The future GV introductions in AH?......

[funkedup]

As far as cover, if you want to see what people are talking about, get a good accurate combat sim like Combat Mission and see what engagement ranges are dictated by terrain & foliage.  

In AH we kill tanks at 3000 yards, in CM we kill them at 300 yards.  I think I know which is more historically accurate.  

[Fariz]

Well, I have not a single western source on tanks, and mostly soviet time books. So may be you are right. I will look for more info on is-2.

Fariz

[Fariz]

Originally posted by illo
I dream of seeing Kursk scenario. NO icons. 190s flying cover for advancing Pzkw-IVs. T-34s stalking their prey in woodline. First panzers lit up. Muzzle flashes and smoke reveal t-34s. Stukas diving to drop their bombs in woodline. La5s trying to get them...109s diving to help ju87s.   Il-2s at treetop level trying to sneak past 190s to kill panzers.

I started making maps and web scenario support for Kursk, but then stopped it. Current planes/gv's set is not any good for it.

I am sure we will get all what needed for Kursk some time... Not sure when though. What is needed is t34/76, Stuka, He111, Hs129, panzers, tigers, kv's, pe2, la5s, yak7, yak1, early yak9s, Ferdinands. What we have now are 109g2, 190a5, pIV, il2. Think there were some spanish units with 109f4 there too, but they were not used in action?

[Creamo]

I just bought and "browsed" rather then sat down and read "Panzer Aces"- Franz Kurowski. It got pretty stale after sounding like a AH 109 pilot in leather mode, but fiction inspired chest thumping aside as it sometime seemed, really made the Tiger and even in a lessor tanks, with the German tactics pretty awesome. Something AH could never model in 50 updates.

The Tiger was really something.

Cool book, and when a Tiger Ace Commander was whacked by a sniper, I knew it beyond the scope of AH. And when they just murdered 10 Allied tanks at a time, I was convinced.

Still, reading how they fought was pretty cool.

[hazed-]

Originally posted by eddiek
He upfront admitted wanting to see the Axis (as if it matters in the MA who made a vehicle, everyone can use them) get a huge edge in the armor area of operation.

absolutely eddeik i did point out it wouldnt effect MA so much but scenario play would like i said with the sherman or lesser types like matilda be less aslugfest than a storming the gates rush in together lol

Doesn't really matter to me.  I rarely use GV's, they are more of a nuisance to me than fluffs are to Lazs.  
I think we need to see some Allied tanks before we EVER see a Tiger or Panther, if for no other reason than for "balance" in the GV set.

again absolutely agree here eddeik, perhaps i messed up what exactly i meant.Im not so much wanting the huge tanks now as wanting them if we have a large gunned allied version of a tank added.I suppose what im saying is 'add large gunned allied tanks if you have to but always put the slightly better german designs in at the same time to compensate'(plus add perk cost of course).What Im actually asking for here though, is a sherman M4 because its the icon of WW2 for me and a favourite AND it means the panzer remains 'top dog'.Its introduction covers all my criteria from this post.Again people are correct in saying this is more an arcade aspect in AH and hardly reflects real life warfare for armour.But this is all the more reason not to go mad an introduce the super tanks(pershing/kingtigers/Is2) yet. Gvs are fun though.

Not to be confrontational, hazed, but I do disagree with your comments about the air side of AH favoring the Allies, especially prior to the 262 and Arado.  Not gonna hijack your thread, you can email me or PM me if you want to debate our differences in opinion.[/b]

noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooo

Overall, not a bad post, Hazed.  You presented your case well, even got the idea for complete German armor domination over in such a way no one has replied "F**k you Hazed!"   [/B]

I know! amazing isnt it!   even creamo spared the horse whip! ....i think i need to lie down...come over all faint

[Creamo]

I don't "horsewhip" out of spite. Whines and sappy posts? Most likely.

Your post is neither.

I can't seriously conclude much on your post as it is beyond my understanding (and attention) but I noted a book I read, where the Germans did in fact just decimate opposing anti-tank soldiers with their weapons, and NME tanks early conflict via tactical supremacy. Then later, in the case of the Tiger, even the best of the Allied efforts, was another serious asswhippin before the tide of Allied numbers just won out. (Like you said)

All of which I seriously don’t know how HTC could introduce GV variants to achieve a historical, or more important, a AH game play balance. It’s just too huge in scope.

