Remove/Reduce tank perk loss when killed by aircraft.

[Krusty]

Tank Ace, it is you who are full of the BS as you say.

See items 2 and 3? Well item 2 is nonsense.... Tanks shouldn't even be able to fire at planes with main guns. You use your pintle, but even then that's not its purpose. Your purpose is to engage ground forces. You want to shoot down planes up a wirb, M16, Osty. This is like crying "My Me262 doesn't carry the bombload of a B-17! You HAVE to lower hangar hardness so I can get the same job done!!"

It's ludicrous.

Point 3? Worse nonsense... Somebody loses a 262 it's their own fault? But in a tank it's somebody else's fault? Oh yeah? I Was in a 262 coming out of a dive near the ground from a furball, doing 500mph at about 1000 feet. A wirble literally off my 3 oclock hoses the air and rips my wing off. The point? Well simply put the point is this: There's fault and then there's blame. Sometimes they lie both squarely on you. You up a Tiger in the middle of a spawn camp and take 20 hits before you get turreted.... The FAULT is your own, but the blame is the guy that shot your turret out. You don't want to get bombed, you don't like losing perks. The FAULT is your own because you're doing something stupid in the face of obvious warning signs. You're the kind that would blame the fighter behind you for shooting you down because you ignored him to focus on chasing the fighter in front of you. This is one of those instances where you're setting yourself up them blaming others for the outcome.

This is beyond ludicrous. It's plaid!

[slayem]

 Krusty, maybe you should try the decaf latte. I'm just sayin'...

[kvuo75]

I dunno about anyone else but 90% of the time I find tanks by them giving themselves away by firing.

less common, if they are moving, kill engine and listen (gamey, yes), or visually detect the motion.

If they are sitting still I usually dont find them because I dont fly around on the deck looking. By the time you see the 1.5k icon you can easily be dead from an ostwind.  if they just wanna sit in the wilderness making a base flash, they can knock themselves out.

get rid of the icons, I dont care really, but it aint gonna make a big difference to someone like me. soon as you fire or move you can be found quite easily.

[Karnak]

Tank-Ace,

You already have to pay attention.  The Spit, for example, has a blind spot of 2.5 miles under its nose when it is at 1000ft.  Yes, some aircraft are better than that, but not all.


Where are you getting that a 1500 yard icon is visible at 1999 yards?  It doesn't even work that way for aircraft.  At 1999 yards an aircraft icon reads 2.0 and at 1750 it changes to 1.5.  If icons are set to not be visible until 3k, a common setting in the AvA before the fanatics took over, it didn't say 3.0 at 3250 yards, it only said 3.0 from 3000 down to 2751

[Tank-Ace]

Following that reasoning, lancasters were never used to precision bomb (assassinate really) individual tanks, so theres a big hole in your argument right there.

As to the main gun, its physicly possible, so its in the game. show my ANY evidence that it PHYSICLY can't be done, then fine.

Krusty, if you loose a 262, it IS your fault. but if someone bombs your tank, you PHYSICLY CAN'T PREVENT OR AVOID THAT. Right there, THATS the difference. You don't have to rely on others to protect you in your 262 like you do in a tank.

This is like crying "My Me262 doesn't carry the bombload of a B-17! You HAVE to lower hangar hardness so I can get the same job done!!"

Apples and oranges. The hanger isn't trying to engage your 262 now is it  ?

If you up a tiger in a spawn camp, thats your FAULT. If you up a tiger and die to bombs because the wirblewind (which you seem to thing is going to stop an attacker) missed the shot, then isn't that HIS fault? You checked first, you made sure you had some flacks on hand, you did all that people in this thread have suggested, so its not your fault.

And beyond that, if you do everything that was suggested as a counter to bombs in this thread, and you STILL die to a bomb (very common occurance), then doesn't that mean the people saying "up a flack, bring air support, ARGG!!!!!  " were wrong, and that their purposed solutions don't really work?

[Tank-Ace]

Kvuo, good for you.  You're one of the few people that rely on skill instead of the IFF. Most don't though.

And Karnak, I got that from lusche, blame him for miss informing me. Thanks for the correction.


Karnak, thats relevant only if they keep flying in a strait line, and make no attempt to compensate for that blindspot whatsoever.

