Artillery

[TDeacon]

then produce a minimum of 2 witnesses for us, at the very least.
<snip>

I changed my mind.  I think he could do it if on a suitably-positioned mountain (so he can see his targets plus a short space in front and in back of them), resupplied (so he has enough rounds to take down 4 vehicle hangers plus acks plus ranging shots), and if there is something in back of the town he can sight on (since his gun will move with each shot; alternatively he might be able to put sight marks on his monitor).  Whether this is worth the trouble, is another question.  

MH

[Chalenge]

No sights on the monitor are needed other than what comes with the tank.

This is a sample recorded offline of what I did at TT on OZkansas for two hours one night. It does not show any long range shots (maybe 5k at most) but might be able to hear the six barracks four guns four hangars and dar. I cut it short about where I was getting ready to drop the fifth hangar.

On the day I did this online I had rooks firing at me trying to bomb me 7lbers firing trying to kill our dar (I killed their guns instead) and still kept their base flat for that long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP_Rukha7kk

[redcatcherb412]

Would love a flechette round for troops running to maproom !
.
Artillery is pretty accurate with a FO calling in offsets after a fire-for-effect airburst.
.
A battery of 105's would be awesome 

[Tank-Ace]

Tank-ace your hyperbole isnt going to help and your insistance that I prove what I say is just as ridiculous. You are the child here... not I.

No, its not. Being skeptical of an unlikely claim (quick, accurate aimed fire from 8.52 miles out) before proof or even any support for the claim is provided is perfectly reasonable.

Infact, its really a lot like the other kids who don't believe you have an invisible dinosaur.

Specifically talk to Biggamer who used the "C" word against me in either early or midwar. And you can ask Lyric or anyone else in my squad who have all gotten tired of my "disappearing" acts but nonetheless bring my supplies when I need them.

I think I will talk to them. It will at least help cut through your evasions.

It wont help you figure out how it works.

I don't play right now, and since the first year or so I played Aces High, I haven't played for winning the war or to have a good score. When I do get back, I'll have better things to do than fiddly-fart around, going to great lenghts to avoid combat. And even if I did care to knock a base flat while avoiding trouble, I could just take a quick trip to 15k with a bomber, and I'd be fairly safe.

Sorry for bursting your bubble, but I don't think many people care much about your system (if its even real, I still have yet to check with your sources) as a tool they could use in the game. It strikes me as both inefficient, and boring.

NO, even though I at one time thought towed artillery was a good idea I do not anymore. I like AH as a flight sim but I can see how the little kiddies would love to turn it into Jeeps Run.

This coming from the guy who allegedly spent uncounted hours figuring out a way to shell bases from beyond range of retaliation..... from the ground?

[Chalenge]

Unlike you (Tank-ace) I figured this out immediately after the changes to the new designs. I literally went straight to V88 and killed V103. In the same time it takes a driver to go between the fields in TT I climbed a hill and shot a base many miles away and tracked tanks coming off the base too. Primarily I use this as a technique to kill dars and barracks.

Since you think its so boring then towed artillery would be (being the same thing exactly) just as boring and not something you want.

Have fun playing with your dinosaur. 

[Tank-Ace]

Unlike you (Tank-ace) I figured this out immediately after the changes to the new designs. I literally went straight to V88 and killed V103. In the same time it takes a driver to go between the fields in TT I climbed a hill and shot a base many miles away and tracked tanks coming off the base too. Primarily I use this as a technique to kill dars and barracks.

Long range direct fire is one thing. One thats actually effective, and one I've used often. You were talking about long range (in excess of 8 miles which, btw, almost double the maximum range of the gun that the M4's 75mm is based on) indirect fire. IIRC, you were saying we didn't really need artillery, because we have the M4, and your magic aiming method,

Since you think its so boring then towed artillery would be (being the same thing exactly) just as boring and not something you want.

boring + inefficient (or with this, I suspect ineffective) is something I wouldn't even dable in. Unless you provide film showing you can quickly adjust fire onto a specific target, I'm not going to waste my time with anything that stupid.

Artillery, however, has the potential to be highly effective. If its effective, its sometimes worth using, no matter how boring it might be after a while.

Have fun playing with your dinosaur. 

Its your dinosaur. You're the one making claims and then kicking up your heels when asked for some proof.

[Chalenge]

Obviously you have spoken to no one or you would have confirmed it has already been done. Otherwise your fishing expedition is a failure.

[Butcher]

Obviously you have spoken to no one or you would have confirmed it has already been done. Otherwise your fishing expedition is a failure.

I can understand direct fire, i've myself killed a few hangers (back when it was 3 not 4) using a tank and long range direct fire, how are we going to go about indirect fire? First would require a spotter, secondly limited ammo is a different story - I don't quite think were going to have batteries to deal with, only a single artillery piece - whether wesp or M7 priest. It would require a supply truck or two, given how artillery needs to move about to avoid counter fire, and aircraft - supply truck would have to be near it to be effective.

Direct fire, Artillery would be quite interesting to play with, tough to get into position since its mainly easy to knock out - but once it starts hitting buildings it wouldn't take some 20+ rounds to take a building down.

[Chalenge]

From what I have seen of artillery in action (live and in training films) the firing rate is nothing like an M4. An M4 that can place 13 hits directly on any hangar will drop it. Town buildings are much easier.

If you go after the answers here you will ruin this game. There are far too many gamers that dont give a hoot about flying.

We do not need artillery.

[Tank-Ace]

Obviously you have spoken to no one or you would have confirmed it has already been done. Otherwise your fishing expedition is a failure.

I've confirmed that you've kill shotted yourself on an M3 from beyond icon range, and that you've captured several bases without flashing them. Nothing more.

Hell, I can't even confirm if it was direct or indirect fire on the M3

[Chalenge]

You have been told it is true. You dont accept it. Your fishing trip has failed.

[titanic3]

What's wrong with a Lancstuka? 

[bustr]

Are we loosing a significant number of pilots to the ground war as HTC upgrades the GV??

Wouldn't mobile artillery batteries just become another tool for the GV advocates a bit complicated for newbies to achive any success with?

Why not ask Hitech directly if he sees any future for this tool in his game?

[HGANCHOR]

even aireal observation would be good

[Tank-Ace]

You have been told it is true. You dont accept it. Your fishing trip has failed.

I've been told by YOU, which means nothing. And Lyric can't confirm the range as anything more than 6k, and has yet to confirm that it was indirect fire.

At this point, all I know for a fact about this is that you fired on a base from at least 6,000yds, and that you killshot yourself on an M3. Nothing else has been confirmed yet.