PITTPETE

232 Commanders View

35 posts in this topic

Hopefully when CRS has the new software they can look at this.

For a scout vehicle its not user friendly.

Screens should speak for themselves.

th_232view_zpspcp6mpnl.jpgth_232viewzoom1_zpsocmv22xo.jpgth_232viewzoom2_zps8rfllhve.jpg

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the support rails should not render for the commander, irl it would be very easy to just lean an inch and see around them, in game we can't.

This is also a good case to model the 231 as their first vehicle - just removed the antenna from the 232 and that can be the new model; nice and easy practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. This was another original design mistake...some Rat thinking "oooh the one with the long range antenna is much cooler", then the game engine coding causes that antenna to jack up the unit's game-functionality unrealistically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree. The commander IRL would be able to move one way or the

other to see AROUND the supports. The supports should not have any

effect on him/her. :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This deserves a bump.

Silly antenna has been bothering me for years.

I guess it would be too much to ask to re-work the 232 into a 234/2 while CRS are at it? :D

SdKfz234-2_side_view.jpg

S.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This deserves a bump.

Silly antenna has been bothering me for years.

I guess it would be too much to ask to re-work the 232 into a 234/2 while CRS are at it? :D

SdKfz234-2_side_view.jpg

S.

That thing looks MEAN. I'll talk to our Artist about it and discuss some options, no promises yet though.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This deserves a bump.

Silly antenna has been bothering me for years.

I guess it would be too much to ask to re-work the 232 into a 234/2 while CRS are at it? :D

SdKfz234-2_side_view.jpg

S.

It was the next development to allow the ability of german 'scouts' to conduct anti-armor when needed.... 231/232 ->234 sounds like a good RDP tree for scout/armor cars

Edited by B2K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll talk to our Artist about it and discuss some options, no promises yet though.

Holy chit ... Xoom likes it.. :) And I was only being half serious... :D

But I guess since the Allies have two different scout cars, both with better tank-killing capability than the 232 ....

Unless of course he was only referring to the 232's commander-view.

Slight caveat: The 234 was a whole new vehicle, even though it resembles the 232. Plus it was rather rare and a mid/late war development. Say... Tier 2 ... probably?

They made them with various weapons, biggest one carried an /L46 75mm in an open top mount.

234/1 with the 20mm autocannon:

SdKfz_234-1_front-left-view.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SdKfz_234

Personally, I prefer the 50mm's looks. Awfully sexy and the fastest way to lug a 50mm PaK around in style.. :D

S.

Edited by sascha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta edit my signature I guess.. hitting the 6 pic limit, so here are the other two versions:

234/3 "Stummel" (75mm /L24 from the Pz IVD)

post-419271-0-16104200-1432301114.jpg

234/4 with the long 75mm

sdkfz234_4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plus it was rather rare and a mid/late war development. Say... Tier 2 ... probably?

Should be Tier 4. Only ~25 were made at the very end of 1943, and they didn't reach the field until December. The remaining 76 were made in 1944.

There couldn't have been a 234/2-like, 50mm L/60-armed AC earlier because the 50mm L/60 guns weren't available until the tanks in which they were installed were declared combat-obsolete and converted to non-gun uses, with the guns going into warehouse storage. The long-out-of-production guns couldn't be in two places at once, and they were still installed in PzKpfW IIIM until roughly mid 1943 when the survivors of that tank design were finally phased out.

The 234/2 design was created by the supplier to use the stockpiled 50mm L/60 guns and the turret design from a cancelled light tank. The design was presented to the weapons branch which promptly refused a purchase order since the vehicle concept directly conflicted with doctrine calling for ACs to be used for recon, and to avoid combat at all costs. The supplier went into production anyway, getting paid via fraud. Once the high command found out, production was cancelled and the surviving vehicles...less than half of production, due to the foreseen temptation to engage in combat for which the AC was wholly unsuited in spite of the seemingly big gun...were recalled to be converted to the 234/1 20mm-armed recon version.

WWIIOL needs to de-emphasize wheeled AT operations until the top off-road speed and acceleration of vehicles is made realistically proportional to their ground pressure. The zooming-around-on-the-flanks, tank-ambushing nature of game AC use is wildly unrealistic.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The zooming-around-on-the-flanks, tank-ambushing nature of game AC use is wildly unrealistic.

You'll get no argument from me on this one.

Just as unrealistic as running a stealth-Morris to tow a 57mm into range of an enemy FB and starting to pick off tanks as they roll out of the vehicle-tent. Or, come to think of it, as unrealistic as capturing towns by staying in a building for a pre-determined amount of time... :D

Thing is: With the current vehicle-set, the Allies are at a marked advantage regarding AC-"abuse". Kinda hard to imagine the 232 being used in this role - with its light autocannon, high silhouette and rather tricky handling. I'm not necessarily saying CRS should add a PAN/DAC equivalent - I'm not even sure the Germans had one in the early war. But an evolution of the AC as RDP advances would still be a nice thing to have.

