Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: JB82 on March 17, 2005, 06:07:01 AM
-
I request the M-26 Pershing Tank to have something that can compete with the Tiger Tank.
-
When and if, prepare to have it perked since apparently there were fewer of those in action than F-4UC's, i.e., late war issue in small numbers.
-
Perk points have nothing to do with how many were made.
-
no, we need tank destoryers and tracked artillery.
-
Big old yes for the M26.:aok :aok :aok :aok :aok
-
And, ofcourse, grunts with bazooka's and ap guns :)
-
Originally posted by JB82
I request the M-26 Pershing Tank to have something that can compete with the Tiger Tank.
I'd prefer an IS-2.
-
(QUOTE)
Perk points have nothing to do with how many were made.
(UNQUOTE)
One of the first planes perked was the F4U-1C, mostly because it was being used in Aces High way out of proportion to its limited number that saw combat late in WWII.
Similarly, only a relatively few Pershings made it into combat late in WWII.
-
No, perk points are placed because of the effect on the Arena. Take one of the best US fighters, stick 4 Hispanos on it and you'll have a beast of a plane.
The Typhoon and Spit 14 had a decent amount of planes built AND USED. But they aren't perked on a basis of how many they were built. They were perked because they dominated.
Further proof of how you are wrong is the 3 Gun La7. The 3 gun La7 only had 50-100 planes built, not many used. Yet you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the arena with a 2 gun La7.
-
PERK the LALA :)
-
(QUOTE)
No, perk points are placed because of the effect on the Arena. Take one of the best US fighters, stick 4 Hispanos on it and you'll have a beast of a plane.
The Typhoon and Spit 14 had a decent amount of planes built AND USED. But they aren't perked on a basis of how many they were built. They were perked because they dominated.
Further proof of how you are wrong is the 3 Gun La7. The 3 gun La7 only had 50-100 planes built, not many used. Yet you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the arena with a 2 gun La7.
(UNQUOTE)
Shouldn't use "wrong" in a discussion. Very counterproductive. Usually just a matter of listening better. Of course perk points are mainly assessed for EFFECT on the arena. No one would argue that point.
From the beginning of the perk debate, one of the main arguments for perking the F-4UC and limiting its EFFECT was because it was used in Aces High in much larger numbers than the small number of its real life counterparts late in WWII and thus was having a disproportionate EFFECT in Aces High gameplay.
I didn't make that argument, but many others did, and it is legitimate as part of the EFFECT. As in real life, limited numbers of F-4UC's would not have that much EFFECT on Aces High, hence the perks to limit their EFFECT (and keep their numbers more proportionate to their real EFFECT in WWII).
The Pershing would be in the same vein. It barely got to Europe. Zilch EFFECT on the war. But it could really distort the feel of WWII tank warfare if it were used much in Aces High.
The 3-gun La-7 example is another good one, and strongly supported by its limited use in WWII. Its 3-gun version probably should be perked, but not the 2-gun version. That would seem so easy to do that it's surprising it wasn't done long ago.
EFFECT is the bottom line, but it is a culmination of many factors including firepower, performance, and number of units.
The ultimate example of EFFECT including large production numbers in WWII is the B-29. It was so EFFECTive, including combat in large numbers, that it has never been introduced in Aces High no matter how many perks it would warrant.
The other side of that EFFECT is the Me-262. Although it never saw combat in sufficient numbers to turn the tide, it is so superior in performance that it is the premium perk plane in Aces High. Theoretically the B-29 could be introduced sometime with perks probably as least twice those of the Me-262.
So yes EFFECT is always the main consideration, but supporting arguments frequently have cited numbers actually seeing combat in WWII vs. numbers used in Aces High. There is nothing "wrong" about those arguments; they simply support considerations dealing with EFFECT.
The F-4UC and your example of the 3-gun La-7 are strong arguments for perks mainly for EFFECT strongly supported by their limited historical use.
Many Aces High participants are strongly influenced by EFFECTs of aircraft and vehicles in Aces High being reasonably commensurate with their EFFECTs in WWII. Those preferences are neither right or wrong, just preferences.
-
Erm, I think the non-intorduction of the B-29 into AH has little, or more likely nothing, to do with how effective it would be and a lot to do with the time it would take SUPERFLY or NATEDOG to make it.
Aslo, the Spitfire Mk XIV and Tempest never got a chance to demonstrate if they'd dominate or not. I think the Tempest would and I'm a bit doubtful of the Spitfire Mk XIV.
