In another thread, Hellfish6 commented that there is no equivalent to IL2 for tank sims.

It's funny he mentioned that. I've mulled that same question over for some time. That is, something in between arcade and hard-core switchology or mil-grade sims. Granted it seems SBPro can be played as a pretty light sim but it's old school graphics and price keep away the casual gamer. I'm thinking of the 'gateway drug' that IL2 was that drags people into simming.

In fact I got as far as getting some fun programming work done using the Unity engine. The highlights were armor and infantry squads with waypoints and basic pathfinding and LOS calculations including chance based hiding in rough terrain. I also had a simple ballistics model with armor penetrations taking into account angle of attack and armor quality, though the math was a bit ad-hoc, based on 20th century naval experiments. Purely kinetic and HE, nothing modern like shaped charges.

It was a blast working on and I learned a bunch, but the scope of the project was overwhelming and I never got close to anything resembling a real game. After I found out about SBPro, I figured I'd be better off playing than programming as they seem to have implemented most of what I was interested in.

However, I'm interested in discussing ideas for how a broader appeal tank game might work and look. Totally a bull session, not expecting anything to come of it besides a good conversation.

What era would appeal? What level of fidelity? What kind of trade-offs between kilometers of draw distance vs graphics quality?
Would there need to be a single-player campaign? How 'bout infantry, either AI or human controlled? How would chain of command be modeled?
Would pacing aim to be realistic or more frenetic? How would you retain fog of war while keeping within the frustration tolerance of your average gamer?

I'm thinking of an armor specific sim, but I'm aware there is some pretty impressive work with ArmA and other games. Maybe the armor lite market has already been filled by the FPS games.

M1 Tank Platoon 2- pretty much an action oriented ego shooter on tracks, yet there aren't fantasy setups like hover tanks with twin laser cannons or anything like that. I think it fits in the category of sim lite. Unfortunately, even though the fire control system was simplified, it actually made hitting targets harder under certain conditions when leading moving targets.

Still, the player could easily jump on the ma deuce and shoot down incoming jets with no problem. They just came in low, slow and if you couldn't regularly manage to shoot them down with the TC's machine gun, there was something wrong with you.

Sim Lite? That would be Take on Tanks instaed of Take on Helicopters. ata good price, I would buy that in a heartbeat

Yeah, I think there needs to be a new M1 Tank Platoon II or Panzer Elite. Nothing I've played lately comes close. SBProPE is great - but it's also a mil sim. There's no intent to provide entertainment value in it and any such value is derived simply from the interests of the player (FWIW, I enjoy the hell out of it). World of Tanks is a lot of fun, but it's basically Counterstrike with tanks. That being said, I think it shows that there are people out there willing to play (and buy) tank-oriented games and I suspect WoT may have whetted some people's appetites for something a little more meaty (but not so meaty as SBProPE - essentially, the only alternative for Western audiences).

I think people are attracted to games done well, regardless of the genre. I generally despise flight sims, yet I regularly play the Strike Fighters games, and used to play IL2. I've even got Rise of Flight, even though my interest level in WWI anything is about nil. I don't play them because I'm particularly interested in those time periods or aircraft, but rather because the developers made great games that were entertaining, easy to learn, challenging without being difficult and (important for me) personalize-able. I can make each of those games my own, by either downloading aircraft, terrain or missions I want to play with and/or because they bring me into the game world with very good immersion. RoF's career mode is - literally - the only selling point of that game for me and I learned to like WWI aerial combat because of it.

No tank sim in recent memory has come close to sucking me in like that. The Graviteam sims are great, technologically. I applaud Steel Armor's daring inclusion of Angola, Iran-Iraq and Afghanistan as theaters, but the game itself is cold to me. The M60A1 and T-62 are brilliantly modeled, for the most part, and I love driving around in them. The gameplay, however, can be exceedingly frustrating and I never feel like I'm part of the game's world (which is probably just as well, as a US Iraq vet, I can't find myself sympathizing with the Iraqis or Iranians). Besides that, the interface is pretty awkward. I find myself fighting the game and the interface far more than fighting opposing forces. Additionally, the Graviteam games are slaves to history. They recreate exceedingly specific battles from history to fight with little or no context, little or no flexibility and little or no creativity. SF2's main attraction for me, initially, was flying as a mercenary pilot in a fictional war. You had the freedom to do whatever you wanted, and the explosion of mods along that theme is a testament to that freedom. You don't have to justify anything. It's like having a sandbox to play in, except with planes and explosions and your mom isn't gonna scold you for getting dirty.

All that being said, I think any successful tank game/lite sim is going to have to be set in WWII. That's just marketing common sense. For better or for worse, people want Tigers and Panthers to play with, and I doubt they could care less about even Shermans or T-34s. Plus, there's tons of reference materiel to draw from, Hollywood is never going to run out of WWII movies to make, and you've got plenty of settings to delve into.

My own, long-simmering tank game/sim is set during a hypothetical US invasion of Cuba in 1962. I picked it for many of the reasons I listed above - it never happened so I could make my own world out of it. My design document lists three US tanks (M41, M48A2, M60A1) and three Soviet tanks (T-34/85 for the Cubans, T-55 and T-62 for the Soviets in Cuba) as playable. Each of these tanks has its own feel to it. Throw in the Marines and you could add M50 Ontos and M103 heavy tanks into the game as well. The sheer variety alone would have made for a fun game - and you're at a point in history where you're halfway between the familiar WWII and modern combat eras. ATGMs were in their very limited infancy, tanks weren't fitted with exotic armors and thermal sights, and you also weren't a slave to the WWII genre.

I'll end it there, but thanks to pakfront for making a thread that is obviously very close to my heart.

Well said HellFish6,

Unfortunatly a similar thread seems to pop up around the internet every few years. The sadest part is that the dedicated modders jump for the latest FPS game engine to the next.

I think that all avalible sims have a valid price point. What I am sick of is "why can't I buy what I want for 19.95" pick up your wallete and suport a development house, pick up a book and learn to mod your favorite game engine, or quit begging.

Sorry to Hellfish6 for naming them in my obvious rant.

You're absolutely right. I'm 33... I have a job that I work over 40 hours a week on, and a reserve military career as well. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to mod (or learn new engines) like I did 10 years ago. I do support game developers - I've bought every tank game/sim out there that's been mediocre or better. T34 vs Tiger's development house went tits up within days of their game publishing, from what I remember. Or their publisher did, and in the process they killed the development house too. That was actually a fun game, even if the scenarios were limited and uninventive. I support Graviteam, Esim Games (twice!), Wargaming.net, and probably a handful of other devs out there I'm forgetting. Hell, I've bought Panzer Elite five times over the years. I'd probably have just as many M1TP2 purchases as well, if it was still offered anywhere (I don't even know if a "less-than-legal" copy is available).

Excuses, of course. I'm saving money. Maybe after a couple more deployments (Afghanistan, woohoo!) I'll have the seed money to start bending people to my will (:))and get this tank game going.

bump

I've toyed with the idea of a tank sim lite, purely on an idea basis (browsing forums and reading e-mails marks the limit of my computer skills) and I remember Hellfish mentioning his tank sim project before (and I like it). I'd also like to apologize in advance for the wall of text you are about to endure:

Since I'm not very creative, my idea would be more of a mashup of existing designs rather than something entirely new; probably best described as the illegitimate love child of M1 Tank Platoon, Combat Mission and Close Combat. Similarly to M1TP, it would really be an RTS with a first person sim element slapped on: The entire game could be played from the command map; jumping into the gunners seat and shooting up the enemy would be for the fun of it more than anything else.

On the surface, it would look much like M1TP: You typically control a company-sized battle group made up of a few tank and mech infantry platoons with support assets (mortar, scout, arty/air observation, anti air, anti tank, air support, off-map arty); much larger battles should be possible though not practical from a gameplay perspective. However, unlike M1TP you won't be tied to tanks specifically: You can jump into (almost) any vehicle and control it directly, and you don't necessarily have to have tanks as part of your lineup; you could have a unit made up entirely of light scout vehicles or whatnot. You'd be able to control the commander and/or gunner (depending on the vehicle), drivers position would be included only as a remedy for inaccurate or stupid AI. As in M1TP you have command functions beyond those of the position: When in the gunners seat you can also give orders to the driver.

The command map would, again, look much like M1TP: You can give orders to platoons or individual vehicles. Orders (a combination of waypoints and rules of engagement) can be given in real-time, but you can also plan ahead: Units can be set to wait at waypoints for a “go-code” in order to proceed. Those familiar with the original Rainbow Six game will know this feature: You give various units waypoints and add a go-code at some point. When that go-code is issued, all units so ordered will execute them, thus allowing elaborate maneuvers with a single order. In addition, there is a timed go-code: Rather than “proceed-when-go-code-alpha-is-issued” it's “proceed-when-clock-reaches-10:45”. For noobs (like me) orders can be issued while paused (at least on easy-level single player mode), but otherwise it's a question of making a robust battle plan and then adjust on the fly as the battle unfolds. This should give plenty of opportunity to watch your careful plan go down the drain when the enemy does something unexpected. Of course, it is possible to alter all orders on the fly.

The orders that can be issued owes much to Combat Mission: You have your basic slow/medium/fast move orders, fire-at-will and hold-fire. In addition, you have more fancy options like pop-smoke-and-retreat-if-spotted, stop-when-enemy-is-spotted-and-engage, shoot-and-scoot, hull-down or turret-down orders etc.

A system of relative spotting is used: Even enemy units within LOS are not always spotted: Depending on their level of stealth (hiding/camouflage) and your sensor capability (Mk. 1 Eyeball, thermal imagery). Likewise, a straight shot is not always a hit, especially with infantry: Their ability to hide behind low walls, boulders and in small surface depressions is abstracted. Obviously, a modicum of armor penetration (range, angle etc.) is modeled, and levels of damage ranges from a catastrophic kill to knocking out some sensors or blowing off a wheel/track.

Air support is somewhat like M1TP: More interaction with scout platforms (scout helos, observation planes, UAV's) lets you position them more accurately and they give more accurate feedback on enemies spotted, while weapons platforms (helicopter gunships, attack/fighter jets) are usually given only rudimentary orders and offer little feedback on enemy spotting.

The campaign map has much in common with the Close Combat series: Turn-based, it is made up irregular-shaped tiles, with towns, road network and waterways. Units are resupplied, reinforced and moved on this map; when two opposing forces enter the same tile the game switches to battle mode. You can move across open ground, but controlling the road network gives much better access to reinforcements and supplies: Get yourself stuck in the middle of nowhere and you'll find yourself short on ammo and fresh troops for the next battle. This also means that it's up to the player to decide if he wants to fight to the last bullet or just a delaying actions nursing his troops: For an important road junction/choke point you might want to risk it all, while on a flank with no roads you may be satisfied with keeping the enemy in check and keep your forces largely intact.

The AI on both the individual level and overall has a measure of human error built into it: Present the enemy with the obvious scenario and he'll respond with a well-coordinated action; catch him by surprise in an ambush and he'll do a good deal of running around in circles trying to figure out what the heck is going on. This relates directly to the campaign map: Say you come up against an enemy and make a spoiling attack: Take some pot-shots but don't force the issues and just keep the enemy in check. On the next turn you manage to flank with another unit and attack that same enemy from the rear: His forces will be facing the wrong way and poorly coordinated.

Single player, co-op and PvP multiplayer modes are available. In multiplayer, the players divide available units among them: Depending on the number of players each may control one or more platoons, and one player will be designated as the overall commander and control assets like air support and off-map artillery.

A lot about commanding the units and not a lot about actually fighting the vehicle, I know. Again, the actual first person view sim part it would look a lot like M1TP.

In terms of the when, where, what and how there would be separate games for different time periods and scenarios: WW2 (North Africa, Normandy, Kursk, Bagration etc.), Korean War, Six Day War, Yom Kippur War, Fulda Gap (mid-80's) and Desert Storm. Plus fictional contempurary scenarios like Israel vs. Syria/Egypt, US vs. China; there are plenty to choose from. Historical scenarios would be semi-generic: In a, say, Normandy scenario you'll fight in a generic “French Bocage landscape”, not a 1:1 accurate depiction of the Caen area.

Again, apologies for the wall of text.

IMO, as much as I would welcome a sim lite, I don't think that it would be cheap to develop. Whether or not it could then be made a commercial success remains an open question. That aside, I think the personnel management part of M1TP and M1TP2 were fun (though maybe not overly realistic). Having a wargame meta layer would be another thing that could be quite fun, similar to what I could see in the Graviteam titles (even though I haven't yet figured out how it works). How that would jive with the concept of having one company of personnel to groom and promote, I have no idea (unless we think of some sort of a fire brigade that gets shifted from one sector to another, which probably requires a lot of artistic license).

Most people seem to be interested in WW2, but then you can't have all the cool gadgets of today. From an entertainment perspective, a linear battlefield and a clear good vs. evil distinction is always helpful (WW2 had Nazis to kill, a clear plus; Cold War gone hot with evil commie aggressors is another tried and true meme (might be fun to juxtapose this with NATO invading WarPac terrain "to liberate the people of the East from communism"). From a development perspective WW2 has the disadvantage of a gazillion of variants and subvariants of tank models (especially on the German side). This has of course the potential to get players interested if they can upgrade their equipment with "prestige points" (à la Panzer General).

A radical alternative would be a science fiction setting. It could still have tracked, armored vehicles. It could even have the latest armor of today as the vintage equipment of a destitute rebel force or something, e.g. Mankind defending against invaders with hover tanks and laser guns or something. Seen from both sides, there are interesting perspectives with vastly different strategic goals possible. Mankind has weak weapons but a large industrial base, the aliens have technological superiority but can't replace their losses until they have brought a terrain with suitable industrial resources under their control. Maybe they can facilitate meteor storms as their non-radioctive-yet-still-uber-powerful artillery, but the more they rely on it, the bigger the destruction of an infrastructure that they actually want and need. Mankind could attempt a scorched earth policy, but as long as it can't at the same time incur sufficient losses on the alien invader, this too reduced the ability to continue the fight.
Over time, successful battles could bring the adaptation of alien technology to upgrade the equipment.
The science fiction setting gives the greatest leeway for a developer to still have a simulation, but one that doesn't have to be ultra-complicated (e.g. alien technology could be simple to operate and powerful, but the heavy units would be seriously outgunned, and there will be no reinforcements by anything other than light infantry).

Whether you collect humans to grind them into pulp to spray on the ground as fertilizer, or enslave them with brain slugs or orbital mind control lasers, it a matter of taste. The point is, the aliens should appear as an unbeatable, technologically advanced invader who, however, is playing va banque in reality and if they can't win certain key territory in blitzkrieg style, they are screwed.

Some really good thoughts.

I can't remember ever seeing a sci-fi tank sim (except maybe something I had for a Mac around 1990), and even then, I'm not entirely sure how you'd sim something like that. Grav tanks would be the first thing that comes to my mind, like out of FASA's old Renegade Legion game.

My personal preference is still for a hypothetical Cuban invasion. You've got all the great WWII tanks still around (Castro had M4A3E8s and Comets, plus T-34/85s, IS-2ms and SU-100s). The Soviets had four motor rifle regiments on the island, and according to one Cuban source, two additional tank battalions. That gives you tons of options. ATGMs were just appearing, attack helicopters barely existed, IR technology was very optional. I think that the early 60s time period would be most open for either updating to modern times or going back to WWII - but you'd be building the code infrastructure to go either way from the start.

I also think modding would be a big bonus for the engine. The first real game I was ever involved with beyond simply playing was Operation Flashpoint. That game lasted far beyond its shelf life (and it still sells to this day) because it was so welcoming to player modifications. So, done right, your own players might take your game - whatever time/place it ends up being - and making something else out of it. If you make the Cuba 1962 game and let it be highly moddable, your players might make a total conversion mod for the Battle of the Bulge. This has happened in plenty of games, where the mods themselves encourage sales of the base game. I bought GTA4 on a Steam sale recently just to play the police mod. I bought BF2 years ago specifically to play the Project Reality mod. I still play Strike Fighters 2 because every day a new plane or terrain is released for it. If you build a good tank game/sim engine, they will come.

Krise - really good ideas too. I'd certainly like a company-level tactical wargame with the ability to drop in and out. As Ssnake said, Steel Armor does this (though, again, it suffers from the interface). Steel Beasts ProPE does a very good job with it, IMHO. It was clean and simple to use, but could also be complex when it wanted to be.

Aside from WW2, I'm somewhat skeptical about how much mass market appeal a semi-historical armor simulation would have. I suppose, nobody wants to touch the Israeli-Arab wars with a nine foot pole, simply because of the PR disaster minefield that surrounds these conflicts (although the potential for epic battles is obviously there). The US aside, who cares about Cuba? Who cares about Korea?

For great entertainment and a sim lite, historical accuracy in the equipment isn't necessary. In fact, striving for details like this could easily lead into exactly the direction that you do NOT want with a sim lite. Science fiction offers a relatively easy way out. You can implement pretty much anything that's within the limits of how far you want to bend the laws of nature. At the same time you can very well be quite consistent. It doesn't even have to be a totally hokey, hackneyed story as long as you're willing to think of the constellation of, let's say, interstellar Conquistadores. Forget "Independence Day" and other Hollywood drivel. I'm thinking more about books like Anathem (Stephenson), or Footfall (Niven/Pournelle), heck, maybe even something like Battlestar Galactica (to name a more popular example). Say, the fleet escapes the Cylons and does find fabled Earth, but it's actually occupied by someone, and the fleet is running out of everything (except that the people on the target planet aren't aware of their predicament, and #%&*$# their pants (I mean, the fleet can travel the stars, it just have to be superior, right? right? I for one welcome out new overlords...)

Let's say they occupy Australia because it's relatively isolated and relatively sparsely populated except for the coastal region. So you drop a comet into the South Pacific and eliminate the Gold Coast by Tsunami. That leaves Perth and Darwin as the only serious staging points for a counter-offensive while the invaders have enough time to defeat whatever is left at the coast, and then turn on Brisbane and Melbourne. The rest of the world will be relatively slow to react. Who can actually deploy and sustain a force that either has to be sent from Perth across one of the most hostile deserts of this planet, or to be sent from Darwin to drive all the way down the Gold Coast (because sure as hell you can't send them straight south through the desert).
Then you get all kinds of political trouble because China and Indonesia think that now is a good opportunity to take over the continent, so the Aliens can actually play a bit of Divide and Conquer. At the same time, by controlling the space around Earth and the Solar System, they can interdict pretty much any surface fleet that might try to send troops to Australia. The more I think about the scenario, the more I like it.

Antarctica would be the alternative, if the Aliens don't like it hot. Either way, by denying space to mankind and throwing rocks from orbit, they control the seas, and can therefore successfully isolate either one of these continents. Australia has plenty of easily accessible natural resources (not so Antarctica), the only drawback is that the industrial capacity is limited (even more so further south).

I respectfully disagree. I've seen so many scifi games, especially scifi sims, flop. Poorly. I was involved in one of them, even if only tangentially. It's exceedingly difficult to make a scifi world believable and enjoyable for anything set beyond 10-20 years in the future unless you skip hundreds of years ahead and start essentially from scratch.

In my limited experience, Americans represent the largest game market. Therefore, the game should probably include Americans. Russians also really seem to be keen on tank sims - especially if you don't stereotype/handicap the Russians and make them look evil.

Has anyone ever done an Arab-Israeli ground forces sim? Strike Fighters has an Israeli Wars module for them. Didn't seem to cause too much outrage, but you're also not shooting at stone-throwing kids. Tank fans like tanks. I think it is as simple as that, and as long as you do justice to what you're portraying, you'll get people to buy it.

...but you'll only get those who are already sold on tanks, mentally. Isn't a sim lite supposed to cater to a wider audience?

Well, the entrepreneur's blessing and curse is right there: The freedom, and the necessity to make a decision, and bet substantial money on your choice. Historical, or sci-fi - there's apparently good reason for both, but you can do only one, and you will know whether you made the right choice only after it is too late to change your mind. :o

I love this thread. We need more tank sims, be it 'lite' or hardcore.

World of Tanks is a fine casual sim, and I am assuming that it is popular. I only played it for a few days a little time back. Is it too casual to be considered 'lite'? That would depend on the definition of 'lite'. But, I think its popular enough to show that a new WW2 armour sim/game could do fairly well and thats the era that needs a new sim/game the most.

As for future era, I remember playing Planetside with a buddy over TeamSpeak, in a vanguard tank. Me driving, and him gunning. It was a blast learning to co-ordinate with each other. I wish I had video of us playing. I hope the next Planetside has a 2-man tank too!

So my ideal sim would be set in WW2, with scalable difficulty/realism -- from 'lite' to hardcore. And Id want to have a crew and/or platoon that gains experience, that I want to care if they lived or died. And a decent campaign instead of canned missions. The campaign doesnt have to be fully dynamic, but would like the missions to be generated. I wont buy a game if it only had canned missions or a set of 12 scripted missions as a "campaign".

Yeah, I really don't like a handful of canned missions for a campaign. Replayability is a big thing for me.

What about tank interiors? Personally, I think they're totally superfluous, especially if they don't have functionality. If you're not looking through your optics or sticking your head out of the hatch, you're not playing the game/sim. Seems like a waste of artistic effort (and to a lesser extent, programming effort). But I've seen people pretty adamant about including them for immersion.

Also, define "Set in WWII." Are we talking France '44? Western Desert? Tunisia? Italy? Poland '39? Russia? France '40?

For me, Id take anything that adds to immersion, so interiors would be great. A lite sim could probably skip interiors, and only have views for gunsights and external camera.

