Another Tiger Whine

[Cajunn]

My only knock against the 34/85, and it just might be me, but I find the turrets get taken out easily.

[danny37]

well in any situation something needs to be done by htc,when a 0perked gv or even a 5-6perked gv can take out a 30-50perked gv(given the perk cost at the time) in one shot.everyone says its due to game "fairness".if that was the case then why dosent htc do something about the difference in amount of players per side at times when one side has a huge advantage(eny does not help) and the side with the most players is dominating the arena.its all about "fairness" which most of the time in this game there is none,nor was there "fairness" during WW2.of course this isnt WW2,but it is a game pretty much soley based on WW2.in WW2 the tiger was only beatten by overwhelming numbers and at time still came out on top.example: a story of 1 tiger being engaged with 60 t34s and took over 230 hits which resulted in track and transmission damage,the tiger still destroyed 35 or so of the t34s and limped 40 miles or so back to its base.

[Anaxogoras]

Now there's an apocryphal story.

[danny37]

Now there's an apocryphal story.

read your history before you call someone a liar in round about ways

[Crash Orange]

Tigers should be rare like they were on the battlefield. Shermans shouldn't. The Firefly was a relatively uncommon model, but we don't have a regular Sherman.

More important, the real purpose of perks as I understand it is to keep historically rare uber planes and GVs from dominating the battlefield. A 262 isn't worth ten F4U-4s, but if half the arena flew 262s the game would be radically changed in a way it wouldn't with more 4-hogs, or with 262s existing but being rare like they are now, and anyone flying non-perked prop fighters might as well stay in the tower. Same for the Tiger. If the perk cost of the Sherman went way up, you'd start seeing a lot more Tigers, plus the Tiger would be all but unbeatable *except* by other high-perk tanks. Panzers and T-34/76s would become useless, just slow M-8s. The Sherman doesn't have anything like that effect because it can be beaten by Panzers and T-34s with favorable circumstances or a little luck.

A better fix IMHO would be to keep the current perk costs but make the armor on the Sherman less effective, more or less equivalent to the Panzer IV.

[Lusche]

Tigers should be rare like they were on the battlefield. Shermans shouldn't. The Firefly was a relatively uncommon model, but we don't have a regular Sherman.

More important, the real purpose of perks as I understand it is to keep historically rare uber planes and GVs from dominating the battlefield.

It's not about historical numbers. If that were the case, the Ta 152 would never have lost it's perk status. It's all about what HTC defines as being "�ber" and what not.

[Chalenge]

I think I know why HT decided to perk the Sherman so heavily and a lot of people just havent figured it out yet.

The gun elevates so high you can shell from 8-10k distance. If you do it right three shermans could shell a Vbase down in mere minutes far out of the range of any tanks or manned ack. A tiger can do it from closer to the field and because its gun hits harder and the armor is thicker it can survive for longer even inside a manned acks range. So a few tigers could take down even a large field quickly but the field would be flashing the whole time. A Sherman can shell a field from the spawn point.

Okay the cat is out of the bag.  Sherman should be perked even higher.

[moot]

There was plenty of good shooting on both sides.  The sample size was large enough that the Tiger's supremacy at the long ranges we were fighting became obvious.  I personally hit Tigers more than a dozen times (I was in a Panzer, not a Sherman) with exactly one shot resulting in any damage (a killed engine from 1600 yards and from the rear).  Every single other shot ricocheted off with no damage, nor even a normal hit sprite.

Anecdotical. Show the film..

  As far as our Shermans went, our Shermans tended to die more often when hit by the Tigers than the Tigers tended to die when hit by the Shermans.
 [...]   And at very, very long ranges, this is exaggerated even more.

Sounds just like it should be...

I think I know why HT decided to perk the Sherman so heavily and a lot of people just havent figured it out yet.

The gun elevates so high you can shell from 8-10k distance. If you do it right three shermans could shell a Vbase down in mere minutes far out of the range of any tanks or manned ack. A tiger can do it from closer to the field and because its gun hits harder and the armor is thicker it can survive for longer even inside a manned acks range. So a few tigers could take down even a large field quickly but the field would be flashing the whole time. A Sherman can shell a field from the spawn point.

Okay the cat is out of the bag.  Sherman should be perked even higher.

Yep.  The M4 is as good as arty, with its elevation, ballistics, and some terrain incline if available.

[danny37]

Tigers should be rare like they were on the battlefield. Shermans shouldn't. The Firefly was a relatively uncommon model, but we don't have a regular Sherman.

More important, the real purpose of perks as I understand it is to keep historically rare uber planes and GVs from dominating the battlefield. A 262 isn't worth ten F4U-4s, but if half the arena flew 262s the game would be radically changed in a way it wouldn't with more 4-hogs, or with 262s existing but being rare like they are now, and anyone flying non-perked prop fighters might as well stay in the tower. Same for the Tiger. If the perk cost of the Sherman went way up, you'd start seeing a lot more Tigers, plus the Tiger would be all but unbeatable *except* by other high-perk tanks. Panzers and T-34/76s would become useless, just slow M-8s. The Sherman doesn't have anything like that effect because it can be beaten by Panzers and T-34s with favorable circumstances or a little luck.

A better fix IMHO would be to keep the current perk costs but make the armor on the Sherman less effective, more or less equivalent to the Panzer IV.

http://www.alanhamby.com/tiger.html

[MachNum]

...snip... in WW2 the tiger was only beatten by overwhelming numbers and at time still came out on top.example: a story of 1 tiger being engaged with 60 t34s and took over 230 hits which resulted in track and transmission damage,the tiger still destroyed 35 or so of the t34s and limped 40 miles or so back to its base.

Wow, that's fascinating. When/where did that take place?

[Anaxogoras]

Wow, that's fascinating. When/where did that take place?

The Germans built the best stuff and that's how they won teh war.

[danny37]

Wow, that's fascinating. When/where did that take place?

i saw it on a military channel documentry and am currently searching for the when and where.

[danny37]

i saw it on a military channel documentry and am currently searching for the when and where.

http://military.discovery.com/videos/top-ten-tanks-tiger.html heres one example but it dosent mention when or where or the destruction of the 35 t34s but i will look til i find it again.

[Crash Orange]

http://www.alanhamby.com/tiger.html

Nice link, but what point are you getting at?

I'm not saying the Tiger shouldn't be a dominant tank, mind you - the Tiger should dominate any battlefield it's on, as it did historically, but it should also be much more expensive than other GVs so that it isn't present on most battlefields. IMHO, if there's an error in the current system it's that the Sherman is too tough, not that it's too cheap or the Tiger too expensive.

[danny37]

Tigers should be rare like they were on the battlefield.
my point is to your comment ^^^,if you looked at that site and maybe read some of it,the tiger was in just about every european theater from 1942 til the end of the war.its wasnt that they were rare so much as it took longer to produce them,and even so their kill/death ratio was amazing.most that were lost was due to mecanical overstress and/or fighter-bombers.


http://www.alanhamby.com/losses.shtml