New GV's now, please?

[WWhiskey]

i like both ends of the game GV and air.

 i would probably not have played for five years strait without the gv side of the game being there,,,
 so i would like to see more gv's as well,,,, but i understand that it takes time and resources to produce any and all aspects of the game.

 while it is fun and might have been created as one thing,
 it may well  have morphed into something else, for better or worse,   i think for the better, 
  i would love to see the m-18 hellcat and maybe the panther, those things alone would probably lock me in for at least another 5 years!

[321BAR]

I need to say that there are ALOT of players that only GV in game or people like me who throughly enjoy GVing from time to time. and ik one thing and that is if we get more GVs such as the Crusader IV the Cromwell IV (no Churchill, it actually was just a slow IST), the Panther, tank destroyers (prefer the M18 but the M10s fine) to create a new battle threat, and maybe some ARTILLERY... HTC would have more players using GVs and id probably drop my fighters and GV forvever...  KV-1 KV-1 KV-1 KV-1!!!!!

[hubsonfire]

If we lost a lot of players from the community because HTC removed GVs, the ends would justify the means.

[crazierthanu]

The thing is, the game isn't based around gv's, it's based around aircraft. Therefore, theirs no reason for gv's to be added before other badly needed aircraft. Most of the players, I'd say around 75% AT LEAST, are here for mainly air combat. Seems to me like its more viable to prioritize aircraft over vehicles.

[Ruler2]

I still want hills back!

I still want them back more!

[JHerne]

Unlike aircraft that become hangar queens after a relatively short period of time, the only GV that I see as a hangar queen is the 251 - you simply see M3s instead.

While the proportion of aircraft to armor is certainly skewed one way, no one is asking for 55 new GVs.

Realistically, 5-10 new GVs would probably shut everyone up for awhile, provided the were balanced.

Personally, I'd love to see a Jagdpanzer IV/L70, hell, give us an L48 and perk the L70. Low profile, Panzer IV chassis, 75mm high velocity weapon. 2 for 1 in terms of 3D modeling (especially since we already have a PzIV chassis)

M18 Hellcat - good speed, good weapon, excellent visibility from the turret (cuz its open top).

M10/M36 - make the M10 a non-perk, and perk the M36 - 2 for one in terms of 3-D modeling, etc.

Panther/Jagdpanther - mid-perk, excellent gun, good speed and maneuverability.

Fix the Tiger I - or at least adjust the perks on it.

Toss in something that will rule the battlefield - A Tiger II, JS-2, Pershing -give each an inherent weakness (Tiger II, mechanical or speed, for example), or perk the snot out of it.

Bring the little hills back and adjust some of the long-ass spawns that make us drive for 20 minutes. I feel that anything more than a 10 minute drive (direct line, with no resistence, between two spawn linked bases) is too much. I don't play the game to spend the majority of my time just driving to a point, especially when the chances of dying once you get there is pretty high.

[WWhiskey]

I wish we could help with at least the gv part of the game! i  love the airplanes and am thank full for the WW! arena as well as the P -47 m! i am not sure what i or we could contribute to the GV game but it is something that keeps a lot of people subscribed and helping to pay the bills.I would not now or ever want too take away from the flying part of the game but i do enjoy the GV side of it at least as much if not more, and i know i am not alone in that!!!

[Nemisis]

hubsonfire, if AH2 looses 25% of its players, it looses 25% of its profits. I don't think that there is ANY reason HTC will remove GV's, as, unless they are taking away from the game play instead of adding greatly to it, they remove a great feature from their game, and will probably piss off or annoy around 15-25% of their player basis.


I'm with herne,

Fix the tiger, or reduce the perk price (a lot, since an M4 can kill it quite easily, that or raise the M4 to 20 when the tiger is at 25)

Shorten the driving time from some of the longer spawns, but not too much, as you need to give the defenders a chance to defend.

All the GV's he suggested

Add some battle dominating GV's perked 3 times as much as the tiger, and some that can counter those (with some skill or luck) perked 2 times as much as the tiger.

Want the Stug III Ausf G and the Hetzer, as both were valued for their low profile, and survivabilty. Something that would see good use in here since you can't really hide anything but an M4 for any extened period of time.

[jay]

Sd.Kfz pak 40 mod

[Rino]

hubsonfire, if AH2 looses 25% of its players, it looses 25% of its profits. I don't think that there is ANY reason HTC will remove GV's, as, unless they are taking away from the game play instead of adding greatly to it, they remove a great feature from their game, and will probably piss off or annoy around 15-25% of their player basis.


I'm with herne,

Fix the tiger, or reduce the perk price (a lot, since an M4 can kill it quite easily, that or raise the M4 to 20 when the tiger is at 25)

Shorten the driving time from some of the longer spawns, but not too much, as you need to give the defenders a chance to defend.

All the GV's he suggested

Add some battle dominating GV's perked 3 times as much as the tiger, and some that can counter those (with some skill or luck) perked 2 times as much as the tiger.

Want the Stug III Ausf G and the Hetzer, as both were valued for their low profile, and survivabilty. Something that would see good use in here since you can't really hide anything but an M4 for any extened period of time.

     I seriously doubt that "25%" of the player base is so enamored of GVs that they would leave if no more
were added.  The rest is just wishful thinking.

[Weirdguy]

Personally I would like to see a new sounds for ground vehicles added, such as turret traverse in the tanks.  I don't like how silent they are.  Also, a simple gear grinding sound for changing gears.

[Nemisis]

Rino, it was an example. More realisticly, it would be around 10-15 MAX. And we all know the reason you don't want new GV's is you simply hate having me roll up onto your field and camping the RW with my 7.62mm, while destroying hangers with my cannon  .

[321BAR]

The thing is, the game isn't based around gv's, it's based around aircraft. Therefore, theirs no reason for gv's to be added before other badly needed aircraft. Most of the players, I'd say around 75% AT LEAST, are here for mainly air combat. Seems to me like its more viable to prioritize aircraft over vehicles.

yet again... even on the home page crazy, "engage in air, land, and sea combat". "WWII combat experience!" and i would like the new sounds also... M-18. the sounds would be great. M-18. and what else could we add in? Mmmmm-188888

[Rino]

Rino, it was an example. More realisticly, it would be around 10-15 MAX. And we all know the reason you don't want new GV's is you simply hate having me roll up onto your field and camping the RW with my 7.62mm, while destroying hangers with my cannon  .

     Doesn't bother me at all, there's always another runway/airfield 

[crazierthanu]

yet again... even on the home page crazy, "engage in air, land, and sea combat". "WWII combat experience!" and i would like the new sounds also... M-18. the sounds would be great. M-18. and what else could we add in? Mmmmm-188888

Just because there's a sentence on the homepage mentioning vehicles aircraft and ships, doesn't mean vehicles are a main part of the game. Going by what your saying, that also means ships should be treated the same as aircraft and ground vehicles. I don't see player controlled ships that would actually see use, anytime soon.
What I'm saying is that making unrealistic requests for 5-10 vehicles repetitively doesn't make much sense. Not to mention the resources required to create those 5-10 would not be overnight. I think people would be much more happy if 5-10 aircraft were added or updated, instead of vehicles. Especially when the only people getting lots of use out of them would be the "10-15%" mentioned. Seems much more viable to add more aircraft instead of vehicles, doesn't it?