Remove/Reduce tank perk loss when killed by aircraft.

[Karnak]

Tank-Ace,

I wasn't aware that the Wirbelwind and Ostwind were armed with .50 cals.

As to the bombs, hitting a tank with a fighter bomber is by no means a precision task and most people do it badly.  Tanks are also pretty resistant to bombs.

The Lancaster whine is just that, a whine.  Lancasters accounted for 0.6% of vehicle deaths in 2010 according to Lusche's charts.  No, it isn't realistic, but having literally any fighter cover will render you immune to Lancasters.

Let me say just this then, I'm all for having a forward outpost with two towed AA batteries there since emplacements would look cheesy since there so close to base and its supposed to look like a forward gv advancing outpost.. I hate when people look for "i want a invincible tank from air" solutions. and may be i mistaken this as such.

I agree and you'll notice me arguing against Tank-Ace on that count in this same thread.  However, I do think it is a problem that using a perk tank off of the concrete, particularly on offense, is tantamount to throwing the perks away.  This isn't to say that the tanks should be anymore resistant to damage from the air, just the perk points should be shielded a bit.  A hard "absolutely not" to any suggestion that tanks should be immune to attack from the air.

[Tank-Ace]

Most people give wirbs and osties a fair space buffer. Thats not to say the presence of flacks will stop them,  not a chance if they're decided to die in exchange for screwing you out of your perks. But most people keep a healty distance in case of golden BB's.

Since the comment my post was in response to was about not loosing perks if you die in a perked plane. Most sane people will give a larger buffer to flacks then they do normaly if they're in a perk plane. That means the perk plane is shot down through stupidity or flying by a tank that hits him with the pintle most likely.

The only reason this should even be considered is that tanks don't have the ability to avoid aircraft, but the inverse isn't true.

[Karnak]

Tank-Ace,

You are suggesting taking the icons away, thus taking away the ability to give them a greater berth.  How are you not understanding the consequences of your request?

[Tank-Ace]

You can identify a tank by sight at 1k out, which means you can avoid it if its actually a flacker. Its the would-be bomb****'s fault if he doesn't bother to look before he leaps.


And Karnak, how about you propose an alternative instead of just "nope, wouldn't be good".

[Karnak]

You can't avoid something you don't see.

What I proposed was having the spawn points also be valid "landed safe" points for GVs.  The OP's idea of perk tanks not costing perks when killed by aircraft, or maybe costing 10% of their stated cost, was also a good idea.

I do not advocate anything that stops tanks from being bombed other than the players in tanks getting some fighter cover to come feast on the strike aircraft.  I specifically oppose anything that would make GVs fight a separate war from the airplanes.

[Tank-Ace]

What about tanks beeing seen from over a mile away while under cover? Gotta be some kind of balance. I'd even be fine with the current icon range but a generic "GV" icon untill you get closer.

What size would the spawns be? And aside from that, we would people towering out when they took their first hit. No offense but that idea could easily do more to kill GV'ing than help it.

[Karnak]

Perhaps HTC could devise a way to determine if a tank was in cover and GV icons could be reduced to, say, 500 yards in cover.


If you sit on the spawn point you aren't going to be doing a very good job of attacking.  The idea is to give GVs a place to fall back to that isn't 25 miles away.  If they want to sit on the spawn point, how is that different than the guys who sit on concrete now?

[SmokinLoon]

With regards to the icon ranges, when the icon says "1.5k", it is sayin that the distance to that icon is 1500 to 1999 yards.
When the icon reads 600, it means the target is somewhere between 600 and 799 yards.
Icon reads 200 yards, it means the target is between 200 and 399 yards. 
When the icon reads 400, it means the target is between 400 and 599 yards.
Etc Etc. 

The icon distance simply means "between" what it says and the next higher measurement available to the icon. 

By reducing the GV icon range available for aircraft, two things would occur: First, the aircraft would have to actually scout for enemy gv's.  No more simply flying though an area and getting scoping out an path 4000 yards (approximately) wide for gv icons.  The aircraft would have to actually actively scout for enemy gv's.  Second, it would make pilots think twice about just meandering about if it meant getting shot down or at minimum losing parts of their aircraft.  It would make pilots think twice about floating around at 200 TAS at low levels.  It would lend to the realism side of things, in my opinion.  It would force pilots to involve themselves more in not just killing that gv, but also finding it and repescting its firepower be it .30/.50 MG or 20mm/37mm AA fire.

[BaldEagl]

First of all, unless there's air cover the guys dropping bombs on tanks, including me, aren't "earning" their kills.  They are only looking for easy kills to get their name in lights and slaps on the back from their friends and countrymen.

There are arguments both for and against icons.

What I don't like is that a GV sitting under a thick grove of trees should never be able to be spotted from the air but the icon forces loss of cover as it hovers above or beyond tree level.  Even in buildings the icon is often visible.  Maybe HT could code something that looses the icon if a GV is sitting under or at a certain distance from any game object.  At least that way GV's would have the opportunity to use cover but would still be fully visible in the open as a flak would most likely prefer to be.

[Karnak]

With regards to the icon ranges, when the icon says "1.5k", it is sayin that the distance to that icon is 1500 to 1999 yards.

This is misleading.

Yes, that is what it means when you have a 3k or 6k icon range, but not what it means when you have a 1.5k icon range.  If you have a 1.5k icon range there should be no icon at 1501 yards.

Now, the GV icon range may be 2000 yards, or 1750 yards, but if it is 1500 yards you will not get an icon on GVs further than that, even if the icon would show up as 1.5, if they had one.


I will point out that attacking tanks is somewhat difficult as it is as just having enough altitude to do an effective bomb run in a Mossie VI puts the tanks out of icon range at times and it is easy to lose the intended target in the clutter while lining up on final.  The ease with with GVs are destroyed by bombs is overstated, probably because it is frustrating from the tanker's perspective due to their inability to respond in kind to the attack.  It is much easier to remember the attacks that were successful and irritated you due to the loss of perks or position rather than the more common attacks that made a hole in the dirt in your general proximity.

[LThunderpocket]

we might have to change bomb**** to bomb A-hole

[SmokinLoon]

This is misleading.

Yes, that is what it means when you have a 3k or 6k icon range, but not what it means when you have a 1.5k icon range.  If you have a 1.5k icon range there should be no icon at 1501 yards.

Now, the GV icon range may be 2000 yards, or 1750 yards, but if it is 1500 yards you will not get an icon on GVs further than that, even if the icon would show up as 1.5, if they had one.

You are right.  I realized my error after I close my laptop for the night and was thinking about the issue.  When an icon range says 1.5k, it is showing 1500 yards and CLOSER, meaning somewhere between 1500 yards and 1000 yards. 

[Tank-Ace]

I would be fine with the icon removed when under cover (although many will argue what defines 'cover', like the bridges for exaple, are they cover?), and full icon when out in the open (and preferably moving or shooting. The tanks are painted in camo you know).

But what I really want is for HTC to stop giving the aircraft instant identification of their targets. Just give us a generic "GV" icon untill 1000yds for flackers, halftracks, and the LVT's, and 800yds for tanks. The flyboys should have to come within easy wirble range to differentiate between a panzer and a Tiger (both are simmilar, and even with a tank's optical sight, it can be difficult to tell what a target is).

[W7LPNRICK]

-4 nope! My best way to kill a tiger.   

[oakranger]

I love bombing GVs in my P-47.