Bargain perk tanks

[Rob52240]

As well as being able to pay full price for what we get now. 

I'd like to see Late war German tanks available at a lower perk cost with realistic odds of breaking down or running out of gas.

[Seanaldinho]

-10 people will just concrete sit with them

[Karnak]

It would generate endless whines about what the actual failure rates were and should be.

[Lusche]

I'd like to see Late war German tanks available at a lower perk cost with realistic odds of breaking down or running out of gas.

What are the realistic chances of running out of gas in a world with unlimited supply of fuel? Why would someone driving a German tank do not fill up his tank?

[Rob52240]

Nevermind then.  You've brought up excellent counter-points.

[guncrasher]

What are the realistic chances of running out of gas in a world with unlimited supply of fuel? Why would someone driving a German tank do not fill up his tank?

tanks, specially german ones turn better with only 50% fuel.  100% fuel makes them too heavy also, but that helps going down hill since the extra weight will make them go faster.  with the m3's and such at only 25% fuel will make circles around the other heavier tanks.

just for your info, the tiger 2 as an example had a range of about 110 miles. and we dont drive them more than 10. at least i sure as heck wont.  so basically the have unlimited fuel .

semp

[DaHand]

I was thinking this thread was about the M4 76mm.   

[Tank-Ace]

-100...... you know what, even a simple minus doesn't cut it. Fail.

People will argue about what breakdown rates were, whether those the lack of maintenence should be taken into consideration, whether running out of gas qualifys as a breakdown, etc.

Whoever doesn't like the Axis, doesn't like german rides, whoever gets killed by one, and his squadies will be bringing up anecdotal evidence and procede to ignore the context of those stories and actuall history. Untill things started falling apart at the seams, the Tiger I and II weren't much less reliable than the panzer IV or Panther. Differences in operational percentages were within the single digits at times. What killed them was their need for mantiainence, not any inherent reliability issues.

Also, do you count sabotage and poor steel quality? It was documented that the quality of the armor was declining on all german tanks as early as mid 1944. Lacking the materials needed to make high quality steel, the germans did without and built their tanks.

Its quite astounding what they did given the conditions they were under. Say what you will about them or their cause, but they fight hard, and they fight to the end.

[bangsbox]

i dont think steel quality or break down ever be added to game. so i so hope all allied guns are stats from test good steel not late war cheap german steel

[Chilli]

According to the title, I was thinking about something entirely different.  So, since the OP seems to have abandon his idea due to opinions, I am willing to hijack the thread a bit.

Revamp the perk system.  Reduce the number of perks to something easily achieved from 5 to 10 sorties at the most.  Then (PAY ATTENTION HERE), take perk points away based on the  difference in the earned equivalent in perks from damage done to other equipment or buildings and the perk cost per that sortee.

This is how it would work.  Folks with tons of perk points saved up and those just starting out would start to loose points depending on whether they were destroying better eny planes, multiple planes or successfully bombing targets. 

This does two things.  It gives 2 weekers and veterans alike a decent shot at operating the better "perked" equipment.  It also, keeps the number of better perked items in check by making the choice of a perked ride a decision that more than likely would yield a decrease in perks.  It is pretty much that way now, if you loose your Tiger or Sherman, regardless the number of kills.  In the proposed perk approach, whether you land it or not you would have to balance the cost in perks against the eny of what you killed.

[guncrasher]

most people here dont have perks because they will up a 262 then go ho everybody and die.  as soon as they get enough perks for another then same thing happens.  the high perks on some items are made to reduce the number used in the game.  if the 262's were to be 20 perks how soon do you think it will be before everybody ups in 262's then what, basically the end of the game itself.    i have seen people up tiger after tiger to kill a guy camping until finally they kill after several attempts they kill the camper. then they proudly announce, camper dead. 

if you have been here for 6 months and you dont have enough perks to fly any airplane or use any gv on the plane set anytime you want then blame your own stupidity.  because that's how you lost all your perks.

I once pm a guy who proudly stated on 200 that he had gotten something like 60 perks for killing in a high eny plane, I asked him how many total perks he had, he said 60, because he used them as fast as he earned them.  that tells you how stupid it is when you have no perks.

semp

[Butcher]

As well as being able to pay full price for what we get now. 

I'd like to see Late war German tanks available at a lower perk cost with realistic odds of breaking down or running out of gas.

Here's the problem with this idea, its to easy to build perks in tanks/bombers/fighters. Perk building is often fun and not ment to be easy. Yes It sucks taking up a 25eny aircraft and getting La7's zipping past you, but if you want to build perks you better learn to fly first before stepping into a 262.

Same for Ground Vehicles, in 3 months play time I massed 1500 GV Perks, mainly in the T34/M4(76). Granted this was over a few months, not in a few minutes, most people have lack of experience in which they build up 30 perks and up a Tiger only to lose it.

The perk system is fine where it is, if you need help learning to destroy a Panther/Tiger there are a few in the training arena to give you a few tips 

[Karnak]

Revamp the perk system.  Reduce the number of perks to something easily achieved from 5 to 10 sorties at the most.  Then (PAY ATTENTION HERE), take perk points away based on the  difference in the earned equivalent in perks from damage done to other equipment or buildings and the perk cost per that sortee.

This is how it would work.  Folks with tons of perk points saved up and those just starting out would start to loose points depending on whether they were destroying better eny planes, multiple planes or successfully bombing targets. 

This does two things.  It gives 2 weekers and veterans alike a decent shot at operating the better "perked" equipment.  It also, keeps the number of better perked items in check by making the choice of a perked ride a decision that more than likely would yield a decrease in perks.  It is pretty much that way now, if you loose your Tiger or Sherman, regardless the number of kills.  In the proposed perk approach, whether you land it or not you would have to balance the cost in perks against the eny of what you killed.

Well, that would certainly stop me from using the Mosquito Mk XVI much....

As it is now, once you can afford the Mosquito Mk XVI, you probably will never not be able to unless you do something silly.

[Chilli]

Well, if it takes someone 6 months to earn enough perks to fly a Me262, where are the 2 weekers supposed to learn how to fly it, in the Training Arena?  I think there should be more penalty for flying perked planes, and less of a penalty for not flying for 20 hours a month.

[guncrasher]

Well, if it takes someone 6 months to earn enough perks to fly a Me262, where are the 2 weekers supposed to learn how to fly it, in the Training Arena?  I think there should be more penalty for flying perked planes, and less of a penalty for not flying for 20 hours a month.

2 weekers need to learn to fly first. jets are for more experienced players.


semp