Ground vehicles are extremely overpowered.

[Urchin]

Why bother putting in "attack" aircraft like the IL-2, when 1 hit from an Osty anywhere on the plane will simply destroy the plane?

I realize the Ostwind is in the game so people who cannot get kills any other way will still be able to have some fun, but I think that either the hitting power of the 37mm gun should be lowered somewhat (i.e. no more 1 hit kills), OR the 'armor' on the IL2 should be strengthened to the point that it could take perhaps 5 shots from the 37mm dweebgun before going down.

In real life the IL-2 was a feared anti-tank (and one can probably presume anti- other vehicle) weapon.  It may very well be the case that one hit from a 37mm cannon would destroy the Il-2, however, there were how many Ostwinds made?  20?  I know it is some absurdly low number.  

In Aces High the ratio of equipment is nowhere near what it was in real life.  In real life there were many small caliber machineguns that were mounted on tanks, or halftracks, or other vehicles.  There were almost NO anti-aircraft vehicles there had large cannon mounted on them.  In Aces High we have the exact opposite.  We have 5 Ostwinds for every other ground vehicle attacking a base.  Why is this?  Simple.  The 37mm gun can kill anything in just about 1 shot.  No need for tactics, or luck, or skill.  Just send in the Osties.  

The M16 is also overpowered relative to the IL-2.  The armor on the IL-2 should be strengthened to the point where it can take at least 50 .50 caliber shots before something major falls off.  This is with the IL-2 pointed at the source of fire, I don't care how weak it is from the back.

I realize that this is an air combat simulation.  However, there are ground vehicles in this air combat simulation.  For whatever reason, we have a potent anti-vehicle airplane that is emasculated.  I understand that the Ground Vehicles have more powerful guns than those that are mounted on airplanes.  I also understand that is some sort of gameplay concession.
I don't think it is right that the IL-2 should be looked at by Ostwinds and M-16s as merely a big fat target.  They should WORRY when they see an IL-2.  The IL-2 should be able to mow through columns of ground vehicles, provided the gunners aren't so hot.  Even if the gunners are spot on, the "armored" IL-2 should be able to win a confrontation between an unarmored ground vehicle.  If the IL-2 was really this useless in real life, why were so many made?  

It is fine if the IL-2 remains a big fat slow target to enemy AIRPLANES.  That is absolutely correct.  For proper use of the IL-2 against GV's, it should require air cover.  HOWEVER, the GV's should ALSO require air cover if they want to be able to reach their target without being killed.

[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: Urchin ]

[Dago]

This whine is so ridiculous, I hardly know where to start in debating the Ostie issue.

It is full of emotion, and statements of what you think reality was, but no facts, no sources of information.  

First off, you look silly and immediatly discredit yourself when you insult those who like jumping in an Ostie for a change of pace.

You think you know what a 37mm shell should do to an aircraft?  Based on what?  I happend to have an inert 37mm round on my dresser. It is one big bellybutton round, and carried an explosive warhead.  One hit would blow the living crap out of an aircraft.

The ratio of Osties to aircraft?  Now you want to debate ratios?  Maybe we gotta look at the number of N1Ks fighting FW190s?  Oops, wait, that didnt happen.  No, lets compare the ratio of lone B17s being attacked by Spitfires, no, wait, that didnt happen either.  Get real.  Not that many Osties in the game anyway.

I am sorry your IL-2 is not indestructible, but guess what?  The real one isnt either.  No aircraft had armored flight controls, armored engines, armored everything.  Armor was only used to surround the cockpit to protect the pilot.  If they tried to armor the whole plane, it would be so heavy it wouldn't fly even with 4 jet engines.

You basically sound unhappy that you cannot fly against ground vehicles without immunity. Send HT some fine old scotch, maybe he will sell you some "God Mode" cheat code, sounds like what you want.

 

If the IL-2 was really this useless in real life, why were so many made?

Why were so many IL-2 made?  Because they needed more, they kept getting shot down by ground vehicles!    

Get a grip.    

Dago

[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: Dago ]

[gavor]

Why were so many IL-2 made? Because they needed more, they kept getting shot down by ground vehicles!  

 

[Urchin]

Actually, I rarely fly against ground vehicles.  I prefer to kill airplanes.  However, I do feel that the IL-2 should get some gameplay concessions as to its 'armor'.  I don't CARE what sort of effect a 37mm round would have on an airplane in real life.  Do you know what a 37mm round does to the front end of a tank?  Well, I'm not entirely sure, but I think that in real life it would do diddly-all.  