Would I prioritize this? I don't think so. MBTs should be a priority in development, IMO. The Panther (and maybe a new TD like a later model StuG, or the Jagdppanzer IV) would be on top of my list.

S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know making a new vehicle is super easy, but what I've been really hoping for was RA-like terrain. Yes, they say the current engine cannot support it, but doing something like 8x denser terrain mesh but not modelling the whole Europe like we have now would not be so much different. Also, the terrain can be what they probably call procedurally generated- so that each bush placement is not saved in the data but calculated on the fly when rendering- in the same position for each player.

Imagine the possibilities- you could have terrain that is impassable to tanks because it's too steep, attack planners would need to read the contour maps, there would be entire parts of the landscape where only infantry would be able to fight and other parts that would be open for tank engagements without bush tunnels everywhere.

I think this would balance out the whole game immensely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to see the terrain related code to assess how difficult would ripping it out and replacing be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know making a new vehicle is super easy

Well... apparently it isn't. :D

I wonder if my old WB-buddy "lemsko" is still around. He's been designing and building WW2 vehicles (and other things) semi-professionally for years - and at much higher poly-count and detail than what would be required for this game.

Couldn't hurt to drop him a line if he's still around (he didn't have the healthiest of lifestyles :/ )

S.

Edited by sascha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well... apparently it isn't. :D

I wonder if my old WB-buddy "lemsko" is still around. He's been designing and building WW2 vehicles (and other things) semi-professionally for years - and at much higher poly-count and detail than what would be required for this game.

Couldn't hurt to drop him a line if he's still around (he didn't have the healthiest of lifestyles :/ )

S.

It is, compared to making changes to just about anything else. Especially a full base map replacement...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh sure... just like switching from winter to summer wheels on your car is easier than replacing the transmission or engine. But you'll still need the appropriate tools, time and manpower to change those wheels all the same. :)

I do agree that an overhaul of the engine and landscape would be a dream come true. Heck, if I was a millionaire with money to burn, I'd dish out the cash for that, just to be able to walk around that visually improved map. And I'm not even talking about any kind of "high-end" look like in a current FPS. A world on par with or slightly better than the looks of the more recent Combat Mission titles would be good enough, IMO.

cmbfn_05ask8.jpg

Combat_Mission_Battle_for_Normandy_01.jpg

Dang.. how did we get here in a thread asking for an overhaul of the 232's commander's view? :D

S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd love to see the terrain related code to assess how difficult would ripping it out and replacing be.

Do you speak programmer? It's an insane task, but not worth hijacking the thread over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know making a new vehicle is super easy, but what I've been really hoping for was RA-like terrain. Yes, they say the current engine cannot support it, but doing something like 8x denser terrain mesh but not modelling the whole Europe like we have now would not be so much different. Also, the terrain can be what they probably call procedurally generated- so that each bush placement is not saved in the data but calculated on the fly when rendering- in the same position for each player.

Imagine the possibilities- you could have terrain that is impassable to tanks because it's too steep, attack planners would need to read the contour maps, there would be entire parts of the landscape where only infantry would be able to fight and other parts that would be open for tank engagements without bush tunnels everywhere.

I think this would balance out the whole game immensely.

The engine uses a post style mesh. Posts every x distance (mesh resolution) that the tile overlays. Also consider the tiles themselves would need be higher poly count so as to have intersections that line up with a higher post count per grid. More polys rendered=more performance needed.

RA was simply a small map overlay using a different editor than the one the game uses. Maps were overlayed existing tiles, you rendered both cpu/gpu wise. Never did get to a truly stable state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you speak programmer? It's an insane task, but not worth hijacking the thread over.

Sure. I'm really a overqualified and overpaid software engineer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The engine uses a post style mesh. Posts every x distance (mesh resolution) that the tile overlays. Also consider the tiles themselves would need be higher poly count so as to have intersections that line up with a higher post count per grid. More polys rendered=more performance needed.

RA was simply a small map overlay using a different editor than the one the game uses. Maps were overlayed existing tiles, you rendered both cpu/gpu wise. Never did get to a truly stable state.

I know, but I think it could be done in a different way..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they model the PUMA that would be awesome and I hope they put a buttload of them in the game first go around to feed the players.

That being said, and I have stated before about a missing upgrade tier.

Stu>Chaffy

PzH>PzM/N

Cru2>Cromwell

DAC>AEC

PAN>Greyghound

232>PUMA

These need to enter the game at T2 or T3 where they are all very obsolete to complement the Sherman, Churchill, Tigers.

Reduce the number of Stus, Cru2s, PANs, and 232s... don't eliminate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Multiply the existing ACs' Drag Factors by 4, and their performance would be more like realistic.

But that'd negatively affect Allied <--> Axis balance because of Allied use of ACs as super-fast tank destroyers, so there'd have to be some other change to get back to balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.