• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/
  • Weve updated the Tripwire Privacy Notice under our Policies to be clearer about our use of customer information to come in line with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules that come into force today (25th May 2018). The following are highlights of our changes:


    We've incorporated the relevant concepts from the GDPR including joining the EU and Swiss Privacy Shield framework. We've added explanations for why and how Tripwire processes customer data and the types of data that we process, as well as information about your data protection rights.



    For more information about our privacy practices, please review the new Privacy Policy found here: https://tripwireinteractive.com/#/privacy-notice

Tanks.

Nicholas

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 16, 2010
1,275
665
0
So they mentioned that there will be 4 tanks in the game, the T34 and T70 for the Russians, and the Panzer 3 and 4 for the Germans....

So thats 2 medium tanks and 2 light tanks, the problem is that the T70 is a much lighter tank than the Panzer 3, plus it only has 2 crewmen, and also the Panzer 4 fits 4 men instead of the T34's 3.

SO! My idea is this, I think the T70 should only be used on CA maps against infantry, but not for tank only maps.... I think the T34 should be the main tank of the Russians, while the Germans get more of a mix of Panzer 3's and 4's.

The Panzer 3 is not a direct match for the T34, but it was faster, and had a separate commander, so I think it should be a mix of Panzer 3's and 4's vs T34's, while T70's should be for CA maps.
 

Nicholas

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 16, 2010
1,275
665
0
I agree mostly with what you are saying but I think with Soviet tanks having less crew members there should usually be more Soviet tanks on the field than German.
Yeah, but the German tanks would be able to speak to eachother, whereas the Russians couldn't.
 

RiccardoTheBeAst

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 19, 2009
578
126
0
Italy
Uhm...we'll see if there will be some variations of the tanks...., anyway, the T-70 is not so bad as a light tank, but obviously is totally outclassed by Pz III and IV.

Btw, it will be in game, so, i think it should be present in every map that can host tanks (obviously the number of each tank varies for every map, depending by map conformation and type)

@ Felix Ostheim: the number of players per squad is the same.
16 vs 16 or 32 vs 32. So, is impossible to give more tanks to one squad (and is not correct IMHO). Maybe russians could have more reinforcement, but i dunno if it's a good idea....personally i don't like when one team is advantaged and the other one disadvantaged.

Anyway, it's even important to see if TWI have the intention to put even the same tanks with additional armor plates or not....they could balance the two squads if added properly (in the correct number)
 

Nicholas

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 16, 2010
1,275
665
0
What I'm saying is that the T-70 should be for CA maps only, the T34 should be the sole Russian tank on tank only maps, and the Germans will always have a mixup of Panzer 3's and 4's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucan946

Felix Ostheim

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 9, 2005
1,051
191
0
Ohio, United States
@ Felix Ostheim: the number of players per squad is the same.
16 vs 16 or 32 vs 32. So, is impossible to give more tanks to one squad (and is not correct IMHO). Maybe russians could have more reinforcement, but i dunno if it's a good idea....personally i don't like when one team is advantaged and the other one disadvantaged.
The ratio of AI crew to humans will vary. In a full server with mostly or fully manned crews there would still be more Soviet tanks if there are 2 humans per T-70 or and 3 or 4 humans per Pz3. I say that without knowing what if any restrictions there will be on tank commanders.
 
Last edited:

Nicholas

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 16, 2010
1,275
665
0
The ratio of AI crew to humans will vary. In a full server with mostly or fully manned crews there would still be more Soviet tanks if there are 2 humans per T-70 or and 3 or 4 humans per Pz3. I say that without knowing what if any restrictions there will be on tank commanders.
But of course a tank with more people in it can be an advantage in and of itself.
 

RiccardoTheBeAst

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 19, 2009
578
126
0
Italy
What I'm saying is that the T-70 should be for CA maps only, the T34 should be the sole Russian tank on tank only maps, and the Germans will always have a mixup of Panzer 3's and 4's.
Uhm, yes, this is correct, but if you play DH you can see that on many maps there are Tiger, King Tiger, Panther, Jagdpanther and some other monsters but even some Pz III. So, even if a tank seems useless is not correct to cut it off IMHO. Giving the chance to use it is free, so, why not? Then will be the players to decide what tank to use (the 99,99999% will use T-34 obviously :D).