Yet, in Aces High, Ostwinds can take on Panzers and have a reasonable chance of winning.  But this is really besides the point.  

The point is that the IL-2, in Aces High, is pretty much useless.  It is nothing but a slow target for other airplanes (which is just fine with me, seeing as it is a ground support aircraft)... yet, it is also nothing but a slow target for an Ostwind.  It seems to me that there should be some sort of balance.  The plane is a ground attack plane, so obviously it isn't much on A2A combat.  Yet, in Aces High, it isn't much on A2G combat either.  

I don't want to be invincible.  I suppose you got a good grade in Intro. to Psych. and that entitles you to basically pull my 'true' motives right out from your amazinhunk though.

I DO want the IL-2 to be toughened up to the point that it is no longer just Ostwind fodder, so that maybe it can have a chance to fulfill its role as a tankbuster.

[brady]

Urchin, you are one fo the best ftr piolets, i have had the pleashure to wing with. but i must take exception at you post on a couple of issues.

  First off I have some experence In GV's in the MA, i actual like using theam If memory serves , and i hope I am wrong on this point I dont think you spend a whole heck of a lot of time in theam.

 Whean I am in my osty and I see a Il-2 come over the ridge toward me I start to wory, why? Because they are the only atack plane that can take several hits and keep coming, and ushaly one good pass with those 23mm cannons is enough to disable an osty.It is the norm for theam to take more than one hit before going in.
 On the flip side while I am in my IL 2 I get a big smile on my face when I take a hit form an osty and toast him on my firing pass.

 Il-2's take more damage generaly speaking than any other plane of its size in the MA.

 If you are having problems killing ostys you are not taking the time to set theam up, the guy who kills me in my osty is the one who come in high and drops a bomb on me, or the one who lets his buddy distract me while he comes in and knocks out my gun.

 GV's are generaly speaking easy targets in the MA for ftr's, and bombers(at least untill they redo the bomber lazer sight BS in 1.09)

 <S> Urchin you are capable of kicking serious osty but...

[GRUNHERZ]

Actually DAGO the IL2 was armored just about everywhere including 10mm thick armor plate covering the whole first half of the plane and everything underside. This armor was the external skin of the plane.

50cals should be all but useless against IL2 attacks, theoretically a 50can penetrate 10mm of armor at 90degrees but it will just bounce off the Il2 armor because of angling.


The single 37mm did have an easy time against IL2s though, it was considered very effective and prefrred over the  quad 20mm flak38 mounts such as the wirbelwind.

Urchin is wrong that there wernt many AAA vehicles around in WW2, the germans converted every possible and some impossible vehicles to mount 20mm and 37mm guns even 88mm flak guns, they were widely used.

The problem in AH is a bit different.  

First:

Regular tanks are useless. Either HTC cant model GV armor very well and is having lots of difficulty or they are delibartly doing it this way. Sorry HTC but you have to face the facts here, AH tanks model simply suck. Sorry. When M16s kill tanks and 7mm MG destroy entire suspensions the AH tank model simply sucks. So far HTC does not make good tank model. Sorry but this is true. Just a response from a customer who knows and has studied armor.

Thats why people take ostis (which can fire with full accuracy while going 25mph over rough terrain, 100% BS) same for M16 but at 45mph. They just outmanuver the tanks and kill them.

Second:

Why take a tank when an Osti can kill anything faster and can defend itself against planes. why?

Third:

Because of #2 tanks have extremly overpowered AA MGs. Further making AH GV model suck. Dont belive me attack an LVT with a 50cal and a 30cal firing at you....

Basically I reccomend that we all ignore AH GVs for now as im not sure that HTC is fully serious about doing them in meaingful and accurate way. It seems they are just a distraction for the moment.

[Fishu]

I wonder what version of IL-2 AH has..

Anyway, later on IL-2 had wooden tail/wings, while pilots were sitting in an armored bath.

Even though it is tough plane, it isn't any miracle maker against 37mm.
Smaller caliber AA guns were much less useful against it than many other planes.
Machineguns were much less capable of downing it than some ground attacking fighter.

[Kieran]

I find GV's tough, not impossible. That seems like a good balance for gameplay.