Plus you pointed out the importance of the planeset and it's limitations prior to your GV point. It's viable.

Good post though.

[K West]

"In AH we kill tanks at 3000 yards, in CM we kill them at 300 yards. I think I know which is more historically accurate. "

 Exactly Funked.  Build the playground and then introduce the toys to it. Until that happens then all the talk about Axis vs Allied vehicles in AH (talked about in a historically accurate additions to AH  context) is simple day dreaming.  There is no way in heck most players will use them in a historical context anyway and with the current MA terrain and environment there is no way one could even hope to at all.

Westy

[SKurj]

cc Introducing the M4 would be a  COMPLETE JOKE at the moment.

All this armor talk is pointless


SKurj

[J_A_B]

The T-34 would still be a decent addition because at least it'd be faster than the tank we have now.

Personally I can't see how the GV system will ever be able to stand alone in AH simply because there's just too many planes and any GV is an easy kill for an airplane.

J_A_B

[Toad]

In the never-ending quest for ulitimate "realism" in vehicles, I demand more and closer spawn points to relieve me of the responsibility of acutally having to drive my tank at a "realistic" speed to the area of conflict. I think I should be able to just spawn instantly at the end of the enemy runway in my Flak Panzer from any VH within 100 straight line map miles.

Further, I demand a speedometer calibrated to at least 200 mph so that I can accurately determine the optimum time to start braking my tank when whizzing down a hill into an enemy base.

Realism, Realism, Rah, Rah, RAH!

[Sachs]

I love it all of a sudden guys that think they know a lot about planes are now experts on tanks as well.  T-34 was a great tank, toughest?  Not by a long shot.  Is-2 was a great tank, toughest?  Nope.  King Tiger great tank, was it the toughest?  Nope.  Not sure where some of these people read their info but I dealt with WW2 armor and ballistics for a game called Close Combat III the Russian Front.  Actually we re-created the entire game and Called it the Western Front.  You want answers I would gladly help.

[gavor]

YOU WANT ANSWERS!

I WANT THE TRUTH!

[Pongo]

Originally posted by Sachs
I love it all of a sudden guys that think they know a lot about planes are now experts on tanks as well.  T-34 was a great tank, toughest?  Not by a long shot.  Is-2 was a great tank, toughest?  Nope.  King Tiger great tank, was it the toughest?  Nope.  Not sure where some of these people read their info but I dealt with WW2 armor and ballistics for a game called Close Combat III the Russian Front.  Actually we re-created the entire game and Called it the Western Front.  You want answers I would gladly help.

Ok
Start with how did you screw up the armour modeling in CC3 so bad? Was there ever a more disappointing game to follow up such a great one? The modeling in CC2 was excellent. But CC3 is like they noticed that there was no way to give the soviets thier historical numerical supperiority and still keep within the force size limits of the game engine so they made the soviet armour 3 times too tough.. Nice to cyber meet the guy responsible for such a travesty.

[streakeagle]

Methinks he said they "fixed" the armor values in CC3 and renamed it. Damn hackers, trying to make a bad game good by increasing the realism

[Kweassa]

In a little different aspect, I think the future of AH GVs lies within detailed ground combat(not visually, just systematically). Sooner or later, at some point, AI ground forces concept must enter. I know many hate to see the AI drones working in AH. We have enough complaints on 4~5 automatic field guns currently It'd be quite messy when we see 10~15 ground vehicles working with AIs.

 But all the complaints and arguments on strat, GV damage models and GV discussions converge to a single point of 'ground war'. Planes need to kill tanks, since taking out GVs with other GVs is inefficient in current ground war system. Attacking an enemy position with GVs is even more inefficient. Therefore, the 'double standard' on weapons. .50s and 20mms penetrate enemy armor easily, while GV weapons of 75mm cannons barely take out a hangar or two. The problems and discussions on strat(putting aside people who want completely no strat ) are usually with how to make an AH multi-national war coincide with the actual appearances of 'authentic' WWII war, and the problems happen when one side is hugely air oriented, and the other side is in the ultimate, based on ground(in the ultimate end, importance of ground power exceeds air power, strategical or tactical).

 What can we do that takes up low bandwidth, but simulates larger scale ground warfare??