Tanks

[Baine]

All this talk of different tanks has overshadowed what I think is the best part of the original post _ a call for all maps to have areas set up that are conducive to tank battles.
Head to tank town when it is up  or the main island tank area and you'll see that lots of people love playing in GVs.
I second the request.
As for shermans _ they are overdue. The gyrostabalized cannon alone would assure the ronsen steady use. (I never knew they had such a thing in WWII.)

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Baine
The gyrostabalized cannon alone would assure the ronsen steady use. (I never knew they had such a thing in WWII.)

It was not very effective is why you don't hear about it.  It was nothing like the M1A2 Abrams system.

In practicality the Sherman had to stop to shoot with any accuracy just as all other WWII tanks did.

[Klum25th]

yea, if you watch the movie Band of Brothers, most of the tanks that fired their shots were either moving then slamed the brakes and then fired or where going 5mph shooting. Nothing like the M1A1 Abrams can do going full speed and manage an accurate shot.

[E25280]

While true that the system was nothing like what we have today (except for the .50 cal Browning, what is?), the description I have says the main problem was crew training.  The system was introduced on the M3A1 Stuart and by 1943 was standard on most Sherman models sporting the 75mm gun.  However, "many crews were not overly familiar with the mechanism and found its use complicated and time consuming.  As a result, many tank commanders disconnected their stabilizers and did not fire on the move, perferring to stop before using the main armament."

If we assume a properly trained crew, the stabilizer could remain an option.  After all, we don't assume green tank crews fleeing their vehicle when pummeled by machine guns (which often happened), thus a seasoned crew would be able to use the gyro system properly.

[rogerdee]

i know everyone says the sherman wouldnt be much good  but what if there was option for it to have two drones similar to bombers.
  The tanks follow the leader ever line abreast  or in a v or  trailing  and all fire at 1 central point  when the leader fires.this would make for some intresting battles.

[Klum25th]

I like the idea, but I dont know how it would work in AH. What happens when you have a tank to your side, wouldn't the tank next to fire on you at the direction you firing. I would like to see a sherman.

The problem here in AH is that were going to have to many tanks that are like the Tiger, or panther, or M26, with big guns and weavy armour. If we got more lighter tanks, like the churchill, Matilda, Grant, Italian tanks, japanes tanks, stuwart, Pnzr II/III, Crusader III, and the M10 tank Destroyer, then we could have tanks like the Sherman in AH, and the T34/76 could also have a chance at some victories. If we got more lighter tanks into aces high (what I mean by lighter is the less powerful guns or less armored tanks) then we wouldnt have to worry about the tiger. We could have tanks that have powerful enough guns to kill a tiger in maybe 3 shots, but it could also have thinner armour and be killed by a sherman. I think we need to get the Panther, then start on lighter tanks. To many tanks with thick armour and powerful guns will make the lighter tanks like the sherman, or churchill not wanted in AH. If we got more lighter tanks then less people would hope in a tiger and get something they like, or is fast, or has a good gun, but not good armour. So now you would have to worry about more tanks that have almost the same characteristics as you. I hope you all understand this.

[mentalguy]

Lets see a tiger take on a t-95.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:T-28-1.jpg

[E25280]

First:  Sorry, Nosara, for the unintentional hijack of your thread.  Your point of needing more "tank-towns" seems to be seconded (and thirded, and fourthed, etc) judging from the number of vehicle-junkies that play the game and keep posting on threads like this one.  

It also speaks well of HTC to have put something on as almost an afterthought and to have it be actually better than 90% of what else is out there for armor-to-armor combat (at least that I have ever seen).

Regarding specific tank types, I go back to my original point about the Panther vs. Tiger.  In pure AH Game Terms (if there is such a thing) there would not be much difference between the two.  Unlike air combat where every 10mph or that 30mm variant vs the 20mm can and do make a big difference to a fight, I am not sure we need a VAST number of different vehicles.  Seriously, a pzkwIII with a 37mm gun vs a Czech38(t) with an identical gun really wouldn't make a difference in game play (other than asthetics).  I would be interested in adding vehicles that would bring something to the table that would make it unique vs. what we have now.

