can we please...

[Nemisis]

Get some new GV's? I know we got the M4A3's not to long ago, but the GV set could still use some work.


SdKfz 251/22. Its an SdKfz 251/22 with a Pak 40 mounted on top. Would be very interesting, and fun to drive.

Panzer III Ausf L. 70mm frontal armor, and a KwK 39 L'60. Gun was decent, and it would stack up well the EW/MW tanks (that we don't have BTW  ).

KV-1 model 1941. Slow, but heavily armored and decently armed.

Churchill Mk III. 102mm frontal armor, and a 57mm L'43.

Hetzer. Small tank destroyer with a Pak 39 L'48 (KwK 40 would have identicle preformance) mounted at the front, giving it a limited traverse. Carried 41 rounds. 60mm of armor sloped back 60 degrees from the verticle. Weak side, rear, and top armor (8mm on top).

[Tupac]

Wirbelwind, T34/86, Firefly, Both M4's and the Sdkfz 251 have been added relatively recently. I'm all for more GVs, but I think we have some more important planes that need to be added first.

+1 After we get the he111 and the beau

[321BAR]

M-18

[Tupac]

M-18

 

[Nemisis]

IMO, the plane set can limp on as far as EW and MW setups. For anything before mid 43, we still  have Panzer IV's vs M4A3(75)'s.


Also, we don't have any aerial aspect that played a major part in WWII not in the game, but we do have an aspect of the ground war not in AH (tank destroyers, hence the SdKfz 251/22, Hetzer, and M18).

[phatzo]

With the way AH GVs work TD's would be a pain in the ass.

[Plazus]

Since you love GVs so much, allow me to recommend this:

http://www.worldoftanks.com/

Also, we don't have any aerial aspect that played a major part in WWII not in the game,

Really? So did you ever take a moment to think about any of these planes?

He-111
Do-17
Bristol Beaufighter
Pe-2
Tu-2
LaGG-3
A6M-3
Ki-43
Ki-44
J2M
D4Y
Just to mention a few...


As far as I am concerned, the GV selection is good enough for what we have. Afterall, this game makes majority of its money through "AERIAL COMBAT" enthusiasts. That is the bread and butter of Aces High: aerial combat. The GV crowd of Aces High is significantly smaller than the "fly the airplanes" crowd. HTC would waste time and development trying to overhaul the game into a GV simulation- what with very few GV players there are in this world.

If you have ever flown in an FSO, you would see exactly why it is that we are in need of more Early and Mid war era aircraft. Aces High is lacking in that regard, especially with the Axis planeset.

[RoGenT]

M-18 

[The Grinch]

M-18

hehe BAR, you never give up this wish 

[321BAR]

hehe BAR, you never give up this wish 

i never will!



M-18

maybe i can put that into my sig? <- as of now its in my sig

[Nemisis]

Lol Plazus, those are individual planes, not aspects in the air war (I guess roles would be a better word). While I agree with you on the FSO thing, I still feel that the plane set can limp along better than the GV set.

For the aircraft, we have: fighters, fighter-bombers, bomber-attackers, strafers, heavy bombers, light bombers, torpedo bombers, dive bombers, and a transports.

For GV's, we have: tanks, and transports.

We're missing tank destroyers, assult/self propelled guns, artillery, and anti-tank guns.


Our EW plane set is lacking, our EW GV set is near nonexistant.

[Spikes]

You just got the M4's. You aren't a master tanker yet. Sit down.

[oakranger]

hehe BAR, you never give up this wish 

He just as bad as some ppl asking for the B-29.  At least he is consistent. 

[Masherbrum]

You just got the M4's. You aren't a master tanker yet. Sit down.

What he said.

[phatzo]

He just as bad as some ppl asking for the B-29.  At least he is consistent. 

now you've done it, here come the B-29 threads.