Tank poll

[800nate800]

Since we have a Poll for planes to be added why dont we do a tank poll. We need Brit tanks and russki  tanks.

[Noir]

Since we have a Poll for planes to be added why dont we do a tank poll. We need Brit tanks and russki  tanks.

no thank you.

[800nate800]

no thank you.

I think its a good idea

[Noir]

I think its a good idea

I don't want any more tanks, I'd rather see early war planes.

[TDeacon]

+1

We need some turretless "assault guns", characterized by a larger gun than contemporary tanks, but with limited gun traverse and worse hull-defilade performance (harder to shoot while hiding most of the hull, as is possible with most taniks).  This means better performance at long range, but significant disadvantages at shorter ranges or against aircraft.  These unique characteristics should introduce additional interesting game play elements.  By the above, I am implying that the ENY/perk cost should not be based solely on that of tanks with an equivalent gun/armor, but should be discounted from that ENY/perk cost due to the significant disadvantages of not having a turret.    

Good candidates might include SU100 (T34 hull 3D model spin-off), Jagdpanther (Panther hull 3D model spin-off and King Tiger gun; would need to be perked), and Panzer IV/70 (Improved Jagdpanzer IV with panzer IV hull 3D model spin-off and Panther gun).  The popular Sturmgeschutz III would not be a good candidate, as it's gun is no better than AH "Panzers", has no turret, and requires a Panzer III chassis to be 3D modeled.  

MH

[TDeacon]

(erroneous post)

[titanic3]

 The popular Sturmgeschutz III would not be a good candidate, as it's gun is no better than AH "Panzers", has no turret, and requires a Panzer III chassis to be 3D modeled.  

MH

Sure it is. Make it 35 ENY, add the option for the 105mm howitzer, and you got yourself a real nice perk farmer. That'll see plenty of use.

[TDeacon]

Sure it is. Make it 35 ENY, add the option for the 105mm howitzer, and you got yourself a real nice perk farmer. That'll see plenty of use.

To clarify, I guess I would like the Stug III as well.  I just mentioned the 3 which would appear to involve the least 3D development work for HTC, as an incentive for them to do this.  Perhaps the Stug III could be added later...

MH

[HighTone]

Personally I would like to see a butt load of fighters added to our flying game before anymore spawn camping equipment.

[TDeacon]

Personally I would like to see a butt load of fighters added to our flying game before anymore spawn camping equipment.

Personally I would like to see a butt load of GVs added to our "combat simulation" game (see Aces High title page) before any more aerial vulching, hording, and tag-teaming equipment.  

[Megalodon]

Personally I would like to see a butt load of GVs added to our "combat simulation" game (see Aces High title page) before any more aerial vulching, hording, and tag-teaming equipment.  

The Gv's are here for the Planes.

[Butcher]

As someone who GV's as much as I fly, more vehicles with aircraft would be a plus.

[Lusche]

The Gv's are here for the Planes.

This statement lost it's truth many years ago

[Nathan60]

The Gv's are here for the Planes.

If that was true why change the icon range?

[guncrasher]

first we should poll all the players to see if they would like to have a poll.  one must be done for tanks another for fighters and another for bombers.  but in order for the poll to be fair, we just really ask first after the first poll to poll the players to see if they want a poll done, if adding planes by country would be good.  well after the first poll to ask if it's ok to have a poll, then after the poll to ask if we should add by country, the we can have the poll to ask for a specific plane. which brings us back to the "to be fair" thing.

ah forget it, I am confused already.


semp