limit the tiger and tiger 2

[guncrasher]

Planes have a relatively small percentage of GV kills because of concrete sitting, and because tanks can kill each other faster.


That is like saying that fewer people (by percentage) in Africa die of cancer than compared to people in the US. Yeah, at initial glance, it might apear as if fewer Africans have cancer, but whats really going on is that fewer people in Africa live long enough to be slowly killed by cancer, and are killed by a multitude of other issues.

how can I argue with that logic tank-ace.  I couldn't really think of anything to contradict your argument so i just corrected some of your spelling errors.  I was gonna say that it is the dumbest comparison ever but somebody will probably bring up one of mine too.

you do know that Africa is a continent and not a country right?



semp

[Tank-Ace]

Well, I don't really give a damn about spelling errors, seeing as it was about 10:30 PM where I live when I posted.

And I'm perfectly aware of the fact that Afrika is a continent, but that doesn't make the comparison wrong. While not the best one ever posted (probably due to the fact that it was 10:30 after a long day), it still accurately illustrates whats going on with the numbers for aircraft kills of GV's.

[Karnak]

As I said, I'd love to see what GV numbers would be if there was no option to sit on the concrete.  Easiest method I can think of would be to require the GV to be in the hangar in order to 'Land Successfully'.  Perk costs could be adjusted as needed once actual survival rates were identified.

[Tank-Ace]

That wouldn't work either, Karnak. GV's don't have even a fraction of the aircraft's ability to go land at another base if theirs is captured. If you remove their ability to land anywhere as long as theres no enemys within 6k, you're being a bit unfair to the GV'ers.


The ground war wasn't a war of bases and strong points like AH depicts it. As long as troops weren't behind enemy lines, and they were still operating as part of a cohesive unit, they would still recieve supplys. Do you think that Panzer units stopped getting gasoline shipped to them as soon as they got pushed out of a town?


That being so, GV's shouldn't require a base to land safely at all. They're nessecary for gameplay purposes, but we shouldn't by trying to further restrict GV's.



Personally, I think a delay between when you hit the end sortie button and when you actually land would be best. To keep it fair (to say nothing of realistic), it should also be applyed to aircraft as well; your plane stayed on the runway even after you hopped out of the cocpit.

[Karnak]

That wouldn't work either, Karnak. GV's don't have even a fraction of the aircraft's ability to go land at another base if theirs is captured. If you remove their ability to land anywhere as long as theres no enemys within 6k, you're being a bit unfair to the GV'ers.


The ground war wasn't a war of bases and strong points like AH depicts it. As long as troops weren't behind enemy lines, and they were still operating as part of a cohesive unit, they would still recieve supplys. Do you think that Panzer units stopped getting gasoline shipped to them as soon as they got pushed out of a town?


That being so, GV's shouldn't require a base to land safely at all. They're nessecary for gameplay purposes, but we shouldn't by trying to further restrict GV's.



Personally, I think a delay between when you hit the end sortie button and when you actually land would be best. To keep it fair (to say nothing of realistic), it should also be applyed to aircraft as well; your plane stayed on the runway even after you hopped out of the cocpit.

I never said anything about removing the 6k clear landing.  Only the concrete sitting.

[guncrasher]

That wouldn't work either, Karnak. GV's don't have even a fraction of the aircraft's ability to go land at another base if theirs is captured. If you remove their ability to land anywhere as long as theres no enemys within 6k, you're being a bit unfair to the GV'ers.


The ground war wasn't a war of bases and strong points like AH depicts it. As long as troops weren't behind enemy lines, and they were still operating as part of a cohesive unit, they would still recieve supplys. Do you think that Panzer units stopped getting gasoline shipped to them as soon as they got pushed out of a town?


That being so, GV's shouldn't require a base to land safely at all. They're nessecary for gameplay purposes, but we shouldn't by trying to further restrict GV's.



Personally, I think a delay between when you hit the end sortie button and when you actually land would be best. To keep it fair (to say nothing of realistic), it should also be applyed to aircraft as well; your plane stayed on the runway even after you hopped out of the cocpit.

yup nobody is talking about spawning.  all we are talking is about tigers 2 who sit on concrete on their base or perhaps just a few yards in front racking up kills.  90% of the kills done by tigers2 are in this manner.  there's no risk involved in that.  I say if you dont spawn then you should pay a few perks for the priviledge or getting easy kills from the safety of your own base.  nobody is talking about the other tanks.

semp

[dirtdart]

My idea was sublime. All others suck. That is all.

[Tank-Ace]

So, you would make landing on concrete (but not inside of hangers) give tanks a ditch? Or would it just be the Tiger II.


Perhaps theres something I'm missing, but wouldn't it just be easier to remove the concrete, so theres no safe place to land outside of the hangers (and perhaps on ammo bunkers, I've never tested it) as long as enemies are present, as opposed to making concrete just instantly give a tank a ditch?

[dirt911]

this is actually two wishes but they are related.  but I wish at least one of them to be considered.

