M36 Tank Destroyer

[Butcher]

Not to disregard the rest of your post, but... just to point out that there's more to AH than the MA.

The above is the MA mindset, while there's a completely different perspective on what 'draws a crowd' and that's the FSO mindset. For FSOs, there are several models of great historical significance that aren't BFGs and a prime example is the He111 that was recently added. How many fly that pig in the MA? It has a place though because the BoB events have been hurting because of its absence. Similarly there's a range of VVS bombers (for example) that would find their niche in the historical FSO mindset.

I always said the best argument is if you look at what can serve the entire community as a whole. Beaufighter (something that served in many theaters) is a great example, however I'd love to see ground vehicles take a seat in the FSO and scenarios (we have in the past).
One could argue the "russian" planes only served on one theater, not true - there were three theaters with different plane sets.
Eventually if we add the LaGG-3 we can have a nice finland campaign, or Romanian/hungary a caucus theater.

I understand the mind set though "Lets just add big guns!" just look at the B-29, while it does get some use, the norm are B17s, B24s and Lancasters. He-111 might not serve the MA 100%, but in scenarios its vital to keep things historical.
Same goes for the Su-100 or Su-152 etc, consider the perk price and fact only if we had a Late soviet scenario it would ever used. Sure they should be added, but I put my vote behind stuff like the Panzer III, (just about anything russian in general) D.520, Stirling, wellington etc list goes on forever.

 

[Chalenge]

And yet, when a suggestion is made that might actually improve the number of vehicle scenarios for historical events it usually gets shot down with requests for 'BFG' vehicles or 'dark armor' like the Elefant (or 155 artillery for manned guns). What you are ignoring is the need for more American armor. These tanks (M36 and M26) have large caliber weapons, yet they are not heavy tanks. Because they can still be killed by nearly every vehicle out there you cannot ignore requests for them on the same principle that you might the usual kiddie requests for gigantic guns and walls of armor. They are just not the same thing, especially this M36 which can be killed by any aircraft. Even M3s have killed M18s, Wirbs, and Osties with just a few shots of .50cal, and the M36 would be no different.

And worse, Butcher, is your ideal of serving the entire community as a whole. Sorry, but armor and aircraft are two distinct groups and they always will be. Especially, the armor guys will regret the Beaufighter based on its use as a mudhen (until they use it as such). Aircraft only players will always try to poo-poo any new tank, because they are thump-your-chest furballers that never lower themselves to drive tanks. It's all bravado.

The M36 is an excellent vehicle to request and always will be until it is added.

[Butcher]

And worse, Butcher, is your ideal of serving the entire community as a whole. Sorry, but armor and aircraft are two distinct groups and they always will be.

If that's true, how come I vouch for both?

[Karnak]

While I definitely favor aircraft, I don't begrudge GVs and occasionally partake of them.  I have an particular axe to grind with one particular mechanic, but by no means wish to see the GV game reduced or hurt.

I actually think that interaction between aircraft and GVs is good, provided the game's rules aren't unfair to either.  I would like to see more GVs and more airplanes both.

I'd also like to see something to get the concrete sitters willingly off of the concrete.

[WWhiskey]

I've been researching the "Slugger" and I'd love to see it in game if for no other reason than to get the gun into play,

It is better armored than the M-18 tho.  Even tho it is open topped, and likely turreted by most any aircraft, it's stand off ability would be awesome to see,, and probably not much easier to kill than the firefly from other GV ' s
I've not read for sure that the additional top was not available during WW2 but neither have I read that it was,,   If it was tho,, that would help with aircraft problems,,

I can also see a possibility of an eventual GV arena maybe ??   Most likely just wishful thinking on my part!! 

 I would like to see more " useable cover" for GV's in the moan arena tho,, some kind of camouflage netting maybe!

[Karnak]

I can also see a possibility of an eventual GV arena maybe ??  

I don't think dividing the community like that would be good.  I think GV and aircraft interactions are a good thing, but there is room for improvements in how those interactions happen.

Deployable camouflage would be a nice thing.

[WWhiskey]

I don't think dividing the community like that would be good.  I think GV and aircraft interactions are a good thing, but there is room for improvements in how those interactions happen.