-
The Spit 14 is a hellofa plane. I personally think it's perked too high though.
But I will still say what I did before. The thought process that an item is perked because of how many were in the war is wrong. The numbers probably coincide with the performance and domination of these vehicles, but it's not the numbers that make up the perking.
-
Back on topic...
Pershing is very Tiger-like in its capabilities, so would presumably be perked. JSII or JSIII would be likewise.
Instead (or in addition), I would suggest a mid-level tank like Sherman Firefly. The gun (with APDS) is capable of killing tigers at over 2500m. The armor is T-34/76-like. Depending on how HTC implemented it, it would either be unperked, or low-perked.
-
was Fireflyever deployed? My understanding was army rejected it because it had a Brit main gun
-
Originally posted by bj229r
was Fireflyever deployed? My understanding was army rejected it because it had a Brit main gun
The firefly was the upgunned british version of the sherman. normally it was deployed 1 per platoon in the "overwatch" role. The same 17 pder was used in the "Achilles" tank destroyer (the british modified M-10 wolverine).
"3. Sherman 17 Pdr (Ic)
About 100 of those are now in the theatre and issues have been made to 2nd and 7th Armd Bdes as well as 5th Can and 4th N.Z. Armd Bdes. Operational experience is scanty but certain points have already come up: -
The ammunition bin in the co-drivers compartment is of such a size and construction that it cannot be removed from the vehicle without removing the turret. This operation is necessary in order to carry out repairs to the right hand front steering brake. M.W.E.E. have a project for
investigating and suggesting a remedy and it appears probable that it will be necessary to make this bin of bolted instead of welded construction so that it can be dismantled and removed piecemeal.
R.A.C.T.D. have also hid some experience with Sherman Ic and have brought up a number of points. Their remarks, suggested remedies and comments by HQ R.A.C. have been circulated to all holding units and are reproduced as Appendix "A".
2nd Can Armd Regt of 5 Can Armd Bde have the following user comments:-
The crew found the turret space rather confined. This did not interfere with efficiency in action but it proved very tiring as there is less room for "relaxation" than in the normal Sherman.
Considerable practice is required in crew drill for the handling of amn. The driver plays an important part in this. The same regt gives the following operational account.
1. This regt received 4 Sherman Ic Tks, during a lull in battle, on 5 Oct 44.
2. After some discussion, it was decided to allot them all to one sqn, on the basis of one per tp. Since the tp ldr normally leads his tp in the sort of close country in which we are now operating, it was decided that the 17 pdr Shermans would be given to the Tp Sgts. (Sqn org - 4 tps each 3 tks).
3. Instr was commenced as soon as the kit had been checked. One offr and one sgt had just returned from a 17 pdr course at RACTD, having been flown both ways, and, in addition, a very competent sgt-instr from RACTD was attached to the Regt. It was not possible to incl firing in the brief trg progam.
4. On 14 Oct the 17 pdr tks saw their first action when this sqn provided close sp for an inf bn (H & PE) in an advance beyond SCOLO RIGOSSA. In the first afternoon this force gained approximately 1500 yds against stubborn resistance. Although the 17 pdr tks were kept rearmost in their tps, they were called upon to shoot up many houses and dug-outs, and the HE shell was found to be about the same as the 75mm. In the opinion of one tp sgt it "seems to knock out the back wall of the house"
5. An opportunity to observe its hole-punching capabilities came late in this first afternoon. One of the tp cpls spotted a Panther at about 300 yds range. He indicated it to his tp sgt and meanwhile fired one round of 75 mm AP at it. The tp sgt's gunner reports that as he laid the 17-pdr on the Panther, its turret was swinging slowly towards him and, as be fired, was still roughly 30 degrees off. Four rounds of 17-pdr AP were fired, all scoring direct hits. The Panther did not brew up, our own inf patrols, fearing recovery by the enemy, set fire to it during the ensuing night.
6. The remains of this tk may be seen at BULGARIA (mr 656045). There are two clean holes in it and three "gouges". One hole is in the side of the gun barrel, approx 3 in from the mantlet; since there is no hole out the other side of the barrel, and judging from the angle of penetration about 60 deg from normal) it seems probable that this AP round entered the turret via the breech of the gm. The other hole is in the side wall of the turret."
-
Man that was interesting Humble
, love that kinda stuff