc, (France) you will see that they all share common tech with each other. If you look farther back during the cold war, we were trained for vehicle identification(so we don't shoot friendlies, lol) Soviets had round turrets, V shaped splash guards, and external fuel tanks, US and friendly had angled turrets, no splash guards(that I can remember) and internal fuel tanks.

Of course there are other differences, however go look up the images of the tanks listed above and then look at the Russian and Chinese tanks, so easy to tell apart. Russia still likes auto loaders, and does not like bore evacuators, China's T99 has a fat external fuel tank on its ass. US shares tech with its allies and Russia and China share their tech with their allies...

[RoboticDiscoPuma]

It is a video game where you can make tanks to your liking whether you recreate a real life tank or build the tank of your dreams. The questions are well thought out, but the resultant arguments are invalid.

[T the light tank]

Hello,

I am not sure if this will answer your question properly but each nation has different requirements and tank roles that they will ask of your company for contracts. Some nations, like you say, put more value on reliability while others focus more on raw firepower.

[Mongooser]

Originally posted by T the light tank:

Hello,

I am not sure if this will answer your question properly but each nation has different requirements and tank roles that they will ask of your company for contracts. Some nations, like you say, put more value on reliability while others focus more on raw firepower.

OK, yes that answers the question, answer is really a big plus as this will add to the replay value, also makes the game more dynamic and less stale between nations.(this will also add to immersion, you know like you are actually providing your country with what they need to win the war.) Of course this will lead to the next question: Are the tank roles for each nation: realistic, fantasy, both, or player choice?(For example some wargames will ask, at campaign start, if you want to play the game as close to historically accurate as possible) Again just curious...

[Mongooser]

Originally posted by RoboticDiscoPuma:

It is a video game where you can make tanks to your liking whether you recreate a real life tank or build the tank of your dreams. The questions are well thought out, but the resultant arguments are invalid.

Well if we are going to role-play I would never build the tank of my dreams, nor mirror a real life tank, I would always build what my country requests, to the best of my ability...