Lets consider the PzkwIV(H) as modeled to be the "baseline" tank in AH. It has a good gun, fair armor, good visability, and is unperked.

T-34/76 is faster, poorer gun but in a faster turret, poorer crew visability, but is slightly more survivable due to the sloped armor.  Also unperked.

Osti is the same basic tank as the (H), but with an AA gun in the turret instead of a vehicle fighter.  Also unperked.

M-8 is faster than all the above and offers a much smaller target, but the gun is far less powerful.  Obviously the weakest of any vehicle yet mentioned, but still good enough to have a role.

M-16 is faster than the Osti with much faster rate of fire, but is definitely weaker in all other respects.

Now that this is our "base" of unperked vehicles, what do other models bring?

Tiger I - Obviously much up-armored and up-gunned vs the base (H).  Only drawback is that it is a larger target and has a very slow turret.  Perked for a reason.

Suggested Sherman.  Armor basically same as (H), gun same as T-34/76 if you want a 75mm version.  Possible advantage in game terms would be the .50cal pintle mount vs. (H) pea-shooter and possible gyrostabilizer.  The more I think about it, this really may still be too similar to the (H) or 34 to warrant the modeling, so maybe the version with a 105mm is really the best way to get it introduced.  Either way, it would be unperked.

Suggested StgIII or SU-85 or Hetzer, etc.  Lack of turret makes it completely different from any of the other tanks regardless of which one is picked and modeled.  Advantage would be a lower cross-section to fire against and slope of armor.  IMHO, something that should be added.  Whether it is perked or not would depend on whether it is an StgIII (unperked) or something like a Jeager-Tiger with the 128mm naval gun (very perked).

Suggested T-34/85.  As with the T-34/76, already faster and better armored than the (H).  Gun would out-perform the (H).  Therefore I would call it a "perk" vehicle, but only modestly so.

Suggested Panther.  In game terms, not much different from the Tiger I excepting for speed.  Would be perked higher than Tiger for that reason.

Getting outside of the above mentioned I just don't know.  What could be added that would really "add" to the game, i.e. be different enough in game terms without being dominated by the baseline (H)?

Churchill tank could be interesting.  I think its armor was roughly that of the Tiger.  Depending on the version, though, it would be hopelessly outgunned -- and quite slow.

M3 Lee was my personal favorite tank of WWII.  But unless you are willing to "crew" it properly, not sure it would work well in AH game terms.

Be interested in hearing thoughts.

<>

[moneyguy]

i think a sherman would be cool

[Klum25th]

The lee would be pretty cool. Maybe make it into a british tank, since the british used it in North Africa.

[Kweassa]

All this talk of different tanks has overshadowed what I think is the best part of the original post _ a call for all maps to have areas set up that are conducive to tank battles.
Head to tank town when it is up or the main island tank area and you'll see that lots of people love playing in GVs.
I second the request.
As for shermans _ they are overdue. The gyrostabalized cannon alone would assure the ronsen steady use. (I never knew they had such a thing in WWII.)

 
 Actually, IMO it's not impossible to incorporate the tank battle part of the game, without having to 'seggregate' them in their own sanctuary somehwere in the map.

 The problem is the current strat system of the map, how the system handles tanks spawning, for that matter. The spawn points are too long, reaching all the way upto 5 miles vicinity of enemy town.

 What happens is, the entire process of the "ground advancement" part of tank battles is lost, since the spawn points handle the 'advance' part. What we get is GVs spawning right at the town. This becomes a problem both in offense and defense:

* In offense, the tanks are so close to enemy field that it is no match for their tank busters upping from field again and again.

* In defense, enemy tanks spawn so close to the town that the defenders rarely have enough drivers to up tanks of their own and meet the challenge. Besides, the VH is the first target to go down when enemy attack is inbound field.

* As a result, there is no tank battle. Its either tank steamrolling, or tank massacre.