Deployable camouflage would be a nice thing.

im not sure,, the DA gets a good bit of usage by planes yet it doesn't seem to hurt the main arena,,  I always thought the DA GV area would get more usage but it is dead. Or at least it was the last time I was there,, the few time we did have something there,, we still got bombed.
We do have the custom arenas. But I have yet to see someone set one up for a GV only ,type of fight,,  we did have heavy metal Sundays but I think that has passed as well,,   I wouldn't want to take away from the mains,,, but a little relief from the air cons would be nice every now and then,,   Maybe some low cloud cover!!

Anyway,, just my two cents,,, that and a dollar might get you a cup of Joe!

[TDeacon]

I don't think dividing the community like that would be good.  I think GV and aircraft interactions are a good thing, but there is room for improvements in how those interactions happen.
<snip>

Your statement sounds very politically correct and good in theory.  Unfortunately, it doesn't actually work that way, unless you up in expendable GVs.  Unfortunately, AC as implemented in AH cripple the GV game.  Recall my tongue-in-cheek TigerII-versus-P51 duel suggestion.  Interactions between the 2 platforms are OK on parts of the map (in conjunction with air base capture), but there need to be parts of the map where AC are ineffective, either due to geography or additional rule changes like no icons.  The fact that we don't have this is the ***biggest*** flaw in the game as it currently plays, IMHO.  It means that you can take up your 100 point Me262 and control how much risk you subject it to, but you ***can't*** do this with your 100 point TigerII, which is at the mercy of anyone with minimal bombing skills and a 1000-pounder.  Huge imbalance, which HTC hasn't yet come to grips with.  Given the additional development resources they have put into GVs (new control system and new GVs) lately, I think they will have to address this sooner or later, in order to maximize GV-oriented subscriber attraction and retention.  

MH

[Karnak]

My current line of though is to massively reduce perk prices, I think to about 10% of where they are now, but then have the cost be final and landing it doesn't get you a refund.  Tiger II would be 10 points, Me262 would be 20 points, but you'd lose those points no matter what you did the moment you spawn.

[WWhiskey]

back to the original topic

[TDeacon]

back to the original topic
<snip images>

It's just an M10 with a 90mm gun.  It sounds attractive in principle, but consider how vulnerable open-topped GVs are in the game, given current icons and the large hit bubble the game uses.  Even a Storch can turret an M18 (zoom up and jump to the rear gunner), and presumably the same would occur with the M36. Given that it would probably have a 20-ish perk cost, that would not work so well.  

MH

[WWhiskey]

It's just an M10 with a 90mm gun.  It sounds attractive in principle, but consider how vulnerable open-topped GVs are in the game, given current icons and the large hit bubble the game uses.  Even a Storch can turret an M18 (zoom up and jump to the rear gunner), and presumably the same would occur with the M36. Given that it would probably have a 20-ish perk cost, that would not work so well.  

MH

not sure about that perk price but,,,, it would bring the 90 mm gun into play,, I'm all for that,, 

[Fish42]

not sure about that perk price but,,,, it would bring the 90 mm gun into play,, I'm all for that,, 

I would like to see the 2 & 6 pounder guns added first. Cromwell, Churchill, Matilda etc.

The 2 pounder gun did not have the worlds best armor penatration, but it could still hurt the most used tanks in game.

Armour penetration table (in millimeters)
Distance                           91 m (100 yd)   457 m (500 yd)   914 m (1,000 yd)   1,371 m (1,499 yd)
AP (meet angle 60°)           49                   37                   27                   17
APHV (meet angle 60°)      54                   41   
APCBC (meet angle 60°)                      53.5

[SmokinLoon]

Seriously... what does the US 90mm offer AH?  What did it really contribute? What does it bring new to AH?

There are so many other holes in the gv line up that asking to bring in the Pershing or Jackson is just a gamers dream.  AH would be better served with more LW Soviet armor (Su-100), EW/MW German armor (Panzer III, and variants!), and EW/MW British armor (Crusader w/ multiple gun variants).  The US is well represented with 2 variants of the M3, M8, M16, M4/75, M4/76, and M18.  Oh, and don't forget the jeep!  The US has all of its staples, who else does?  While the Germans are very well represented, they are missing the Pzr III and StuG III.  The Soviets have their 2 largest contributors in the T34/76 and T34/85, but the Su-100 is obviously missing (others can be argued for as well). Other than the Firefly the British have what?

Ultimately, the Ost Front needs some luvin' and that means M36 Jackson is disqualified.  Next topic.   

[Chalenge]

What it offers is an American tank that can actually kill other tanks reliably. It's a tank killer that can kill tanks. Get it?