@Hunter_i86 do you think GHPC is worth getting? i am asking bcs i feel like warthunder is on like downward spirall to the final few years of its existence, so i was thinking GHPC looks to be mutch more better at least in terms of How realistic it is and Devs really show their passion and that they care about their comunity 👍
@@diprosla592 if you like tanks and you willing to try something new absolutly try GHPC atleast its amazing and you can get your money back from steam if you dont go over 2h of playtime or 1 week of having the game
@@diprosla592At its current state, it's more like a sandbox right now rather than a fully fledged game. It's probably still far away to actually becoming a game that can compete against War Thunder. Even stuff like the main menu UI still isn't polished, and there's only a few selection of playable ground vehicles. Get GHPC for the epic sandbox tank sim experience, but don't expect it to be a complete War Thunder replacement for now.
I can’t say enough about how amazing the explosion/impact effects are in this. Not just the artillery (although that’s my favorite) but the impacts of rounds against vehicles and/or the dirt around them. It adds so much immersion. I wish games like DCS would take note: there’s a lot more black/grey sooty smoke and dirt than orange fireball. I got to watch a 155mm barrage strike a valley about 2km away and it looked almost exactly like your artillery impacts. Maybe one day we can get some airburst rounds when we get infantry Thank you for spending the time to make those effects as great as they are.
First game I played that had the T-80 was Operation Flashpoint and it has forever programmed my brain to always expect a T-80 to be covered in ERA. Not complaining, just funny thought
ERA was extremely rare. They are right, not to have it in game at this time. Hell, 70% of the tanks were still T 55s and 64 let alone T80s. They would be more worried about bringing extra vehicles . Also, I tested and sold ERA for a company trying to purchase massive amounts. Soviet ERA depending on which plant produced it goes from decent to terrible. Half the plates wouldn’t fire, half had delayed reactions where the tank round had already gone through and it caused secondary explosions. Some of the secondary explosions were up to 30 seconds later where that copper was still Molton hot… I always wondered what would happen if the tankers were getting off while that went on. You probably would lose a few fingers. The truth is at the end of the Cold War. The Soviets had been bankrupt for 15+ years and we’re doing the equivalent of the allies inflatable Sherman tanks just to deter war. That’s what games truly can’t capture . All these specs and details of what these tanks were built are completely different from the east the west. In the US we had to justify all of our equipment to Congress and it had to be tested in public. The USSRs specifications and what was actually made in my experience is rarely the same. However, post Cold War Russian equipment got extremely well built, and the best stuff they ever built was post World War II, that stuff kept on tanking till the 90s. But when you read US military specs , you assume that the vehicle will be exactly as advertised or the manufacturer had to pay. In the USSR it was all the government who could never admit they were wrong just like the US government.
@@Chopstorm.operation flashpoint also taught me that a rifle bullet can detonate any vehicle, if added enough. Because HP-based damage model of the game it was possible to kill tank with machinegun fire, although this ain't anyhow practical. now playing «walk.mp3»
@@The_0G_ChadThe T-55 was completely phased out of 1st and 2nd echelon by 1985. T-64's were the backline tanks in GSFG with some T-62's in the Baltics. Also that bankrupt statement is just not ture. The economy was in a very bad stagnation but part of the fundamentals of their command economy was that it was impossible for factories to go bankrupt they did not measure income only input and output. The Soviet army also had a quality assurance board which could reject equipment that did not meet standards, so while the statement is true for the civilian sector it is much less true for the military.
Modders will definitely help your crave for ERA. Pact Increased Lethality has toggleable ERA for T-72M/T-72M1 among some other features, so I think ERA for the T-80 / T-64 wouldn't be a problem
@@Skipper441what are you on about even steel beast a full fedality tank simulator has a 3nd person camera I guess by your logic that is also a another type of world of tanks
@@FormerChild-n6k Bro is a game 100 percent better than WoT , WoT is a game on plasticine tanks and it is not logical to compare it with this game ....
And it's fire control system is accurately modeled rather than a ww2 FCS like it is in war thunder Don't have anything against people who like it but every tank in that game including the top tier one's have a ww2 FCS There are lazer rangefinder's but even in the highest B.R vehicles you still have manually lead
@@robingrewal8103the game is so fast on top tier, and distances are so short, that lead would be useless anyway. Historic sights and thermals would be cool though
This update is awesome. I'm going to parrot another comment and say the effects on target graphics are amazing. You really have something special here. Can't wait to see what's next.