[Kodiak2]

Hmmm......well Urchin kind of sounds like you had bad time in the IL2       Anyway I'll try and put my 2 cents in here.  I much prefer defending bases/towns in a gv so I've got a little experience here and there.  I don't think I have shot down an IL2 but I gotta tell you that one shot from that 37mm explosive shell is all it should take to completely shred the hell out of anything aluminum/wood.  I do understand that the IL2 was heavily armored and maybe there is an issue with the DM I don't know.  Should the osty do anything to a tank?  NO.  It is not an armor piercing shell.  In all reality, a .50 cal should do more damage to tank armor than an explosive AA shell--although very little.  Should an M16 be able to kill a tank?  No way I agree!  Although you still can do it in the game, the damage model tweaking HT has done has made it MUCH more difficult to do so.  It takes me 2000+ rounds to knock out a panzer or an LVT.  In a osty/M16 vs. plane situation I consider the osty/M16 to be very weak and that's speaking from a perspective of being the driver!  It is much more difficult to aim the osty as it has a much slower rate of fire compared to the M16.  IMO if you are going HO into an osty/M16, you deserve to die---the plane has the advantage just as an enemy plane with more E has an advantage over another.  The pilot has all the choices--bomb it, come at it at a hard angle or keep away it's the pilot's choice.  I've been on the receiving end of jabo bombs too many times. You wanna get down low and dirty with the gv then most likely you're gonna get peppered real good.  The point is the pilot has more options.  There have been many times where I've had to hit planes 2 or 3 times with an osty to knock them out--that doesn't happen very much but it does happen.  It certainly doesn't mean you're absolutely gonna go down with 1 shot. Now you think that the M16 is kind of "uber"?  I totally disagree.  I frequently rake the hell out of nme cons with no effect.  You think the DM on the IL2 is flawed?  Well I think the dam P-38 is flawed since they "fixed" it.  It has been the #1 most troublesome plane to me in an M16--even more so than a P47 whose damage taking ability is legendary especially when taking fire straight on at the nose.  I've had countless times where I've had a P-38 come straight at me while I absolutely BLISTER the cockpit and wings and have it go straight on through, kill me and fly away.  It's become too tough IMO.  But anyway just keep in mind that the gv's have many issues too---more so than the planes IMO.  I mean come on at least you don't have to worry about armor piercing, depleted uranium insta-death bushes and trees flyin around up there    

   

[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: Kodiak2 ]

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Kieran:
I find GV's tough, not impossible. That seems like a good balance for gameplay.

Ditto, they seem to be tweaked about the best they've been since inception.

Incidently, IL-2's did not go in after armour in one'sies, two'sies..they did it in groups, therefore, plenty lived, but plenty were shot down as well, and yes, from a single 37mm cannon.

[K West]

"This whine is so ridiculous...."

 Agreed. I had to check the date on Urchins post to see if was made during his last "spell" of 'fly, get killed, run in here and post a whine'.

 Or maybe Mandoble has gotten some of the vintage AH whine-vets feeling useless and jealous forcing them to post at least something.


 Anyway...  The 'all seen' icons are the reason GV's are able to shoot down attacking aircraft as easy as they can. The digital readout tells you when the bogy is coming at you and when it's the optimum time to open fire. But there are those who would say this is but a "game" and it should not be so hard as to allow sneaking up on a GV. Just like they poo poo any talk about bouncing a bogy in flight. The old dot dar/icons debate.

 Westy

[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]

[Am0n]

lol get this guy some cheese..

You expect to come out victorious 1 vrs 1 against any defense GV, ecspeicly a flak panzer? its like HO'ing a extremly heavy armored YAK with 1000 rounds.. wouldnt be a good idea IMO.

[Am0n]

GRUNHERZ

i gotta disagree the newly modeled tank armor is nearly unstopable. If you get killed buy a m16 i would say its not the models fault. Ive dove on a panzer 10 times hitting it ever pass with .50s and 20mm fire and eventualy he killed me.. i would say thats pretty tough (as it should be).

[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: Am0n ]

[Seeker]

GV's are tough, but doable.

However, they should all have tracers, as should mannable acks.

I know there's some historical precedent for disabling tracers in planes (which, to be fair, I didn't know until I started playing AH), but what was the historical perspective with GV/AA guns? Tracers, or not?

[Eaglecz]

well im pissed off by fact that you cant kill panzer in tiffie... why ? because its suicide...
it every time same only 2 way .
1. Panzer with luck
in 1. pass he will kill your radiator (1 min to eng dead) and he will shot pilot aswell ... HOW CAN that 7.xx mm go trought tiffie`s glass while 20mm wasnt able to go trought ?

2. unlacky panzer
1.pass he will only kill your radiator
2. he will wound pilot
but you have chance that you will dmg him