So I guess we're getting AT guns.....

[Paladin3]

This seems like a great addition! Sure looks good either way!

[Nemisis]

LMAO

Spin baby spin.

Personally, I don't feel that I'm "spinning" at all. I revised my statment after it was shown to be not entirely true. I'm just stating that the Germans made some rather small tank destroyers in relation to the size of comparable tanks.

And are you saying that a tank with just as much armor, and the same cannon as the Jagdtiger would be the same size? Look at the Maus, granted it had armor more than doubled that of the Jagdtiger, its still a larger even taking that into account.

[kvuo75]

Does it count as a DEATH when a manned gun shoots you down, YES there for it should be included in the scoring system as such.

then I want perk points for killing a plane with a soft gun...


I dont disagree that it should be scored... But planes and vehicles already get perks and damage points scored for killing soft guns.. soft guns get NOTHING but name in lights..

as it is, no risk, no reward other than name in lights.  i have no problem with actually dying and someone getting the kill on me, as long as I get damage and perks for killing things with the gun.  now.. what category to award the perks? LOL  thats a good question.

obviously the stats are kept in-game for field/ship guns, they just arent used in rank/score.  perhaps they could create a new category, gun perks.... and have twin 5" or shorebattery (or things like the upcoming 17'ber be perked

i probably should have read the whole thread, but im posting anyway

[Nemisis]

Kvuo, problem is that they will be as easy to destroy as the auto ack we have now. Its not like a tank where the worst it has to fear from strafing aircraft is a damaged track.

I say just group field guns (5" and 8" excluded) in with GV's. Thats the easiest and most sensible (unless we get towable AT and AA guns that prove to need perking. That way we won't have hoards of cheap 17lbrs and Pak 42's running off of GV perks. If we start starting it out as a GV, and and then change it, i will ensure that no one has a pile of field gun perks built up from using cheap EZ mode guns to help camp a spawn).

[Crash Orange]

There is no surprise this way, why bother? 

I think it's a great addition because it adds a viable way for a guy with no perk points to kill a Tiger from the front. As someone already mentioned, it will also make it a little tougher to sneak a town with GVs, although if it's as inaccurate at range as the current unmanned ack is it should be little trouble for a moderately skilled tank driver to take out first.

[Spikes]

Thats the easiest and most sensible

No it's not. Not at all. No risk, no reward. In a tank you can 'die', in a gun you just 'tower'.

[kvuo75]

No it's not. Not at all. No risk, no reward. In a tank you can 'die', in a gun you just 'tower'.

i think that's what people are talking about... they want the gunner to take a death. Like I said before, I have no problem with that, as long as the gunner gets perks and score for killing. Gun stats need to count, or earn perks, before people start getting a kill for killing a manned gun. Has to go both ways..

[Chilli]

I already commented about the new object looks in another thread. lol  This one is about the AT gun emplacements and, seems to have come the it's inevitable, current state.  Tank Destroyers. 

If there are going to be AT gun emplacements in town, it would be auto.  Either way, it will definitely make it a bit more interesting.  Now the town thing has me wondering; Will we be able to shoot through destroyed buildings like we can now?  Or will you actually have to go into town to get them all? (This is assuming that the entire area that the town is in is flat, IE no big hills to lob shells into town from)

I know this is the wrong forum for wishlist Volron but, I doubt if it was put in the town it would be auto gun emplacement (Pyro says it is manned ack).  I was "wishing" for it to be added to town so that it would then have its first manned gun emplacement.  The lazy buggers 3 milles away at the base wouldn't have to race to the town to defend if the maproom knuckleheads thought to place defensive artillery guns outside nearby.

Regardless of the graphics physics of shooting through destroyed objects, it adds realism to track an enemy vehicle peeking through the holes and crumbling walls of wrecked buildings.  I am such a poor shot that I try to time my round to where I think the enemy will be in the open, so I can confirm a hit. 

Also, the placement of AT for town, would probably be located just outside of town (sort of like the shore batteries) strategically placed to cover a line of fire directed at the most direct route of attack.

[Spikes]

i think that's what people are talking about... they want the gunner to take a death. Like I said before, I have no problem with that, as long as the gunner gets perks and score for killing. Gun stats need to count, or earn perks, before people start getting a kill for killing a manned gun. Has to go both ways..

I agree so long as it goes both ways like you said. I think you'll just get a lot of .ef'ers like GVs sitting on pads, but oh well. What will perks go toward then? Gv's?

[Nemisis]

Spikes, you misunderstand me. I'm saying that if we get deaths and perks for field guns (5" and 8" excluded), that they should be scored and perked as GV's rather than creating a field gun (and towed gun) category. And if we get towed AT and AA guns, they will be scored and perked as GV's untill we get the perk prices worked out. That way, no one will have a big pile of perks from using the free field guns, or helping camp a spawn with under priced 17lbers and Pak 42's. It would be just a way to make sure everyone starts on the same level.

[jay]

really wish it was the 88mm instead acts as a AT and AA




now can we have a sdfkz pak40?? (not the towed version)

[Nemisis]

Well jay, problem is that it would be like having CV puffy on airfields. And its the same gun used on the tiger, so it would be one shot kills at the ranges you see the field.


And do you mean the SdKfz 251/22?

[jay]

Well jay, problem is that it would be like having CV puffy on airfields. And its the same gun used on the tiger, so it would be one shot kills at the ranges you see the field.


And do you mean the SdKfz 251/22?

yep probley be easier to model than a trailer seeing that that could have a ton of glitches with landscapes

[Nemisis]

One would think it would be fairly simple to put the Panzer's gun on top of the SdKfz

If you look, there is no change to the hull itself, the only change being a Pak-40 replacing the forward machine gun mount, and some of the passanger room. I mean even the rear machine gun mount is still in place.

[AWwrgwy]

Well jay, problem is that it would be like having CV puffy on airfields. And its the same gun used on the tiger, so it would be one shot kills at the ranges you see the field.


And do you mean the SdKfz 251/22?

88s don't do "puffy" unless you tell it when to puff.   

I think 88s would have been a good and interesting choice.  Reach out and whack a gv... really hard, plus you could shoot at planes.

In order to get the "puff", however, you would need to set the fuse to go off after a certain time.  No proximity fuses.

I bet that would be a coading nightmare, or could it be set up like .delay in bombers but in hundredths of a second.  How fast can you type .d 150, .d 125, .d 140, etc.   

BTW, airfields used to have puffy hard guns.


wrongway