27:17 Searched for it. 1985 theoretically could even be the first batch of A4 as it entered service in December 85... but that is probably stretching it. I think the most logical version would probably be the A1. It got the EMES-15 thermal sight instead of the PZB 200 low-light intensifier and the commanders periscope height got increased a bit. I think that could make a difference in gameplay. With the change to the thermal sight the commander could also mirror the gunner sight to his position if I'm not mistaken but I doubt that this would be relevant to the game? A0 has PZB 200 low-light intensifier as gunner sight. A2 is just updating A0 to A1. A3 replaces the radio set for a digital one, so probably irrlevant for gameplay. For the first batch of A4 the most relevant change would be the new digital ballistic computer. Everything later is out of time frame for 1985. Improved armour comes with batch 6 of A4 in 1988.
This game has everything for an amazing realistic pvp game. A true, brutal pvp like tarkov but with tanks. There is yet AI to be invented that is genuinely more interesting than other humans. Anyways, i will definitely be buying your game and hope for more great things
The first GHPC multiplayer will be PVE as I think the devs have stated PVP would require more effort put into anti-cheat. It would come later, but even PVE will be a lotta fun
@@yarikbondarev9171 yea I was thinking more about the brutal feeling and unforgiving nature of the games, but I definitely agree its more like arma in terms of other things and I love arma
I really returned to this slow cooking tank sim after a hiatus with the addition of the T-64A with its peculiar coincidence rangefinder, this tank was featured in a couple of great missions giving us all a taste of greater things to come. The gas turbine monster, T-80B, will surely bring much enjoyment to this promising, upcoming tank simulator. With the low price of entry (the game does not cost that much on Steam) you will do yourself a great disservice not picking it up. For the price you will support a great project promising to fill the gap between arcade games like War Thunder and simulation behemoths like Steel Beasts, I promise you that you will have some great enjoyment while you are at it. And yes, the game is still very much a diamond in the rough, but the small dev. team is absolutely dedicated to making this game becoming a full blown "milsim lite" featuring combined arms operations with you being able to play as the West German, East German, Soviet or US forces fighting it out in a cold war gone hot cirka 1985 either in single player or in PVE with your tanker buddies.
There was a game, T72 balkans on fire, and instructions for the FCU were very detailed. Game itself was very cool for it's time and GHPC reminds me of it. So, in that game to get a lead shot for T72, you had to measure distance twice in quick sucsession. First and then second measurement right before the shot. During this two measurements you had to steadily follow the target. Good times.
Love the game, can't wait for infantry in game. I would love to see time related DLC's so we can follow the evolution of the tank and the battlefield balance with the introduction of newer versions and other tanks. I can imagine the T-80 being king in 1985 while being matched in 1995 and inferior in 2005...
You should add a stock footage reel to the menu showing Soviet, east and west German and US cold War tank manoeuvres and tank development/ training footage
i got the early intel on this, saw actionscripters comment under a video about the 1g42 and i asked if the t80 was being added, the next day this video pops up
No The fuel tanks you see on Soviet MBT'S where kept on during road marches and training but in a real combat situation they would have been detached before
hello, does the T-80B FCS compensate for parallax and additional momentum to projectiles from the shooter vehicle's movement? Edit : after testing of my own, it appears that it does not compensate for parallax, but do compensate for extra momentum.
Don't know about parallax, but it does compensate for changes in distance due to movement, you can see "Delta-d enabled" on the bottom left corner of the screen
@@quint2885 I am aware of delta-d and it's usage, however what I meant was change in compensation due to the projectile having a flatter trajectory, as a result of extra momentum boost from the firing platform itself, in addition to the propellent charge. For example if you try firing at a target while still moving towards the target yourself, you should see your shell flung at the sky as an T-72, and the shell staying close to target as an Abrams, because Abrams' FCS does the "compensate for momentum" thing. Nonetheless I appreciate an answer, but there appears to have been a misunderstanding 😅
I've only played with the T-80b on the gunnery range and I'm not too happy. The armor never seems to stop anything. Whenever I shoot at it with the 105mm on the M-60 it catastrophically explodes on an all to regular basis. When I shoot the M-60 with the 125mm SABOT rounds it doesn't take out the M-60 with a single shot. The M-60 was NOT a well protected tank but the rounds struggle to penetrate. Meanwhile Soviet tanks that are objectively better protected go down with one hit even to the turret front when I hit them with 125mm rounds. The M-60 does go up but it takes 2 to three rounds unless I hit the side of the hull. The M1 Abrams can get penned but the shells rarely take out the tank with the first hit.
