New Allied Tanks, Axis Bombers and Russian Fighters.

[Butcher]

Too bad that the spalling from the crappy LW armor isn't modeled, and the potential in real life is entirely irrelevent without a fairly major overhaul of the system.


KV-2 might actually be a useful addition then, as would the SU-152.

I wouldn't mind the KV-2 or SU-152 just for a town killer, but it would be perked due to destructive power of its gun, Maybe like 6 perks where a 105mm would be 1 perk? Instead of multiple hits to take a building out, blast range wise a 105 could take out more then one, while a 152 would just level places

[Tank-Ace]

I think the biggest issue with perking the KV-2 is that its anti-armor capabilities are essentially nil.


The balistics of the gun would be crap, optics would probably be crap, ROF would be just terrible, and AP rounds wouldn't penetrate a whole lot of armor. However, you would one-shot a Tiger II if you penetrated.

[skorpx1]

I think the biggest issue with perking the KV-2 is that its anti-armor capabilities are essentially nil.


The balistics of the gun would be crap, optics would probably be crap, ROF would be just terrible, and AP rounds wouldn't penetrate a whole lot of armor. However, you would one-shot a Tiger II if you penetrated.

Hit on the front end of an Elephant/Ferdinand (whichever one it is) with a 152mm AP shell, launched by a KV-2




You wouldn't need to penetrate, if you just hit the enemy tank you pretty much killed everyone inside. Had that been a HE round i'm sure that the whole front end of the tank would be gone.

[Tank-Ace]

Did you completely miss the part about all of that being entirely irrelevent to AH?

Damage through spalling, cracking armor, breaking welds, etc IS NOT MODELED, and for good reason; its inconsistent in real life, and so you can't model that in a game without being ridiculously unfair to the players.


Also, thats an Elephant; theres the port for the machine gun. But its entirely irrelevent, since that was the only real difference between them. Not really two different vehicles, just two names for the same thing.

[skorpx1]

Did you completely miss the part about all of that being entirely irrelevent to AH?

Damage through spalling, cracking armor, breaking welds, etc IS NOT MODELED, and for good reason; its inconsistent in real life, and so you can't model that in a game without being ridiculously unfair to the players.


Also, thats an Elephant; theres the port for the machine gun. But its entirely irrelevent, since that was the only real difference between them. Not really two different vehicles, just two names for the same thing.

That wasn't my point. My point was that if HE did what it does in real life and it reflected into the game, we wouldn't have to worry about penetrating armor. In game HE bounced off of almost every tank, if it were realistic it'd explode each time it hit something solid. The only way it could bounce is if the armor angling was so extreme that the charge didn't detonate on impact.

[Tank-Ace]

You miss my point.

1) we don't have that modeled, and it would be a major change, including major additions and adjustments to the damage model itself, as well as chaning what makes an HE shell go boom.

2) we really can't do it perfectly (or even very) realistically, because our armor isn't actual steel, and our tanks aren't actually there.

3) HE rounds didn't always cause spalling, or kill the crew, or didn't always do anything. Having them always damage tanks in AH would be monsterously unfair, and essentially turn it into WoT, where a 37mm weapon could eventually kill a King Tiger given enough time and HE rounds. If we don't make it 100% of the time, then we introduce an random number generator that decides if your crew will be killed by spalling or not.

4) It would result a HUGE degredation of skill amongst GV'ers. There would be no encouragment to use tactics and ambush more powerful vehicles, or use the M18 to sprint in around the flanks, when you can just spam HE at enemies you lack the skill to deal with.

5) All perks for all tanks would have to be completely redone. The Tiger II would need a FAR smaller perk price if HE rounds can take it out from the front. The Panther would likely be dropped to the high single digits, and the firefly would go back to 4-5 perks.



So come up with a system that adresses all those issues, and then submit it to AH. If not, then don't bother; it wouldn't work well even assuming people don't get lazy, and it would destroy the GV aspect of the game when they do.

[realgood]

 This Russian tank would be nice JS2 hvy tank saw service from Jan 1944 to the end of war in 1945  it had a 122mm main gun                

[Eric19]

how hard would it be to modle the HE shell just exploding when it hit the tank I don't understand how that could be game changing and FYI there Tank ace a 37mm with nothing but HE can NOT penetrate a tiger 2

[Tank-Ace]

He is suggesting we let HE damage or even kill tanks when they hit, regardless of if they penetrate the armor (presumably through spalling, cracking the armor with the blast, or whatever else might result in real life).


The HE rounds simply exploding on impact (and doing nothing but maybe breaking a track if it does enough damage, or knocking off the pintle gun), I would be fine with. But what I'm not fine with is adding the tactic of HE spamming at tanks that you lack the skill or gun to kill otherwise.


So, yeah, if we let HE do that, then an M8 could kill the Tiger II given enough HE and time.

