Who would like to see a couple more tanks added in the next release?

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Raubvogel
I'd love to see some Shermans, T34s, and perk GVs....but who wants to get exploded by a Ostwind in a King Tiger?

If a King Tiger (or any tank) allows a OST to get that close to him/her, they DESERVE to lose their tank!

Ripsnort (Who loves to hit you from 1.5 miles, while your moving!)

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Fariz
Rip, HT mentioned that t34/85 and Sherman are otw. for 1.10 most likely. No perk panzer. I actually wish it had perk pazner too, too many gv perks which you can't spend anywhere.

Fariz

Very cool, missed that announcement!

[Seeker]

Having a single tank is quite a shortcoming for events.

More armour would be wonderfull, and a positive thing for the community as well, I think.

[illo]

T-34/85 is very good choice for counterpart of PzKpfw IVh.

T-34 has more HE power and is slightly faster with better armor.
Pzkpfw IVh is more accurate at range with slighty faster reload times.

[Hortlund]

Since the current tank we have is a PzIVH (right?) I think the T-34/85 and the Sherman M4a3(76)w would be excellent choices for new tanks. Tigers/Pershings/JsII's (or worse) would only unbalance the tank battles horribly. The best think with adding the Sherman M4a3(76)w and T-34/85 is that you will have 3 very evenly matched tanks. And I really think that the sherman model included should be a (w) variant. Otherwise it would simply be too vunerable.

However, with regards to the current ".50 cals killing panzers"-situation, I think it would also be important to change the damage model for tanks before adding new tanks. When the T-34/85 comes into play, suddenly the facing of the tank becomes a real factor when deciding if a shot should penetrate or not.

I'm not sure if I have understood the damage model for gvs correctly, as you might have noticed from my post in the .50cal-thread... But If that is the way the damage model works, then I think changint it should be priority 1. After all, why drive a tank at all when you can get killed by machine guns?

Btw, can someone who understands the damage model for gv:s explain it to me?

[SKurj]

hmmm

I distinctly saw HT mention a perk GV is in the plans for 1.10.  That was a week or so before 1.09 mebbe plans have changed...


SKurj

[ergRTC]

Explain the damage model for vehicles?

Well, after much scientific research  and wild conjecture, I am fairly certain that this is what hitech and pyro do to figure out the GV damage model:


Take three kittens, a bats wing, a four month old dead squirrel, lizard gizzard and a day old egg mcmuffin that has been on the dash of a 1974 dodge dart in the summer heat of texas, mix them in a pot over an old can of sterno (dont let it get to hot, never to a boil).  Tie a  1981 texas instraments calculator around your neck with a pad of paper.  Eat the mcmuffin mix, and just as you slip into unconsciousness right down the last number that comes to your head.  When you wake up in the hospital subtract the number you wrote down with the number of days you have been in a coma divided by the number of physicians and psychiatrists you see around your bed.  This is the amount of damage a vehicle of interest will take.  

Repeat for next vehicle.

Using this formula we can deduce some very interesting facts about hitech.

For instance under the current scheme, when he tried to figure out how many shots a panzer would take to be killed by a panzer (most the time it is around 10) we know that if on average he had 3 doctors and 1 psychiatrist at his bedside, and he was in a coma for three days the number he was thinking of right after he eat the soup was 43!

I can read hitechs mind! You can too!

[BigMax]

Originally posted by Hortlund
However, with regards to the current ".50 cals killing panzers"-situation, I think it would also be important to change the damage model for tanks before adding new tanks. I'm not sure if I have understood the damage model for gvs correctly, as you might have noticed from my post in the .50cal-thread... But If that is the way the damage model works, then I think changint it should be priority 1. After all, why drive a tank at all when you can get killed by machine guns?

I'd really like to feel safe in my Panzer when a M-16 rolls up to me:eek:.  But with the damage model "as is", he probably has a better chance of killing me than I do him.  Those few GVers I know really hate this damage model.  I have had several instances on 10 - 15 hits with my trusty 75mm AP on the M3/8/16s rolling right past me - broad side shots.  It is a projectile that should hit and explode inside or pass right through ripping it apart. A "no damage" ping from a 75mm should be 1 in 500 or more... It happens way to frequently.

Is penetration modelled for GV armor and projectiles?  It needs lots of work if it is...

Lastly,
How come eggs' blast radius is so ineffective against drunks? You get a direct hit on the running-man-line and kill 1 or 2 troops with a 1K?!?!? maybe, if you are lucky.

[Lizard3]

Just read a book on Panzer Aces. Seems they always switched to HE for infantry, AT guns and vehicles. They used AP for Armored Vehicles.

[Bullethead]

Originally posted by Kratzer
A Sherman, a Churchill, and a T-34 - all non perked.

A slightly perked Panther.
A slightly more perked King Tiger.

I agree completely, at least if the it's a T34/76 and a Sherman(75).  The T34/85 should be perked when compared to the current Pz4 and the Sherm(76) should be perked if it has a realistic amount of tungsten ammo, which can hurt perked things like Panthers from the front.

Besides all the above, I would also like to see these vehicles:

• Sd Kfz 7/1:  quad 20mm AA halftrack, but unarmored
• SU-85:  unperked due to limited traverse
• JPz IV/70:  Panther's gun but unperked due to limited traverse
• JS-2:  medium-perked due to extremely low ROF, but otherwise the monster gun and armor perk it.
• Sd Kfz 234/3 "Puma":  slightly perked armored car because it's 50mm gun is much more dangerous to tanks than the M8's 37mm
• any flamethrower tank, which would be able to kill hangars in 1-3 shots, but only from 50m or less.

[hazed-]

i have just found out that during the north afrika campaign when the terrain got more hilly the favoured tank which outperformed all the allied and axis tanks was in fact the churchhill!!. Apparently although it was indeed a slow tank on level ground and roads it was a superb hill climber and therefore much more suited to the very uneven terrain.(history channel with some interveiws etc)

Although the gun was a little weak compared to the german one at the time it was able to outrun them by heading into steeper terrain.

sounds kinda perfect for AH eh?

[spitfiremkv]

I know I WOULDN'T