I wish there was a limit of only 1 either tiger or tiger2 that can spawn at a vh base.  the number is unlimited if you spawn somewhere.  if the first tiger 1 or 2 goes more than 1k from the base then another can up.  it was ridiculous yesterday having several tiger 2 at one base sitting on concrete "defending".

I saw the knights attack a base and the tiger2 promply run and land his kills.  when the hangar was camped the campers were killed 1 by 1 with regular tanks spawning just like it should be done.  once all the attackers on base were killed then the tiger 2's promptly spawned again to "defend" while sitting in concrete.

the second wish is that you lose some perks when upping a tiger 1 or 2 and just sit on your own base.  or just go within let's say 1k and then run back.   I would say about 5% or 10% of of the perk value at the time you upped, of course this would be reduced based on whichever perks you get for your kills.

this would really stop the sit on the concrete that it seems lots of players do.  this will make it comparable to upping a perked airplane where there's a chance you wont make it back and lose your perks.  with a tank you just .ef even if damaged and get your full perks to up another again.


semp

First if your going to attack a base what you might find useful is a few aircraft loaded with 2 1k bombs and a rack of rockets not only that add some strategy to an attack use common sense if they are sitting there front on facing you flank them dont even waste your time trying to kill them front on, you say that they become a problem if thats what you think then I would mention the panther in this post, it works with any tank not just the tiger. The fact of the matter is they pay for the tank knowing if they die they will lose the perks they paid for it and it would do no good but simply discourage high perk tanks from being upped, think about if you shaved a 10% off each tank and deducted that from their perks that could go up to 10/20 perks just for upping it then the original amount for if they get killed all it does is add 10% onto the perk cost really, it would come out better just raising the perk price by a 5% markup maybe even more.

Not to mention the Tiger's and Panthers were not offensive tanks they were best when on the DEFENSIVE thats what they were partly for the Tiger II was for just that purpose to defend Germany against the allied invaders if they could find a way to beat it im more than sure we can too.

[guncrasher]

First if your going to attack a base what you might find useful is a few aircraft loaded with 2 1k bombs and a rack of rockets not only that add some strategy to an attack use common sense if they are sitting there front on facing you flank them dont even waste your time trying to kill them front on, you say that they become a problem if thats what you think then I would mention the panther in this post, it works with any tank not just the tiger. The fact of the matter is they pay for the tank knowing if they die they will lose the perks they paid for it and it would do no good but simply discourage high perk tanks from being upped, think about if you shaved a 10% off each tank and deducted that from their perks that could go up to 10/20 perks just for upping it then the original amount for if they get killed all it does is add 10% onto the perk cost really, it would come out better just raising the perk price by a 5% markup maybe even more.

Not to mention the Tiger's and Panthers were not offensive tanks they were best when on the DEFENSIVE thats what they were partly for the Tiger II was for just that purpose to defend Germany against the allied invaders if they could find a way to beat it im more than sure we can too.

no look at the stats again most tiger2 will sit on their own base on concrete where there's basically no risk of losing perks as they can .ef at the slightest damage.


semp

[dirt911]

I rareley see it now, used too it was everywhere but like I said they are defending a base thats just what the germans did with them sat in one spot and picked enemy's off as they moved up to engage and guess what, most of them were knocked out by artillery or 1 well placed egg, and you cant bs me and say its that hard to get a bomb**** to come bomb a KT most of them would eat shet for the opportunity to do so, especcially as much as I get bombed but then that may just be my suckazz luck.

[dirtdart]

Fellahs, this is a chicken and egg argument. 

Tanks are by design offensive weapons.  HTC must incentivize their use as such, bottom line.  Discussing concrete, bombs, etc is irrelevant if the attacking force will not commit forces of equal capability.  US doctrine dictates that the defended carries a 3 to 1 advantage over the defender.  If that person is in a Tiger II facing M4s then those odds are extended. 

Discuss.

[Chalenge]

Fellahs, this is a chicken and egg argument. 

Tanks are by design offensive weapons.  HTC must incentivize their use as such, bottom line.  Discussing concrete, bombs, etc is irrelevant if the attacking force will not commit forces of equal capability.  US doctrine dictates that the defended carries a 3 to 1 advantage over the defender.  If that person is in a Tiger II facing M4s then those odds are extended. 

Ridiculous. Tanks in this game are targets. Nothing more. We have an entirely new mode of "combat pilots" in this game that specialize in nothing more than bombing vehicles. Sitting on concrete is the solution to losing perks to dweebs. Simple.

This entire thread is nothing more than a whine about "defeated mudhens" (you call them bomb****s). If you want to kill a Tiger or Tiger II get behind him with an M18 Hellcat and pop him inside of 1.4k. Boom!

Whine defeated.

[APDrone]

To return to the OPs proposal..

To restrict the availability of any vehicle/aircraft by how many are already in use by other players is a VERY bad idea, and opens the doors for abuse by all sorts of creative means. 

[coombz]

HTC will never make any changes to prevent these, and other, cowardly tactics, simply because the majority of the AH playerbase relies on them and would stop playing and paying if they were forced to man up