I didn't know Josh was so soft spoken. This stream makes one eager for the Leo1A1A1, also Josh is really hard on the information about the tanks, although I am deeply saddened that we don't get the coolest T55s
Who remembers the game M1 Tank Platoon by Microprose? Who remembers how OP your tank was, and how the bad guys had unlimited ATGMs to fling at you, BUT couldn't destroy you as long as you were showing them your frontal armor? Those were the days! That was my entry drug into tank sims, and I couldn't have ever envisioned what you guys put together here in my wildest dreams back in 1992!
well you can't do what here the Abrams is strong but 3BM32 does not mess around even the BMP1's 73mm grom can one shot a Abrams if it lands a heat round on the drivers periscopes or the turret ring
Indeed but not as broken as they used to be I remember seeing A.I bmp1 gunner being able to slap people across the MAP with the grom or landing perfect shots on targets multiple kilometers away Know that is fixed but damm was funny as hell
Can we get some tweaks to the spam in the crew dialogue? I like getting all the information, but sometimes they spam the same warning several times despite me having already processed the info and not needing to hear it 30 times in a row... Like I will be hiding in a forest and an enemy is in the field 2km away, and they are saying "TRAVERSE LEFT TRAVERSE LEFT TRAVERSE LEFT TRAVERSE LEFT TRAVERSE LEFT". Like no, I already know that unit is there and I do not want to fire yet. They even do this while im reloading ammo. Also when you talk about other theatres and time periods, would that ever even far in the future potentially include WW2? I could see so much fun to be had with the framework you created. Who doesn't want to be a sole tiger tank fending off a hoard of T-34s?! Although I would only want WW2 if it was an uncensored version. Its very jarring how so many developers try to retcon history to make things more "safe".
Hello! Thank you for the stream! Will you be able to add a custom mission maker? Currently, missions are really rigid in their composition. For example, there are several defencive missions for the sviet faction that are almost impossible to pass through because you are unable to outgun several Abrams tanks in your, say, t-55 or t-64 at 2 kilometers because you simply cant see them. Apart from those defencive missions, it is really hard to find an Abrams to duel in a T-80, for example. The enemy AI currently seems to be going along pre set lines. Which also makes gameplay quite rigit. Will there be a possibility to make it actively search for a player and make different battle desicions? Frankly, I just want to have some good old T-80 vs M1 tank duels myself, but right now I am restraind with the mission plots, which are not so many of if we are talking about particular models of tanks. Also, how can I support development more apart from the things I already purchased?
I would love to see - 1. Broken track physics & visuals fixed (just like in T-72 balkans on fire) 2. Tanks currently look way too clean which has a lot to improve 3. More seasons that can be added (snow... maybe even campaigns added like gulf war, Afghan war etc.) This game has a great potential but it all depends on what you guys are willing to work om in the base game & in subsiquent patches & DLCs
T-80B was not the flagship tank of the USSR in 1985. That would've been T-80BV with a few T-80A, later these T-80As were upgraded to T-80U in 1986 with the addition of 4S22 explosives with a thickened flier plate and a backplate integral to to the platform's mounting for it. T-80BV was available by then and in 1986 production started on T-80BV obr 1986 which incorporated GTD-1250 and entered service using the 9M124 GLATGM. It was also Kirov who designed everything on the T-80B, T-80BV was mostly an Omsk development, T-80U had Kharkiv's Obj 476 turret. For a setting in "1985" the use of 3BK14M is extremely questionable. At the bare minimum 3BK18 would have been available and realistically platoons with new tanks were equipped with 3BK21. 3BM32 was produced in very small quantities by 1985, a more appropriate sabot round would be 3BM22. Even still a normal T-80B in a 1985 setting is very strange, at the minimum it would've been equipped with 4S20. There were a few tanks with thermal sights in the USSR, however most of them were on the 1989 T-80UD, these turrets would later be cannibalized to create T-80-UE-1. Omsk's experiments with mounting "Buran" sights on T-80BV was after the fall of the USSR. The T-80B shown also has the additional armor welded on the UFP, there are only a dozen of these that were not equipped with 4S20.
The limited nature of 3BM32 is represented by the fact that in campaign mode whan you start taking heavy losses it will run out and you will be forced to use 3BM22 or 3BM15
They will model things like periscopes, viewing ports, commander independent sighting systems as well as CITV in the future for tanks what have it However fully modelled interiors like the ones in steel beast is something they will not do
@@robingrewal8103they did say they didn’t plan on t-80s because they didn’t appear in the timeline of the fulda gap operation (1985) maybe they figured it could be a different year though it doesn’t have to be set in stone
@@lucianocianciulli6973 not shure what you mean when it was on the public spreadsheet of confirmed vehicles coming to the game long before even the t64A was added And 2 or around that time years ago they showed off the 3D scan someone did for it
@Belisarius2546 They've talked about it before. Production does not mean issue date. They may have been produced, but it wasn't in theater. They have the same stance with M1A1. It may have been produced, but was not issued to frontline units.
For a scenario happening right at the border of east and west germany, one could assume there are west german tanks in the game, yet there are none, just a hint of an Leopard 1A1. On the other hand, the east needs this kind of reinforcement
I know it’s a game and you need balance and you depend on sources giving you blueprints but I have a lot of first-hand experience working with these designs, the weakness were not only the humans crew quarters being terrible for fatigue and survival but the metallurgy and fabrication and QC were also horrible in the 80s. The USSR had been bankrupt 15 years, All of the talented and expensive fabrication had gone to missile and space divisions. The protection was not adequate in real life tests and had extremely high failure rates. it wasn’t until 94 till the Russians started making amazing equipment again. From 78 to 94 no country wanted to buy their machines unless it was at a massive discount. It got so bad countries did not want to buy the tanks. Just license them because the specs seemed amazing until you saw them perform. I got to witness 40+ irl Older generation tests of Soviet vs NATO munitions. I’m sorry but the numbers the Soviets listed as specifications were always 20% off at least. The Egyptians were buying massive amounts and wanted them tested. Almost all of their armor plating varied in BH by 40 points. There was massive amounts of flaws and micro fractures, Meaning when they rolled or forged the plates, they were too hot or too cold. Thin plates were always brittle. Thick plates were always soft. The welds had a massive failure rate. Ammunition had a high fail rate because they did not use pure tungsten. Of course, this all depends on the years. What we found is anything beyond 78 was complete garbage that would’ve never passed an ordinance inspection in the US and would’ve resulted in contract terminations at best And criminal liability at worst. It’s pretty clear you never buy a car from a company who’s going out of business or is bankrupt…. That doubly goes for tanks. With that said the tanks pre-1978 from my experience were amazing and built very well. The tanks built pre-1965 are even better. But laminated armor all depends on the material being as hard and as brittle as advertised. You want to catch the round on the back and absorb and on the front end do you want your steel so hard it tries to shatter the round… breakdown in any of the plates causes it all to go catastrophic proven in the Silica infused armor studies from the 50s in the US. I saw 20 T64 and T80s completely fail versus the 833 at 2000+.
Sounds like you had some interesting experiences. Intelligence unit? By the way, if you have any physical test reports on those M833 tests vs. Soviet armor, I'm sure we'd be interested in looking them over (provided that they're marked unclassified). The contact address on the GHPC site is always open.
Ngl, a lot of this sounds made up. At least, you don't seem to know what you're actually looking at. For starters, no tungsten APFSDS round uses pure tungsten. Some sort of tungsten alloy is nearly always used. Even before the usage of tungsten alloy, tungsten carbide was used instead. So to say the Soviets did not use pure tungsten is nonsense, since literally no one uses pure tungsten in the first place. And when you say "T-64 and T-80", you're not being very helpful at all. What model of T-64 and what model of T-80? And are you sure M833 penetrates those because of quality issues and not because of the design being dated? The T-64A's 80-105-20 composite sandwich as an example is quite dated and is not really designed to resist long rod penetrators, which is why it was replaced by the 60-105-50 sandwich on the T-72 and 60-100-45 on the T-80B. And the base 60-100-45 sandwich on the T-80B would've struggled against M833. Applique armour was added to the T-80B and T-72A because the base array could be penetrated at close range by DM23/M111.