 What I propose is a special system for the GVs, so they need to make a true "advancement" to the enemy field, instead of just spawning right infront of a town.

 Imagine that two hostile fields, Field1 and Field2, 30 miles apart, hostile, have an array of 5~6 spawn points lined up between them:


  [Field1]  --- --- --- --- --- --- [Field2]

 
 In the beginning, tanks from both fields spawn at the middle point, . They have to duke it out - GVs from Field1 will strive to make it to , GVs from Field2 will strive to make it to .

 The GVs from Field1 prove to be superior. They make the push to . In some way, either by a 'capture and hold the flag' type of system, or 'land M3s at designated area to capture a spawn point' system, GVs from Field1 make the push and capture spawnpoint4.

 Now, GVs from Field1 and Field2 will spawn at ... and so on.

 
 The good thing about this system is;

1. While the air-battle is raging on above the skies between Field1 and Field2, the tanks can fight their own ground battle without intrusion. Nobody wants to be at low altitude in a bomber or a tankbuster, smack in the middle of enemy Field1 and Field2.

2.  If someone wants to be a party pooper and ups from Field1 or Field2 with a tankbuster or a bomber, they have to make 15 miles to the middle of two fields. If they fail, they can't instantly reup from the field and dump more bombs within minutes. Even if they are successful, they have to fly for a certain time to rtb, to reup with more ordnance.

3. Therefore, without having to seggrate the GVs into their own sanctuary, and without having to worry about GV massacres near enemy field, or enemy M3s continuously spawning like mad 5 miles away from town.. the GVs can play a part in the 'capture-territories' plot. Free from enemy air attacks - at least, upto a point where GVs from Field1 or Field2 to makes it to the enemy field. It is only then, they will have to face considerable enemy resistance in the form of tank busters.


 This is one of the better ideas I've came up with in the past.


ps) for an added bonus, imagine that there is a road system connecting those spawn points, and one or two towns in the way... and in order for GVs from one field to push to the next spawn point, they have to make it past the town to the next spawn, and hold it for the required condition.... and enemy tanks.. are waiting.. in the town.

 This town is not a part of the capture mechanic. It's just a town, along the byway, of all the network of spawn points....

ps2) A similar idea currently existing in the game, is the maps with the 'chain of VHs' . However, VHs take a lot of time to capture, not to mention it can be difficult to place 5~6 VHs between fields 30 miles apart. The network of spawn points, have to be easy to capture or retake, so the tide of the GV battles can always fluctuate depending on how many are participating in it.

[Krusty]

Okay, going back to the initial point: more tank town areas:

Why? The ONLY reason tanks get kills in AH is because they camp. Over the years I've tried to enjoy GVs many many many many times, but I can't. I can't enjoy it. IT'S STUPID!

You either have to sit and wait for 5 hours for anybody to land directly in front of your hiding spot, or the second you move out somebody who's been hiding for 5 hours themselves kill you instantly.

Until they change the hide-and-be-stupid (I mean "seek") mode of tank warfare I don't think we need to cater to it.

When you get pitched battles with front lines moving toward each other and head-on attacks (figuratively speaking) there's no reason for tanks in AH.

As for GVs and the "Tiger Problem" -- I've suggested removing the tiger altogether. This would solve the problem and pave the way for a dozen lighter tanks that will NEVER see use if the Tiger is in play. However, too many folks love their Tigers to accept that suggestion

[Klum25th]

naaa keep the tiger, just get a tank that is fast, thin armour, but has a gun that is powerful enough to destroy a tiger. That will solve the tiger problem.

[Baine]

The good thing about tank towns is that it gives you someplace where you're virtually assured of finding an enemy gv.
With tanks so slow, and not appearing on radar, it's the only real place your guaranteed to find a ground fight.
That said, I love tanks when they have a role in capturing bases. I think there is nothing more fun that tanks slugging it out on the ground, planes fighting overhead and bombs whizzing all around. That, to me, is when AH is really, really amazing.

[EzzyDuzIt]

i think the m26 pershing should be added. it was used in battle of the bulge in late '44 till the end of the war