[skorpx1]

You miss my point.

1) we don't have that modeled, and it would be a major change, including major additions and adjustments to the damage model itself, as well as chaning what makes an HE shell go boom.

2) we really can't do it perfectly (or even very) realistically, because our armor isn't actual steel, and our tanks aren't actually there.

3) HE rounds didn't always cause spalling, or kill the crew, or didn't always do anything. Having them always damage tanks in AH would be monsterously unfair, and essentially turn it into WoT, where a 37mm weapon could eventually kill a King Tiger given enough time and HE rounds. If we don't make it 100% of the time, then we introduce an random number generator that decides if your crew will be killed by spalling or not.

4) It would result a HUGE degredation of skill amongst GV'ers. There would be no encouragment to use tactics and ambush more powerful vehicles, or use the M18 to sprint in around the flanks, when you can just spam HE at enemies you lack the skill to deal with.

5) All perks for all tanks would have to be completely redone. The Tiger II would need a FAR smaller perk price if HE rounds can take it out from the front. The Panther would likely be dropped to the high single digits, and the firefly would go back to 4-5 perks.



So come up with a system that adresses all those issues, and then submit it to AH. If not, then don't bother; it wouldn't work well even assuming people don't get lazy, and it would destroy the GV aspect of the game when they do.

When did I say that HE would always do damage? Its kinda obvious that a dinky 37mm with some firecrackers in the shell isn't going to hurt a KT, let alone a Panther. The fact is that HE should be modeled at least to a certain degree of realism. The 30mm cannons in game have a mix of AP/HE shells and the fact is that if they do penetrate a tank, they hardly do any damage anyways. If you think you're gonna kill a KT with a M8 lobbing 37mm HE at him, think again. It'd take over 400 shells and by that time, you've run out of ammo.

This Russian tank would be nice JS2 hvy tank saw service from Jan 1944 to the end of war in 1945  it had a 122mm main gun                

The JS-2's main gun could easily punch through the front end of a Panther without much trouble, but the gun accuracy wasn't amazing, still it'd have to be a perked tank.

[Tank-Ace]

That wasn't my point. My point was that if HE did what it does in real life and it reflected into the game, we wouldn't have to worry about penetrating armor.

Heres where you implyed it would do damage to tanks. And it would have to be 100% of the time, or randomized. HTC seems reluctant to implement random mechanical failure on aircraft that were notorious for such things (B-29 and Me 163), so why would they implement randomized damage to tanks from HE shells? And beyond HTC's reluctance to do so, its still incredibly unfair. The player in the Tiger II could be doing everything right, he could have made the sortie without a single mistake being made, and he could still lose over 200 perks because you thought it was a good idea to let HE shells randomly do damage to tanks.


And in either case, it would still encourage HE spamming instead of being competent in a tank, and would have the result of largely killing tactics in the GV game, screwing up the perk values, and you run the risk of turning the GV fights into nothing more than giant tard-fests like WoT.


Now this might sound good to someone from the lower-end of the skill spectrum, who doesn't have much prospect of driving a Tiger II any time soon. I mean an M4 being able to kill a Tiger II from the front would mean easy perks, right, and nothing being too big or tough to engage head on? What could be better for a such a twit than easy kills, easy perks, and no skill required, right?

But to the more skilled players, the idea is unattractive (and rightly so), because it means their skill dimishes the importance of skill. Personally I find the idea repugnant.

[DMGOD]

EITHER YOU TWO START PLAYING NICE OR SO HELP ME GOD i'LL PULL THIS CAR OVER....

[BFOOT1]

EITHER YOU TWO START PLAYING NICE OR SO HELP ME GOD i'LL PULL THIS CAR OVER....

[Eric19]

EITHER YOU TWO START PLAYING NICE OR SO HELP ME GOD i'LL PULL THIS CAR OVER....

[Spikes]

I personally think the idea of perking tanks has many flaws. Unlike aircraft, where you have to put yourself out there and run the risk of dying at any moment, GVs can sit on pads for base defense and tower when they are going to be killed. A better GV perk mechanism would be to simply lose the perks once you up the tank. Now losing a 100 perk Tiger 2 would be extreme, so possibly drop the numbers down to a more reasonable level.

This does 2 things:
1.) Allows for a higher number of perked vehicles to enter into the game, as well as non, while not upsetting the balance as much.
2.) Allows for less perked GVs to be rolled, and more older GVs since every time you up one, you automatically lose perks just for using it. Lets face it, who would want to use a 75mm Sherman when you can have a 76mm for 1 perk? That seems very flawed, personally.

Aside from that, perks in GVs are pretty easy to generate as well, many have thousands upon thousands and not enough Tiger 2's to burn them all. It puts more lower level, older tanks out there and helps to level the playing field, since not everyone who has been playing for 6 months+ will be rolling high perked tanks around like nothing.

Comments?