« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Aces Low  (Read 404 times)

Offline LoGo

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Aces Low
« on: July 18, 2002, 12:43:45 AM »
With the introduction of AKDESERT you can't help but notice how many people use GV's, and with all the talk of osty perking we might need a town porker replacement, If HT was to introduce a StuG42, Wespe, Hummel or an M7 the osty would no longer be the town porker of choice for GV drivers

I think the ostwind should be perked, and a SdKfz 250/9 or PzII should be inroduced to take its place, ( not flak vehicles but lets face it, limited elevation has rarely stopped any of us from shooting down aircraft )

*digs in and awaits verbal onslaught from flyboys and flakpanzies* :)
Logged

Offline eddiek

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1441
Just out of curiousity...........
« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2002, 12:59:52 AM »
Is there a reason you listed mainly German vehicles?
US and Germans have enough GV's, time for a Russian T34-85 and Katyusha and a British GV.
Logged

Offline LoGo

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Aces Low
« Reply #2 on: July 18, 2002, 01:10:08 AM »
my bad :), I'd love to see T-34's ( the 85 would have to be perked ) or a perked JSII, the SU76 and JSU152 would excel at town porking (nice ROF on the 76mm), my point was to introduce a new vehicle type, the assualt gun.
Logged

Offline LoGo

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Aces Low
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2002, 01:16:53 AM »
As for British GV's.....*cough*..... anybody?

I dont know about the rest of you but I have no love for Pommy tanks :D
Logged

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Aces Low
« Reply #4 on: July 18, 2002, 01:18:09 AM »
I don't think thr T-34/85 would need to be perked.

When compared with the PnZ IV H it would look like this:

Pro:
Faster
Better armored
Better main gun

Con:
No AA capability
Fewer rounds
Poorer optics (if optics modeling is added to AH)

The T-34/76 would look like this:

Pro:
Faster
Better armored

Con:
No AA capability
Much worse gun
Fewer rounds
Poorer optics (if optics modeling is added to AH)

In the context of AH the lack of any AA capability whatsoever is a critical weakness, especially in a perk unit.

I submit that the T-34/85 should be the top end, non-perked, main battle tank.

The first perk tanks should be, IMHO, the Panther V G, the best version of the tank built to kill T-34s.

British tanks would be nice eventually, but for now I think Russian, German and American GVs are the way to go.
Logged
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline LoGo

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Aces Low
« Reply #5 on: July 18, 2002, 01:29:36 AM »
true, any GV without AA defence would be avoided like the plague

I agree on the Panther, I would hate to see the PzVIB intrduced before it or the Tiger1, the JSII would be the Russian perk GV of choice (DShK 12.7mm AA defence if I remember correctly)

did the Russians have AA vehicles or did they only use lend-lease types?
Logged

Offline wolf37

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 151
Aces Low
« Reply #6 on: July 18, 2002, 01:56:29 AM »
I would like to see the Lee or the Grant tank, you could have a guuner for the 75mm and the driver could man the 37mm to shoot at any flies that might get near the tank :D

Or how about the M3A1 with the 75mm
Or the M7HMC Priest with the 105mm, that would do a bit a damage to a city.
Or the StuPz IV Brummbar with its 150mm,:o( think I'll stand waaaaaaaay over there)   :D


Or how about a SPW 251/1 to carry troops with and well were at it, a Junkers 52 to drop troops with.
at least it had a couple of pea shooters for mild entertanment.  :p

Well the list can go on for hours, so lets just leave it up to the folks at HTC to sort out.

:cool:
Logged

Offline LoGo

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Aces Low
« Reply #7 on: July 18, 2002, 02:11:46 AM »
I'd rather waste my time making suggestions, really, I don't mind at all :D

while I'm at it how about perk boats, no more CV's unless someone has 1000 perks to spend on one and a stack of wingies in 100 perk destroyers and maybe 1 or 2 500 perk battleships (disregard this paragraph)

I don't want to pressure HTC ( after all the whining about the 1.10 patch I'll bet HT started smoking filterless cigarettes ) I'd still be happy if HTC refused to update AH, these are after all suggestions not demands
Logged

Offline zipity

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 197
Aces Low
« Reply #8 on: July 18, 2002, 08:04:29 AM »
When talking about boats, I would still love to see a sub introduced to the game.  As for GVs, what WWII sim would be complete without a Sherman tank.  Not the most powerful, not very pretty but faster than most of the WWII heavies.

Regarding the following quote:

"Reality's for people who cant handle drugs" -D Cignoli 1995

I don't know who "Cignoli" (fast times at ridgemont, maybe?) is but this quote was around long before 1995.
Logged

Offline Ghosth

  • AH Training Corps (retired)
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8497
      • http://332nd.org
Aces Low
« Reply #9 on: July 18, 2002, 09:28:38 AM »
Zipity I'm betting that you at least will someday get your desire. HT has talked about subs in the past. Just a matter of time I think.

As to Vehicles, I'd love to know what his plan is.
I'd really like to see damage modeling looked at for all GV's plus several new ones added, includeing a perked Tiger.
Logged

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
Aces Low
« Reply #10 on: July 18, 2002, 09:31:20 AM »
Ghosth, heres your perked Tiger  (Psssst...Tiger Woods  Girlfriend ;) )
Logged

Offline LoGo

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Aces Low
« Reply #11 on: July 18, 2002, 06:28:02 PM »
(regarding quote)
WWHHOOOSSHHH
i thought it originated from him, some well known smoker (cant remember from what). must be just one of those quotes that gets recycled by different peeps... as most of em :)
Logged

Offline Animal

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5027
Aces Low
« Reply #12 on: July 18, 2002, 07:15:52 PM »
Aces Low, isnt that the game StSanta was working on?
Logged

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Aces Low
« Reply #13 on: July 18, 2002, 09:28:39 PM »
Actually Karnak the 85mm on the T34/85 was somewhat inferior to the KwK40/L48 75mm of Panzer IV in AP capabilty. Then if a soviet tank is modeled vastly inferior soviet optics must also be modeled. They were inferior by design and technology not by poor production so it is no different than lets say performance disadvantages by less advanced aircraft in AH.
Logged

Offline SKurj

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3630
Aces Low
« Reply #14 on: July 18, 2002, 09:44:53 PM »
Yeah but Grunherz...


The PZ IV already has... unrealistic zoom, and a 'fantasy' gunsight...

Zoom for a PZ IV was what 4x? what do we have in AH? 10x?

Give us accurate sights and the engagement ranges would drop abit, adding to the fun, and provide more historical accuracy when adding new vehicles sure..

But ya can't make one historically accurate and not the other...


SKurj
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »