If someone was to make a new tank simulator what would your top 5 most wanted features be?

How important would, say, 1:1 system management be? Would you want it to have all the buttons that a real tank has? Would you like it to be able to connect to ArmA for infantry and DCS for air support? Destructible environments a big wish? Big or small maps?

Looking forward to hear!

“Keep away from those who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you believe that you too can become great.” - Mark Twain

Simple, intuitive driving/gunnery controls like in BF but with realistic distances, weapons, systems and tactics as long as the emphasis is still on fun. And a decent set of singleplayer battlesets.

I'd settle for nothing less than totally realistic weapons system and system modes with supporting procedures such as MRS updates and maybe boresighting modeled extremely accurately. Also, contrast, gain, focus, etc. for thermal and daysight optics would be nice as well. Realistic ballistics are a must, scratch that, given, a long with extremely realistic damage for modules such as GPS, TIS, LRF, ammo rack etc. An ability to connect to DCS would be nice, and DCS CA would probably be the engine for such a sim, giving it built in air support. Destructible environments... well, for a CA-attached sim, ask the developers of that. For an indie sim, such as America's Armor, hell to the yeah! This includes aesthetic damage on the tanks, correct? The maps... Black Sea is big enough, indie game's maps would probably have to be gigantic for me to be remotely impressed . Also, forgot to metion, 3d interiors are a must, loading animations would be nice. Also, if the tank in real life is equipped with datalink,( BOWMAN, Challenger 2; IVIS, M1A2, A2 SEP )it would be excellent if that were modelled as well.

The game could also have scalable realism, such that a newcomer could gradually get acquainted. Also, a full set of hopefully interactive training tutorials for each system would be nice. Fully interactive MISSIONS for tactics such as hull down positions and different types of attacks would also be nice.

Total realism is fine and all, but how do you effectively play a DCS: A-10C - style Abrams with 4 crew stations?

What do you mean? Each crew member in his own station with his own controls, systems etc over lan/interwebs

In single player, crew positions then taken over by ai. Just as good old M1 tank platoon.

I would like to see a digital version of the old Avalon Hill Tank game. Although being a board game , it gave the feel of rolling through the French countryside under enemy fire . The Tank and B-17 games were set up the same. your Sherman or B-17 bomber was the center of the game and everything u shot at or did was cause and effect.

What about going back to the 80s? NATO vs. Warsaw Pact?

Fully moddable armor ratings - so you don't have to live with whatever fairytale the game ships with.

Personally I'd just love for the freaking M1A2 to be represented.............

Wow what a thought, The 80's NATO and the Russian Hordes storming thru the gap into West Germany. Wall to Wall BMP,s and Tanks.

Oh yes I would buy that game.

And replace it with what?

Whatever we want.

If they're dynamically loaded table data we can replace the values in the table.

"Sandbox style" moddability is always > canned or hardcoded
(provided you don't take a performance hit at runtime)

Ah, understood...replace one fairytale with another one ;-)

This style of modding some disatvantages in my p.o.v.=> makes multiplayer a #%&*$#.
For single player it may be usefull...depending on what you want to do.

I disagree with this in many respects.

Total realism = niche product that a handful of people will be playing 3 months after you release it. Are you gonna make players wait 45 minutes if they throw a track? That's realistic. Hell, make it more realistic by forcing the player's avatars actually fix the track in that 45 minutes.

You need to make it accessible and fun, even if it costs you some realism.

World of tanks, for example, is hugely popular. I'm willing to bet that even with it being free to play, they make money hand over fist. Thousands of people play it because it is so easy to play. You don't have to go as 'accessible' as they are (and in fact, I really wouldn't want that) but if you go totally opposite and make people do this 100% realistically.

Also, 3D interiors seem like a massive waste of resources in my opinion. For all the effort you put into making an interior, which you're not looking at if you're trying to fight in your tank, your modellers could be making other things, like scenery, targets, damage models, etc.

For me?

I'm interested in game play. Specifically single-player.

I think the Third Wire series could be a good guide for a tank game. Realistic enough, but doesn't require you to learn an entire manual to play.

Extremely moddable, with a dynamic campaign (not Falcon 4 detail, but something with replayability) and crew management. Panzer Elite was an excellent blend of realism and gameplay (though the missions were canned - my biggest beef with the game) and would be a good model for any tank sim.

If you're doing WWII, I'd like someone to develop a good method for tank-infantry cooperation. So many tank sims/games focus on tank-on-tank combat. The vast majority of tank combat in WWII and, hell even today, was in support of infantry. I think a good tank game would make an effort to improve on this.

This.

IMO if one took the BF3 tank control and married that to a Third Wire-fidelity firecontrol simulation and tactical map like in the old Sherman M4 game you'd end up with a pretty decent and fun tank sim. Total realism doesn't necessarily equal better.

Not really. Plenty of games handle moddable content for multiplayer just fine. Arma is a good example (and some of the fps's out there). The server would control whatever mods are enabled, and the clients would run whats enforced by the server. In a server browser you would easily see who is running modified content (it would have to be made clearly visible in the window).

And for those who prefer the single player (and there are a ton - I tend to think they are in fact the silent majority) having moddable content makes scenario designs much MUCH easier to tailor. I can think of some prime WWII action between german and russian tanks I'd love to model.

Which leads me to the next wishlist item I guess: a fully featured editor. Ala ARMA level ease and power.

Oh - and full replays with extensive camera controls!

I think the key to successful game design is the ability to make the player have the game experience he/she wants. Everyone has a different idea of what their ideal tank game is. A game that has options (everything from controls to difficulty to visual quality) and modability (so players can create the content they want) is key. Look at how successful the Third Wire flight combat games are, in spite of no marketing and strictly word-of-mouth advertising. People have been playing those games for years - I've been playing one variation or another since 2001 (IIRC)!! We need a game like that for tanks, that allows enormous flexibility of play options and is exceedingly moddable. You guys may want to play with Shermans and Panthers in Normandy, I prefer M60A1s and T-55s in Egypt, others probably like M1s and T80s in Vladivostok. A good, flexible game would allow for all of that, even if the content only included M60A2s and T-64s in Germany.

Well, the guy who are making world of tanks show what succesful tank GAME lokks like.
Easy to hop in, quick to learn, quick to play. Helps people that are short on time.

A tank/mech. warfare SIMULATION need time to learn and master. For the individual tank, for platoon and maybe later for playing at squadron/company level. And that is one of the biggest problem of any simulation, be it land air or sea.

I prefer a game that helps you to get as close to RL as possible. Well full modability can help that if you find the right gaming community/"clan". So it can be a way. They must be skilled though...making a tank model with fully funktional FCS is not a piece of cake(if you want to add vehicles not included in the original package)
From my experience in the wargamers community there a tons of myths about which tank can do what and what not and what they think mech.-warfare should look like. It'd be interesting to see what the consensus would look like :-P

Most of the above implies that a good tank game should allways be multi player. Unless one can make AI tanks behave correctly and react on voice commands :-)

no need to have this discussion, Steel beasts is the perfect tanksim.

Close to perfect, though perfect would have a dynamic campaign...though really like where Steel Beast has come since inception. I'll keep dreaming and hoping.

Ill jump into this fray...

Steel Armor blaze of war is shockingly close to my ideal tank sim. Not far off in fact. Landscapes are too damned flat...... and needs larger battle areas per battle are my biggest beefs. However........most folks now a days can not seem to handle learning a sim. If it takes more than 20 minutes they go oooo shiney to something else.

I know one thing, I have stopped any work to perfect the armoured sim. The dev community ( with maybe the exception of SB ) are leaches. I regret every minute I have spent coding since 2002

Gonna have to spell it out a bit more than that, mate.

SB is the best I know and I love playing it. But perfect ? ;-) There is allways room for improvement...least you want to upset *THE LIST*

The #%&*$# with a tank sim is that the tank is never a "standalone" system. If you want perfect tank-sim you have to have
perfect arty, infantry, air-support, air-defence etc etc... simulation as well. So far all software fails on all but one or 2 of these points.

If I want perfect tank simulation, I go to the army GÜZ :-P

Which is why I mentioned SABOW...........

As to the last bit...already did that.

Well,its a matter of personel taste, but for me SABOW is to "gamey" in many aspects (f.e. the map and control surface).

Hmmmmmm ya.....which is why you turn them off.

I can't seem to load up the Pzkpw IV in it...

I'd be looking for a engine that has games in both the modern and WWII era tanks. High fidelty on the weapons systems, attention to historical detail (please no balancing tanks for MP, or WoT's awful mutants!), with good AI, and preferrably enough campaigns that teach you how to work the tactics, and even more, why they work!. I'd prefer all important systems working from interior models, but obviously, make each station automated enough to where you don't have to pour sand in the transmission to make a slipping clutch work, or spend 45 minutes outside fixing a track, lol.

Don't make me a platoon leader off the bat, let me earn it!

That was funny, made me laugh out loud enough that I had to explain to the curious wife what I was laughing at... wife didn't get the joke

Hmm, how old are you? I'm shure your local recruiting office can help you ;-)

Ok Ok, I'll try to be more serious. =)


The Problem with tanks sims is, that a tank is only reals sensable/useful in a unit. For a FPS you can always claim to your alter ego is steely-eyed-special-forces-dealer-of-death, and therefor act alone or a VERY small unit.

For a tank the fire-unit is a platoon, the manoeuvre element a company. So if you want to play it as a tank commander in a campaign setting
(assuming that this would be single-player/offline), you'd have to have a company CO and 3(4) platoon commanders played by the computer...and able to give senseable orders to YOU the player.
If AI ever gets that good, we(humans) are DOOMED...DOOOMED I say.

The other way would be to "railroad" the campaign. Which I think would be bad, as there will hardly any unsepected development of the situation.
Thats why I believe the only way to play a tank-SIM(or should I say mechanized warfare SIM) is in multy-player networks sessions.

The other problem/wish mentioned, the equipment span.
If you want to make EVERYONE happy, and include ALL fracking tanks/IFV/APC of the world from 1914 to now, it would be a #%&*$# of modelling to do!! Me thinks that would make it quiete costly for dev. companies(and hey, what kind of sales can you expect for a simulation?) Not to speak about the problems on getting the needed informations in the 1st place!! Or you cut on the model quality and make some kind of generic FCS for all that differnt vehicles.
That would be a bit dull, wouldn't it? I mean what use are the different looks the, if you have the same Fire controll for all of 'em?

The key to company/platoon command is making simple, easy to use controls for those units. Point and click to move them on the map. Shift-point-click for waypoints. Set speed and formation. Go.

I agree with most of your points, but especially as someone who's just now getting into the tank sims (grabbed Achtung Panzer, Panzer elite, t-34 v Tiger) after a LONG lay off, (I think last tank sim I played was M1 tank platoon?), I want to be the newbie member of the platoon. I'd rather have some else give directions, while I try to survive for awhile, not step right into the tactical thinking part of being a tanker.

The AI orders don't have to be great and all-knowing, I'd love to be put into harms way at times, where you have to consider whether or not you are going to follow that order. I'd imagine there were guys at one point in time, that probably wondered wth Michael Wittman was thinking, and damn if I'm going to do that!

I do agree that the best way to play is MP, but that takes a leap after you've played a SP learning campaign. It's much less hard on your friends when you die 2 minutes into a 2 hour mission... for the 8th time in a row.

For the time span... If the engine is sound, then they can do different theaters/time periods incrementally, it doesn't have to be released that way. Granted, you are absolutely correct, it would take forever to get all the appropriate vehicles in.

Since this is a thread about "dreaming", there's not much to say about it from a developer's perspective. What you want is a complete world simulation, and from a commercial perspective I just don't see it happening. The scope simply is too big to ever finish such a venture. An engine that would support such a wide span of different systems and activities as would be needed for a combined arms simulation spanning 100 years in history (and why stop there? Wouldn't we love to charge the Waterloo battleground with a platoon of Leopard 2s? Why not have Tiger tanks in the mix to save the Roman legions at Cannae? What about Montezuma's palace guard equipped with MP5s when meeting Cortez? Axe-wielding Vikings invading Japan?).

A Panzer III has pretty much nothing in common with an M1A2 SEP except the basic concept of a tracked, mobile platform with a gun mounted in a turret. Engagement ranges have increased by a factor of ten since then (and up to a factor of 100 for defending infantry). You want a modern FPS's level of detail for the world, and at the same time fast air to drop JDAMs. Even if we accept the rather arbitrary limitation of the last 100 years in historical scope, there's still an awfully large spectrum of highly diverse combat systems to be considered if it were to be made truly universal.

The next question is then about simulation fidelity. If you want every system modeled with the same level of fidelity, that would be a rather low level actually in order to complete the work in the time span of, say, less than two decades. You'll need an underlying damage model that can cover the vast span from a single bullet, steel full caliber AP shots from 20mm to 75, AP rounds with some HE filling, canister, beehive, long rod penetrators, HEAT rounds with varying degree of fragmentation density, ... All that is supposed to work in real-time, on available hardware platforms, scalable, should include up to several hundred 3D characters per scene in glorious visual splendor with constantly 120 frames per second, cost next to nothing, and work on a tablet PC just as well as on an eight processor monster with two of the latest double-GPU cards in a crossfire/SLI configuration, right?

In short, I suspect that nobody in this thread (including me) has a remote idea about the monumental dimensions of such an attempt.

As a developer, I have to concentrate on what's feasible with the given resources and market conditions. There is no massively rich sugar daddy to finance a 500 person team for fifteen years, and I suspect there never will be. Given these real-world limitations, I think we've done about as good as was to be expected with SB Pro (and we're not done yet, mind you).

Ahh.. Thank you Ssnake for blessing us with your wisdom . Anyways, I think it should just focus on one tank, and simulate that tank very well. Other vehicles should be simulated, but not crewable to put the focus on the one vehicle that the sim is supposed to simulate.

I'd say at least 2 tanks. So you can have PvP games ;-)

Anyway, that'b be a high risk decision...what tank(s) would have the most market appeal?

I don't have a problem with a survey sim that doesn't model everything 100% accurately.

Again, Strike Fighters for tanks.

1) Why would other tanks distract? You as the player could simply choose to ignore them, it seems...?
2) I think you know Steel Beasts Pro PE... how could we possibly increase the fidelity of our work if you look at the Leopard series, the M1A1, the CV90 series, the Pizarro, the Centauro? I'm not sure what realistic expectations could be - beyond the levels that we achieved there. I mean, would you also want a fully featured driving simulation (and what for)?

Better looks - sure.
But as far as realism of procedures and realism of results are concerned I have a hard time imagining how much "more perfect" do you want it to be, given the constraints of what can actually simulated on a PC in a desktop/home environment. The next step would be hardware - control handle replicas, control panels, in short: Partial or full instrumentation. But that's by definition outside of the scope of a simulation software.

I hope that I don't come across as an arrogant SOB who's telling you that his product is perfect and can't be improved. It certainly isn't. But I don't see the vehicle/fire control simulation as the weakest link in the chain. Where I know that there's room for a higher degree of realism, I also know that it must inevitably lead to an unwieldy user interface which in turn raises concerns about the "realism of results". The harder a vehicle becomes to manage through a plethora of insignificant control elements (when in real life you'd have a crew of four, with eight arms and forty fingers to handle the situation), the longer becomes the player's OODA loop and it could very well result in less situational awareness and ability to react adequately in a given situation than it would be in real life. There's more to simulations than just switchology.

Also, it is the issue of a tank being part of a combined arms team with units of complementary capabilities. In order to achieve good results this "periphery" of supporting elements (or some other elements on the sharp end that the player would need to support) must be modeled too, and must be made adequately capable. It is not a surprise that Eagle Dynamics is now adding ground maneuver elements to their study simulations of the A-10 and gunship helicopters. The simulation's fidelity no longer depends on an improvement of airplane switchology, but about putting the entire thing into a bigger context.

Needless to say that the overall simulation complexity will grow very fast, the more combined arms elements are being added, with a serious threat to overwhelm the player with complexity. At the same time, artificial "intelligence" is nowhere near the capabilities of what would be needed for an approach of largely autonomous, computer-controlled formations of ground vehicles. Progress is being made, yes, but the desired scope of the simulated environment as articulated by customers still seems to outgrow the advances made in the "AI" field.

That's spelled "Steel Beasts Pro".

You're right, SB Pro PE is very close (I've bought two copies over the years), but it lacks the ability to quickly and easily add new user content (i.e. mods). Skins are one thing, but new models/terrains/scripts/etc would be excellent. I hope if/when SB2 is developed, some ability to add new user content is allowed. I realize what SB Pro is, and it does an excellent job of it, but, for me, it isn't the perfect tank game.

I've always loved the Cold War tanks - T-55s, T-62s, PT-76s, IS-3s, T-10s, M48s, M103s, M50s, M56s, M41s, Centurions, Conquerors, etc. I don't think most of those have ever been in a tank sim before (save for some bits in WoT and SABoW, both of which have issues).

What I'd like is something like M1 Tank Platoon II, I suppose. A tank game, not necessarily a sim, with a semi-dynamic single player campaign and crew management. Actual theater/tanks is less of an issue. I'm happy with FT-17s or T-90Ms or anything in between.

Adding new terrain/scripts is pretty simple in my p.o.v. Making them is a royal pain in t** a** :-)
There a users that are working on new maps since 8 month and longer=> if you want quality, thats how its gonne be though.
I think user made vehicles(implying thats what you mean?) are not on the horizon...to complicated :-P

Again, this is where you put your "main effort". If you want campaining, a sensable wargame and a good bit of fun...a complex armour/damage/FCS simulation might not be needed. For that, user-content could be a viable option. For me this would do nothing. Well, "perfect" is something different for everybody.

Well I wasn't saying that the level of fidelity in Steelbeasts now is not great. I think it is good for the vehicles you currently simulate. However, would you be willing to pursue that leave, if you ever simulated a CITV, with the different modes it can operate in? Or would you be willing to accurately simulate the IVIS system? In terms of FCS, you are very accurate, The only thing that I could think of would be to have crosswind simulated.

Our approach to C2 systems like IVIS, FBCB2, FüInfoSys, and whatnot is to provide an API so that your customers can connect the actual system and devices to the PC, and then use these devices instead of the built-in map screen (I'm referring to the classroom version, not the Personal Edition here). Replicating other people's software is tedious, it would probably raise some security concerns, and it's a rat race to keep up whenever the original manufacturer changes something in the original system. To that extent we think that the API is the best solution as it allows to deliver the desired training effect while keeping us out of the mire of replicating 3rd party software systems (eventually against the resistance of said 3rd party).

Of course, there's always room to rethink the way how we're doing with the map screen in general. I wouldn't mind making the update intervals more variable, depending on the player's location (digitized tank or not, paper map or not, ...). But this will inevitably result in a loss of comfort for about every thank in SB Pro. Just look at how many virtual units are willing in multiplayer sessions to play scenarios with disabled map updates or even entirely disabled map screens. Judging from past experience it is something that most players would not welcome. Grudging acceptance is about the best outcome for which we could hope in this case.

I personally find playing without the "magic" map hillarious :-D.
You'll find out the 90%-100% of the player are "navigationally challenged". With the usuall level of training/radio disciplin of the contemporary gamers, networkbattles will quickly degenerate into:

-Where is the enemy?
-Where is my unit?
-And most important: Where the hell am I?

This will be followed by uncoordinated surprize encounters with OPFOR and rampamt BLUE on BLUE.

I love this games :-P

Fire control systems are not your weakest link, but compared to an actual tank, SB doesn't simulate much. Sure, the firing procedures are the same, but what about thermal sight adjustment, day sight filter, MRS updates, reticle adjustment?

IMO this is one of the cases where the user interface will simply become unwieldy. How much can you do when all that the user has as an input device are mouse movements, mouse clicks, mouse wheel, and keyboard strokes? Steel Beasts already has more than 200 distinctive hotkeys/commands?
Should fiddling with thermal imager controls really be at the focus of our attention? Because that's what you have to do all the time. Whenever you change magnification, adjust the focus. Look at a different area, adjust brightness, adjust contrast. It is a high frequency activity that only distracts from the focus of the simulation, which is combined arms combat tactics (with an emphasis on armored vehicles).

These controls only make sense if you have either a control handle replica with integrated TIS controls, or a replica of a thermal imager's control panel, giving you three or more analogous controls to set brightness, contrast, focus, and maybe also the brightness of the reticule. MRS updates ... yes, I suppose we can do that. Yellow and gray filter - yeah, possible, although one would probably need HDR rendering and a model of atmospheric scattering first before one could apply corresponding shader effects (and to be honest, I never found them THAT useful in real life).

Well the brightness, contrast and focus settings are probably best left to the game. Maybe ( this is the dream forum ) if someone developed an iPad app with one of the panels on it, it would simplify switchology and enable settings such as the ones mentioned above. For the hardcore HARDCORE simmers, they could custom build a TRU panel or something, and have it ( almost ) just like in a real tank. ( without the army life )

LOL Ronin!
So true. I memember a MP game of Panzer Elite so many years ago when KrappO killed me because he was tired of my bad skills. I said I was going one direction but moved the opposit. As soon as I cleared the no kill, spawn zone he killed me. the text I recieved was something like 'there were no firendlies moving in that direction'