The ratio of AI crew to humans will vary. In a full server with mostly or fully manned crews there would still be more Soviet tanks if there are 2 humans per T-70 or and 3 or 4 humans per Pz3. I say that without knowing what if any restrictions there will be on tank commanders.
Ah ok, with this precisation your comment is right.
But you must know that the 90% of players will play alone in tanks. ;)
 
Last edited:

Reise

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 1, 2006
2,690
851
0
Maine, US
Wouldn't having less crew mean that there would end up being more total tanks on the field?

Figure you have a 16v16 match, and the Germans get 4 crew per tank. That's 1 commander a piece with 3 crew, and 4 tanks total for 16 players.

Soviets have 2 or 3 crew per tank, 1 commander and 1 or 2 crew, and a total of possibly 5-8 tanks.

It'll work out I think.
 
Last edited:

Nicholas

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 16, 2010
1,275
665
0
Wouldn't having less crew mean that there would end up being more total tanks on the field?

Figure you have a 16v16 match, and the Germans get 4 crew per tank. That's 1 commander a piece with 3 crew, and 4 tanks total for 16 players.

Soviets have 2 or 3 crew per tank, 1 commander and 1 or 2 crew, and a total of possibly 5-8 tanks.

It'll work out I think.
Humans>AI.
 

[TW]Wilsonam

VP, Tripwire Int.
Oct 17, 2005
4,061
2,618
0
61
Roswell, GA
www.tripwireinteractive.com
Well, lets just run a little comparison here:

Main guns:

Pz IIIJ (early variety) - 5cm KwK.38 L/42
T70 - 45mm 20K M1932/38 L/46

Empirical data gives the Germans about 55mm armor penetration at 30 degrees/100m and 47mm at 30 degrees/500m (firing PzGr39). As always, the data is a little less consistent on the Soviet guns but we get 42mm and 35mm. This leaves the Pz III with the edge in penetration capability, but not by a lot. German mv is 685 m/s, Soviet slightly higher at 760 m/s.

Now the armor: Pz IIIJ runs to various 50mm plates on the front hull, angled around 10-22 degrees. the T70 45mm at 30 degrees and 35mm at 60 degrees. Now, just taking the very simplistic trig, that gives an "effective" 55mm on the Pz IIIJ and 70mm on the T-70. Frontally, the Pz IIIJ gunner is going to have to place his shot carefully, given the severe slope of the T-70 glacis, while the T-70 gunner is probably wasting his time.

Side hull plates on both are very vulnerable; the sloped turret sides of the T-70 probably out-perform the Pz IIIJ. Both have the rear surprisingly well protected - although the Pz IIIJ turret is, again, weaker.

Both are very vulnerable to side shots, but the T-70 probably has the edge in armor...

And the rest - the T-70 is MUCH lighter - 9T, vs. 21.5T. T70 is also a smaller target. T70 is also faster cross-country - 24kph vs. 19kph. The Pz IIIJ has the edge on main gun optics, although the commander in the T70 also has a periscope. Both are manual traverse turrets.

So, mechanically, there really isn't that much between them...

The biggest difference - crew. The Pz IIIJ runs to 5, the T70 only 2. This will cause some differences in game... no Hull MG in the T70. Can't command and gun at the same time. And the commander also has to load.

So - please continue debating :)
 

Nicholas

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 16, 2010
1,275
665
0
Well that settles most of the debate, I'm glad the devs know this much about WW2 :IS2:

So the big thing is crew, I would love to see how this plays out, more Russian tanks vs more crewed German tanks.
 

Game-Enthousiast

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 23, 2010
141
13
0
1st. in line in a Ju52
Tbh I do not really think that in ROHoS a larger number of crew members in your mbt will definately and for sure give you an edge over your opponent. Unfortunately and this counts basically only for public gaming, how often dont you end up with someone in your tank with whom you can not comunicate properly due to language differences(or other reasons)?
Think about RO, even though you got the regular voice commands they often do not achieve what they are supposed to, or people ignore them, or they are simply not accurate enough. Voip or TS-Vent communication among tankers is the most effective mean of coordination of cooperation.
So I am not sure how much of an advantage more ppl in a vehicle will actually provide you with because a bigger number of crew members also means that more coordination is necessary.
 

RiccardoTheBeAst

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 19, 2009
578
126
0
Italy
Well, lets just run a little comparison here:

Main guns:

Pz IIIJ (early variety) - 5cm KwK.38 L/42
T70 - 45mm 20K M1932/38 L/46

Empirical data gives the Germans about 55mm armor penetration at 30 degrees/100m and 47mm at 30 degrees/500m (firing PzGr39). As always, the data is a little less consistent on the Soviet guns but we get 42mm and 35mm. This leaves the Pz III with the edge in penetration capability, but not by a lot. German mv is 685 m/s, Soviet slightly higher at 760 m/s.