Id prefer France 44, but would play anything really. I cant see how a WW2 lite sim would succeed without this setting included in the game.

The first claim from the company should be the old 1980s and 1990s marquee headline: "Any more real, and it would be classified." That would at least set up expectations that it's not a World of Tanks MMO or sells you Sci-Fi tanks or other tired formulas like Panzer Elite Action or Tiger Hunt. It often failed to live up to its own claim, but it's a sim-lite.

Graphics should be a priority- there seems little point in doing it if more serious simulations have similar graphics standards.

Reward or point system for the player. This can feel contrived, but I guess it's a matter of taste: for example, the player winning 3 or 4 Congressional Medals of Honor or promoted from E-3 to 0-5 after enough engagements under his belt before the game forces him into retirement. So cliche.

Standard formula that the entire war hinges on the player's actions or that all events are focused on what the player accomplishes. Although this is often contrary to historical events or absurd, for entertainment reasons it sets up theatre and drama. It also defines the contrast between sim-lite and sandbox type wargame.

Personally I would like to see more variation in communications over the radio net. When everything is dead silent except "Enemy, front," from time to time; it lends to the artificial feel when similar reports are used to make known a single RPG threat and a whole tank battalion moving into position. It adds to the flavor that there is a wider conflict going on with other units involved.

Yeah, radio comms are something I've noticed lacking in games. In combat, you're constantly talking to everyone. Unfortunately, very little about what you're saying is relevant to a game and, indeed, it'd be difficult to create proper syntax for much of it anyway. Plus, it'd be difficult to differentiate your crew, your platoon and other unit chatter if you aren't familiar with their voices in person.

Have you all played BF3? I do, on occasion, all though I'm mostly a flight simmer. But, Ill tell you, I think that the tank combat is a blast in that game. I grab a tank or LAV whenever I can.
I would love a tank game that would be similar to the tank episode in BF-3's single player. I'd buy that in a hearbeat.
Huge maps, and wild and wooly tank combat, like World Of Tanks, but one in first person. I have to be in the tank to feel really immersed in the game. Use the Frostbite 2 graphics engine and you have a hit.

SB Pro PE (especially multiplayer) may be worth a try after all...

Frostbite 2 engine? Not on an indie budget. But yeah, BF2 mods had some really fun tank combat (I'm specifically thinking Project Reality and Forgotten Hope). I would hope BF3 would have been influenced by them. Red Orchestra had fun tank combat too, and a little more realistic. I've got RO2 but I really don't like it and haven't been able to try the tanks in that yet.

Like World of Tanks?

Sci Fi tank sim? Would it have Bolos???

Tanks in Arma2 are sim-lite, great fun but not hard going.

Here is an incomplete list of my WW2 games
1. Medal of Honor (PC)
2. Medal of Honor Spearhead (PC)
3. Medal of Honor Breakthrough (PC)
4. Medal of Honor Pacific Assault (PC)
5. Medal Of Honor Rising Sun (PS2)
6. Medal Of Honor Frontline (PS2)
6. Call of Duty (PC)
7. Call of Duty United Offensive (PC)
8. Call of Duty World at War (PC)
9. Call of Duty 2 (PC)
10. Call of Duty Finest Hour (PS2)
11. Call of Duty 2 Big Red One (PS2)
12. Day of Defeat (PC)
13. Day of Defeat Source (PC)
15. Battlefield 1942 (PC)
16. Battlefield 1942 Road To Rome (PC)
17.Silent Hunter 3 (PC)
18.Silent Hunter 4 (PC)
19.Company of Heroes (PC)
20.IL2 1946 (PC)

Anyway the point to this is we have done WW2 to death.........

Couple this with the fact that MOST tank sims are World War 2 already. I know I did not list a World War 2 tank sim but at this rate I am over saturated with World War 2 themed video games. I want something different.

I'm looking forward to that WWII Eastern Front game made on the Arma2 engine. As modders, the team behind it had a reputation of doing good things with armor, and I'd like to see how they bring that to their new game.

I want hover tanks....... just kidding.

I can see it now it is going to be like that episode in Family Guy where Peter runs Joe over with a tank then tells him he looks like a tube of toothpaste

I hear ya man but I am still waiting on a working WWII tank "SIM" where everything works and the software is supported long enough to get the bugs worked out. I would also like to see a relatively intuitive interface. IMO the only tank sim meeting these requirements is Steel Beasts but as we know its not WWII

I had a little taste of SB, and its HUD/Interface is exactly the same type of what I am doing, basically a GUI.