This comment is complete BS, tungsten in projectiles is never pure and cmon man in 1994 Russia started doing amazing equipment again? It was literaly a decade where Russia was at its knees
What??! You're giving the Reds a T-80? We're gonna need at least an M1A1 or we're all toast! What year did we get the A1? Like late 80's? That T-80 isn't getting that ATGM option is it?
The US will still have M833 and thermals The T-80B will not release with its ATGMs, they would be added in a later update since the devs want to model the different flight modes which is complex
M1A1 was in production in 1985 but did out arrive to the Fulda gap intel around 1987 production date does not mean it was issued to frontline troops that year or in common service also the T-80B while being a VERY BIG improvement over all other pact tanks still has the same weak spots them being the drivers periscopes, lower plate and the aera around the gun mantlet and also has no thermals like the rest
In this game, it is better to use PvE mode, PVP mode will not work, since prohibited modifications will be used, which will spoil the game and the balance of power of the parties, it is better to make an adaptive AI that will adjust to the number of players and be more intelligent in combat!!!!
Bro thermals are not optional in actual tank combat. I can cover my tank with bushes and just expose a foot of the turret from defilade you can’t see me, but I can see your exhaust lit up like a Christmas tree. I would say thermals are as important as gun stabilization, and the invention of the Sabo round…. It’s game changing. There is before thermals and there is after thermals. This is why the Russians would’ve lost in the gap. The Americans fight 247 And they would’ve preferred fighting at night because of that advantage. People can say what they want, but the Iraqi Republican guard were legit soldiers with every bit of training as any other military. They were decimated and they were defending and dug in. Murica. The truth is the Soviets would’ve had to balance everything out with overwhelming force, but it’s hard to balance a video game that way unless you let the Russians have two spawns per life.
Thermal sights would have given the Abrams an edge in many cases, but by no means should be seen as something that's "game changing", especially early generation thermal sights which were noted to being quite difficult to work with due to the low visual quality it would display. I think it would be more fair to assume a stalemate would've occurred if Pact forces did invade through the Fulda Gap.
Forgot to mention, but do you rember the time the US Said that if you gave the iraqis US equipment and the US iraqi equipment the results would be the same? Because I do.
the graphics are the way they are so that more units can be put on screen at once without the game slowing down as well as to have everything blend into the games art style so don't expect them to change anytime soon ( or lest in a major way )
@@toothlessDJErcik did not read my replay ? if not i well restate it : the graphics are the way they are is so that more units can be put on screen at once without the game slowing down as well as to have everything blend into the games art style. nothing is going to change that you can live with it or leave also from the view distance you will normally play at they don't look bad and you will only notice there low poly count when you get really close
When will you get rid of Unity and move the game to a better engine? Seriously, stop being stubborn. We know it's YOUR game and it's how YOU want to do things, but in the end you gain nothing by using this terrible engine. The game is still in development. You have nothing to lose. Just do it. It might set development back but it will be a benefit in the long run. And since there's no other game like this out there...there's no hurry.
Unity is the engine of choice for the devs, because it is capable for the project and devs have experience with Unity. A lot of under the hood stuff is probably custom-made by devs, so comparison of default tools between engines is likely meaningless. Unity, just like Unreal Engine is great if used right (The Long Dark, Escape from Tarkov, GUNNER, HEAT, PC!). There's no reason, nor desire for devs to port over anyway (IIRC Unity uses C#, Unreal uses C++). Why would they move over in the first place?
@@Maxtaticful i have nothing against WT but don't expect every tank game to be like it or conform to the norms it was created in the tank game market also my replay was a joke to the fact that a lot of WT player's ( not all but a big chunk of them ) think that if a tank game has no PVP it's not worth your time and is bad you're getting mad over a joke
You are aware Steam shows you information like if a game is single-player, PvE, PvP, etc. correct? You can find said box down just a bit and to the right on any game page (and GHPC only lists single-player).
