Top Heavy in Tanks

[Chalenge]

Much as I hate to say it we will soon be struck with a significant imbalance when it comes to tanks. I know everyone thinks that the new tanks will be hangar queens almost overnight. I do not agree. Still, if the new additions are successful enough as assault tanks to see continued use then we have an awful lot of German armor and not enough British or Russian armor (and no Japanese at all). I understand why the Japanese armor is not popular enough to get requests for any of them, but what I don't understand is why we have such a vacuum when it comes to early armor. Then there is also the lack of anything in the Tank Destroyer category that can actually kill a heavy tank (outside of German armor, again).

I read where someone requested the M36 90mm GMC, yet it was shot down as having not actually been in the war. It WAS in the war. Add it.

That said, I want to see the early war tanks like the M7 Priest, M3 Lee, Grant and Stuart introduced. On the British side the Churchill (Infantry Tank Mk IV (A22)), and the Matilda, at least. I could name many others to choose from, but all you have to do is look at the more famous tank battles of the war and you can see there are many, many tanks that have been left out.

Now, I know that the idea is to make the kiddies happy with the 'cool' German stuff, but you've done that. Now let's fill in the holes of historical events!

[guncrasher]

well if they add stuff like the m3lee and the stuart, i hope they come with gold rounds only.

as for the matilda 1 with it's lightspeed of zero miles an hour (give or take 9) and the matilda 2 with its warp drive giving it 16 mph on road or 9 off road.  I would say the scenarios would be over by the time they get anywhere. and even if they get there I am pretty sure a jeep or an m3 would tear them apart just by doing circles around them.


semp

[gyrene81]

so wait, Chalenge, let me get this straight...you're whining about the ground vehicle set being heavy with german vehicles yet, you ask for another u.s. vehicle?
i guess tank destroyers that were produced in much higher numbers and saw a lot more combat than the m36 are less worthy than u.s. and british early war targets...

[Karnak]

The problem with tanks is that a Matilda II is incapable of destroying, or even really hurting, even the most incompetently used Tiger II.  Contrast this with airplanes where a D3A1's two 7.7mm guns will quite happily punch little holes in an Me262 and, should the Me262 be incompetent enough, with enough little holes, destroy it.

The nature of tanks is different than airplanes because the armor gets to the point where it simply makes them immune to earlier tanks.


On another note, I have seen a surprisingly large numbers of requests for Japanese tanks, usually the Type 97 Chi-Ha.

[Karnak]

The Type 3 Chi-Nu might actually get some kills in AH.  It was armed with a 75mm gun and, per wikipedia, 144 were built.


The best Japanese tank was the Type 4 Chi-To, but only 2 were built and none saw combat.

[Arlo]

The Type 3 Chi-Nu might actually get some kills in AH.  It was armed with a 75mm gun and, per wikipedia, 144 were built.
(Image removed from quote.)

The best Japanese tank was the Type 4 Chi-To, but only 2 were built and none saw combat.
(Image removed from quote.)

None saw combat because they were slotted for home defense. Alas, they couldn't defend against atomic weapons.

[Chalenge]

so wait, Chalenge, let me get this straight...you're whining about the ground vehicle set being heavy with german vehicles yet, you ask for another u.s. vehicle?
i guess tank destroyers that were produced in much higher numbers and saw a lot more combat than the m36 are less worthy than u.s. and british early war targets...

Whining about off road performance when everything in AH is on road performance makes you look silly. Of course I meant the Matilda II, which can do 16 mph and mounts a 40mm gun. If an M8 can kill then so can a Matilda II.

You and Karnak both respond to tanks as if everything in the game is late war. We have two other arenas and the last time I checked historical events are not stuck to late war events either.

Your argument against American tanks is ridiculous also. America produced far more, so they should be represented in kind. Not that it matters, anything added will be available to all sides. If you want to argue numbers produced then we can cut everything back to Panzer IV, Sherman, and T-34 only. Enough of the M36 were produced for it to see combat. That's good enough.

But still, it's the early war stuff that would better suit historical events. It would simply be nice to have something that actually killed these latest assault tanks actually in the game.

[gyrene81]

Whining about off road performance when everything in AH is on road performance makes you look silly. Of course I meant the Matilda II, which can do 16 mph and mounts a 40mm gun. If an M8 can kill then so can a Matilda II.

