GV's and their purpose in the game

[Skyguns MKII]

LLogann, thats actually not an accurate statment. We're assuming the tank is camoflauged (not the mustard yellow of the panzer IV), that you're flying by at 300mph or so, and that you're not flying upside-down while intensly scanning the ground (littered with destroyed tank hulls, gun emplacments, trenches, destroyed buildings, shell holes, etc.) below.

Contrary to popular belief, it can be damn hard to spot camoflauged objects. When I do a good job of camoflauging my hunting blind, I can't even see it. And thats from ground level, standing still, and at a range of a couple hundred yards.

First off i fly about 200 or less circling when I'm scanning, even more effective than flying upside down.  

Second, you are a multiple ton non foliage covered camouflaged tank often driving at top gear firing tracers left and right, not to mention tanks can be heared for miles.

Third, If you want to have foliage covered camouflage tanks and still assume i shouldn't be able to see from a decent distance moving across a flippin grass Field then i would personally unsubscribe to this game if it were to happen.

Fourth you wanna play the realism card and say you should be harder to spot when not moving and engine is off then IL play my realism card and say you don't get engine powered high speed turrets when your engine is off.

[Tank-Ace]

If you find a way to adjust turret speed based on engine status and current RPM, then please give HTC a hand. I would love to see that added.

I hate bomb****s, but asside from that I'm quite reasonable.

[Raphael]

but while in game if you are flying just that way you can actually SEE your target for even further then your icon range, if you are not scanning yo wont see but if you are paying attention you will. i agree with making the icon range smaller but i agree until it hits the folks with smaller screens, i dont have a big screen but i do know that if i had it would be even easier.
now erm... hehe i would like to have the icon for the flakker the same way... for ehhm... personal reasons you know...
 

[MK-84]

How do these guys see em then
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccOXrfBZoLE

[Skyguns MKII]

How do these guys see em then
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccOXrfBZoLE

   

Hey tankace, they were hiding in trees, AND DRIVING THROUGH FEILDS

[Skyguns MKII]

but while in game if you are flying just that way you can actually SEE your target for even further then your icon range, if you are not scanning yo wont see but if you are paying attention you will. i agree with making the icon range smaller but i agree until it hits the folks with smaller screens, i dont have a big screen but i do know that if i had it would be even easier.
now erm... hehe i would like to have the icon for the flakker the same way... for ehhm... personal reasons you know...
 

IF you can see your target beyond icon range theres little point

[des506]

It seems to me that GV's are meant to do more than be bombed and sit on concrete defending bases. But its a guaranteed death sentence if you spawn away from your base. I have several ideas (some taken from others) to improve the offensive capability of the GV's.

i got another thread for you.... bombers are meant to do more then get shot down, bombing defended bases...etc etc.. how abt.... fiters are meant to do more than dogfight... or how abt 262s are meant to do more than zoom ard.....

If this is the way you use your gvs, its no wonder why you keep getting bombed.... its like flying a bomber into a hot zone without airsupport... or fiters  without bullets... or 262s without fuel... do you see my point here???

[Tank-Ace]

Wow, you guys are so good at twisting words you should work in the Executive Branch.... Or hollywood... one of the two for sure.

You know what i MEAN des. for those that don't here:

I mean that tanks should be used offensivly more often. Now people are just like "ords up, I'm not spawning in there".

And Skyguns, we have a lot more cover than I saw in those videos. And tanks sitting still still get bombed. Less than the moving ones maybe, but they still get hit.

[Skyguns MKII]

Wow, you guys are so good at twisting words you should work in the Executive Branch.... Or hollywood... one of the two for sure.


And Skyguns, we have a lot more cover than I saw in those videos. And tanks sitting still still get bombed. Less than the moving ones maybe, but they still get hit.

As they do in real life.

[Tank-Ace]

IRL, if a tank was stopped, under cover, and didn't shoot, it usually didn't get bombed unless ground units radioed its possition to air support.

[des506]

Wow, you guys are so good at twisting words you should work in the Executive Branch.... Or hollywood... one of the two for sure.

You know what i MEAN des. for those that don't here:

I mean that tanks should be used offensivly more often. Now people are just like "ords up, I'm not spawning in there".

you wanna know why they do that.. it all happened one day... when hitech in all their infinite wisdom decided to change their GV system to kinda match WOT's system..some aspect of the system helped... the majority of the tank feel just went to went to the dumps... and to requote on you on the use of offensive tanks... we have used the blitzkreig method of using tanks AND suppoorted aircover very successfully...even using just gvs... all we do is have a back up plan if aircover shows up....... if without aircover.. then you have to expect to get bombed..


dun forget this game is centred ard air supremacy...as in real life.. you rule the air... you're chances of winning increases many folds...

[Tank-Ace]

Alright, I give up. I'm not making any headway with you.

However, I leave this thread with this closing statment:

Tanks are meant to be used offensivly, and bombing has killed that in the game to a large degree. A reduction or removal of perk loss from deaths due to bombing would help, as would the ability to land at a designated area near the spawn, to borrow another's idea.

That said, there are several ways to fix or reduce the bombing idea, all of which you have tried to shoot down with arguments that have relativly little to do with the game. For example the issue of tanks out in the open is a rather small issue due to the over exagerated ammount of (ineffective) cover.

[des506]

Alright, I give up. I'm not making any headway with you.

However, I leave this thread with this closing statment:

Tanks are meant to be used offensivly, and bombing has killed that in the game to a large degree. A reduction or removal of perk loss from deaths due to bombing would help, as would the ability to land at a designated area near the spawn, to borrow another's idea.

That said, there are several ways to fix or reduce the bombing idea, all of which you have tried to shoot down with arguments that have relativly little to do with the game. For example the issue of tanks out in the open is a rather small issue due to the over exagerated ammount of (ineffective) cover.

 i get what you're saying... but think abt it..  the only way  to prevent people from trying to invade ur land using gvs is to either camp their spawn or bomb them.. with your perkless kills.. they are not worried abt spawning at all.. no loss to life isn't it?? then all you have is a bunch of idiots spawning constantly without control... and there goes a huge gv furball.

[Karnak]

you wanna know why they do that.. it all happened one day... when hitech in all their infinite wisdom decided to change their GV system to kinda match WOT's system..some aspect of the system helped... the majority of the tank feel just went to went to the dumps... and to requote on you on the use of offensive tanks... we have used the blitzkreig method of using tanks AND suppoorted aircover very successfully...even using just gvs... all we do is have a back up plan if aircover shows up....... if without aircover.. then you have to expect to get bombed..


dun forget this game is centred ard air supremacy...as in real life.. you rule the air... you're chances of winning increases many folds...

Literally none of what you posted has anything to do with what Tank-Ace is talking about.  What you posted is also, well, not very coherent.

[des506]

Literally none of what you posted has anything to do with what Tank-Ace is talking about.  What you posted is also, well, not very coherent.