And 800yd icon would be visible at 900 yds, thats a fair distance IMO. We're not going to reach the perect balance unless HTC changes the icon system.

Another fix would be to identify the tank only once the detaliled icon is displayed. Keep it at just a generic "GV" untill D800 or so when the type of GV is diplayed.

[slayem]

 Modern tankers train to hit choppers with the main gun routinely.  No big deal if they fly lower than the gun will elevate. It would have been more difficult with a WWII tank on a crossing shot, but against an incoming aircraft,
flying lower than max elevation, the ballistic solution is really pretty simple.

[Butcher]

Modern tankers train to hit choppers with the main gun routinely.  No big deal if they fly lower than the gun will elevate. It would have been more difficult with a WWII tank on a crossing shot, but against an incoming aircraft,
flying lower than max elevation, the ballistic solution is really pretty simple.

There's a reason I sit on hills when tanking, if I back down them I can elevate my barrel to hit a dive bomber, true I don't hit often but I can vouch a few were not to happy to be in a 75 degree dive and I still plink them at 1.5k

[fullmetalbullet]

There is a difference between static hiding camo and actual combat conditions.

WW2 aircraft also hid under nets, had palm fronds draped over the top of them, hid in half-buried revetments, etc...

But that's not what they looked like when in use. Keep in mind tank crews lived with their tank. They camped, ate, lounged on this thing. When it was moving towards a target and preparing to fire its gun, it wasn't invisible.

P.S. Metal your pic is of a tank on a railroad car. They would be on these for a while and when the train was parked they needed as much camo as possible. This was not a combat condition.

but in normandy the y still covered their tanks with camo. you see it in films from ww2. they would use the stuff even in the bocage they covered their tanks AT guns everything with foliage. so it could in AH2 be used. and i agree that they need to remove the icon from aircraft view.

[sparow]

My Simple solution is remove the Icons for tanks for aircraft, and make them actually spot the GV's on the ground like they did in real life. If tankers can't have Icon against other tankers, then we could make it harder for aircraft to spot GV's rather then aircraft flying in at 4k and spotting us right away.

Would mean tankers need to use cover and not drive out in the open, still you will be bombed into oblivion, just not as quick.

I like this idea, I believe it would solve the problem. If you find it too radical, 500 yard icon would be my second choice. I agree with perk removal in GV kill by AC and vice-versa. About the safe landing spot, I don't think it is a prioritary thing... Just my 2 cents.

Cheers,

[Tank-Ace]

Perk aircraft that fly too close will get hit with a .50, why should he not loose his perks? HE can avoid us, we can't avoid him.

[Big Rat]

I'm with the OP, reducing the perk loss to being killed by aircraft would be a great idea.  Doesn't effect the aircrafts game one bit, still gets the kill and perkies so no difference there.  The only difference is the perk tanker isn't as ticked for loosing all his perkies to an aircraft he had very little defence against.  Of course you can get the gray area of, your tank was damaged by a GV and  then bombed  .

 
BigRat

[Skyguns MKII]

Your post still has literally no bearing on anything else posted in here.  Nobody, until you went on this rant, suggested anything that would have any effect on the ground support effort in AH.  The only suggestions were to lessen or remove the perk loss when a perk tank is destroyed by an aircraft and to have a place to 'successfully land' GVs so that attacking forces can use perk tanks without essentially throwing them away.

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.

[DREDIOCK]

Personally i think The perks awarded to the pilot who gets the bomber-kill on the GV should be reduced.

When they realize they could make more perkies per kill in a gv vs gv instead of bomb vs gv they may shy away from using aircraft in favor for the higher perk-earnage choice.
 

I like this idea +2.

IRL the saying goes "the best way to kill a tank is with another tank" Would rather see it this way in game as well

[DREDIOCK]

Modern tankers train to hit choppers with the main gun routinely.  No big deal if they fly lower than the gun will elevate. It would have been more difficult with a WWII tank on a crossing shot, but against an incoming aircraft,
flying lower than max elevation, the ballistic solution is really pretty simple.

I may be wrong. but I think modern tankers have slightly different equipment and technologies to aid them then they had in WWII.

If it were anywhere even remotely as easy to shoot down an AC in WWII as it is in game. There would be a ton more instances of it happening in WWII