You and Karnak both respond to tanks as if everything in the game is late war. We have two other arenas and the last time I checked historical events are not stuck to late war events either.

Your argument against American tanks is ridiculous also. America produced far more, so they should be represented in kind. Not that it matters, anything added will be available to all sides. If you want to argue numbers produced then we can cut everything back to Panzer IV, Sherman, and T-34 only. Enough of the M36 were produced for it to see combat. That's good enough.

But still, it's the early war stuff that would better suit historical events. It would simply be nice to have something that actually killed these latest assault tanks actually in the game.

i personally don't care about early war, mid war, late war...all the same to me.

you might want to look up the numbers of su-85 and su-100 produced, saw combat and were successful...the only tank that was produced in "far more" numbers was the m4 sherman and the t34 was very close in production.

[Volron]

We don't use GV's in anything major that would require a balance in them, IE FSO and Scenario's.  I am going to highly doubt that even snapshot's use gv's with any frequency (haven't been to one in a long time).  Any other event involving gv's is far too minor to warrant it.

Now before ye decide to eat my face, do not get me wrong.  I am whole heartily for the addition of more EW type tanks.  It is always best to have the option of using it than to not have it at all.   Also, I'd like to add the Crusader to your list.

[Butcher]

awful lot of German armor and not enough British or Russian armor (and no Japanese at all). I understand why the Japanese armor is not popular enough to get requests for any of them, but what I don't understand is why we have such a vacuum when it comes to early armor. Then there is also the lack of anything in the Tank Destroyer category that can actually kill a heavy tank (outside of German armor, again).

I read where someone requested the M36 90mm GMC, yet it was shot down as having not actually been in the war. It WAS in the war. Add it.

That said, I want to see the early war tanks like the M7 Priest, M3 Lee, Grant and Stuart introduced. On the British side the Churchill (Infantry Tank Mk IV (A22)), and the Matilda, at least. I could name many others to choose from, but all you have to do is look at the more famous tank battles of the war and you can see there are many, many tanks that have been left out.

Now, I know that the idea is to make the kiddies happy with the 'cool' German stuff, but you've done that. Now let's fill in the holes of historical events!

Not sure why you think the M36 gets shot down its actually the Pershing that gets shot down, the M36 served nicely during the war once the allies realized the 75/76mm guns could not scratch the paint of the German tanks.
The only imbalance is the fact Germans made better tanks, only thing that would balance anything is adding Russian Su-85, Su-100, Su-122 and Su-152 vehicles.

To suit your request for historical events for scenarios and such (different Arenas as you state) you are talking about up to a dozen or more vehicles per arena. As of right now it looks like the Late War Arena is what is supporting Aces high. It makes sense to add the late war stuff first, considering it pays the bills.
True we have a few other arenas, however vehicles have taken a backseat on aces high for how many years? In my opinion I agree with it - sprinkle in some early/midwar stuff but focus on the late war stuff first until its finished.

I prefer seeing EW or Midwar tanks first, they fought the conclusive battles and did the grunt work, however in a video game where one arena pays the bills while the others don't - dont expect me to grunt if nothing but late war finishes first.

[Stellaris]

IS-2 is a solid contender.

[Tank-Ace]

Challenge, you're out of your realm of expertise. Yes more EW stuff, yes tanks from other countries, but not for any of the reasons you've listed.

[Tank-Ace]

IS-2 is a solid contender.

Lol, Panthers front armor with a cross between an 88 L/56 and a 75 L/70. Real solid...

The fact is that the Is 2 was really designed to HE spam while still being able to kill Tiger I'm and Panthers. And in straight up combat, it would lose to either out to around 1000yds, win out to 1500yds, and lose past that because of the shell flight time and reload time making long range aiming a b****.

Add it, just not before any EW Russian tanks, and all of their major TDs.

[Chalenge]

Challenge, you're out of your realm of expertise. Yes more EW stuff, yes tanks from other countries, but not for any of the reasons you've listed.

Not hardly, kid. Meet me online sometime and find out how I do with tanks. Oh, wait. . . you don't subscribe.

[Chalenge]

Not sure why you think the M36 gets shot down . . .

Do a search for M36 and you will see gyrene's previous hit job on it. My favorite is the Pershing, but I would settle for Cromwell and Challenger.