Now the armor: Pz IIIJ runs to various 50mm plates on the front hull, angled around 10-22 degrees. the T70 45mm at 30 degrees and 35mm at 60 degrees. Now, just taking the very simplistic trig, that gives an "effective" 55mm on the Pz IIIJ and 70mm on the T-70. Frontally, the Pz IIIJ gunner is going to have to place his shot carefully, given the severe slope of the T-70 glacis, while the T-70 gunner is probably wasting his time.

Side hull plates on both are very vulnerable; the sloped turret sides of the T-70 probably out-perform the Pz IIIJ. Both have the rear surprisingly well protected - although the Pz IIIJ turret is, again, weaker.

Both are very vulnerable to side shots, but the T-70 probably has the edge in armor...

And the rest - the T-70 is MUCH lighter - 9T, vs. 21.5T. T70 is also a smaller target. T70 is also faster cross-country - 24kph vs. 19kph. The Pz IIIJ has the edge on main gun optics, although the commander in the T70 also has a periscope. Both are manual traverse turrets.

So, mechanically, there really isn't that much between them...

The biggest difference - crew. The Pz IIIJ runs to 5, the T70 only 2. This will cause some differences in game... no Hull MG in the T70. Can't command and gun at the same time. And the commander also has to load.

So - please continue debating :)
How do you calculate the penetration with sloped armor? I'm so curious to know the formula.

I elaborated one formula but it's only theoretical, 'cause it doesn't consider many physical factor.

PM = An * 100 / 90

where PM is "penetration malus" (LOL) and An is "angle of obliquity of the armor, by vertical"

So, 90
 

Alexei

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 3, 2006
170
67
0


TL: Line of sight thickness
TN: Normal thickness
θ: Angle of the sloped armour plate from the vertical
 

[TW]Wilsonam

VP, Tripwire Int.
Oct 17, 2005
4,061
2,618
0
61
Roswell, GA
www.tripwireinteractive.com
Be careful with "armor penetration tables". What people fail to grasp is that everyone actually derived these tables off empirical data - usually shots fired at vertical (0 deg) plate and at 30 degrees - hence the amount of data for both and the lack for most other things. But (ask people like Jeff Duquette for the full version... I have to know the answer to everything, so can't usually remember the detailed answer to anything...)... the Germans (for example) basically were actually looking for the muzzle velocity at which 4 out of 5 shots would penetrate fully through a plate of known thickness/hardness. From these figures they would extrapolate a whole set of "armor penetration figures". The quick answer is that it all comes down to probability curves - they are NOT absolute answers.

So, to answer the other question - it isn't just a matter of calculating the "line of sight" thickness to be penetrated. There are a whole pile of factors, many of which were not carefully measured back in the day. By the time they WERE getting measured, the world was moving on to APCR/HVAP/Long rods and leaving the earlier AP rounds behind. And those types of rounds respond quite differently to variables like armor hardness and slope quite differently.

Suffice it to say that the math gets complicated, fast, if you are to handle all possible eventualities (which is what we have to do). Most measurement data was gathered using "range quality" ammo, being fired out of a test gun, at a single specific hardness/type of armor plate, usually at 0 and 30 degrees. We have to make the math allow for more variation in the quality of both projectiles and armor, all angles of impact from 0 through near-90 degrees, yawing of the projectile down-range, different hardness ratings for both projectile and armor... even the variation in muzzle velocity due to the ambient temperature. And a bunch of other things besides!
 

Tiger2

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 13, 2008
501
144
0
Loader problem

Loader problem

My suggestion for the loader problem: if the loader dies the player in charge can order someone to replace him. If there are no a.i left in the tank, then one of the players will lose control of his character and go into the general respawn queue, while that character is taken over by a.i and switches to loader position (as he was ordered).
 

Mormegil

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
4,178
574
0
Nargothrond
My suggestion for the loader problem: if the loader dies the player in charge can order someone to replace him. If there are no a.i left in the tank, then one of the players will lose control of his character and go into the general respawn queue, while that character is taken over by a.i and switches to loader position (as he was ordered).
What happens when there's only one warm body left in the tank?

My and somebody else's suggestion was the last guy acts as gunner, but has added animations of loading after each round fired.