Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: sgtdeaux on October 20, 2005, 09:30:39 PM
-
Attention all shortbus riders.. (GV drivers)
If you look in the aircraft forum there is a request for the anti-tank version of the stuka.
below it are 40 posts from people who are fearful that this plane will end the game in GV's as we know it.
Let me sum up my request for this airplane with the following phrase.
A 200MPH PLANE WITH TWO 37MM GUNS WITH 6 ROUNDS EACH THAT WAS COMMONLY REFERED TOO AS THE "FLYING TURKEY" WILL NOT UNBALANCE THE GAME."
you people seriously need to deal with that fact that airplanes thru the war continually spanked tanks.. tigers ect...
the addition to the stuka gun boat will not destroy the game... Ive been flying stukas since I started this game I average about 2 stuka flights a night...
Thisis not an overly fast or heavily armed/armored plane.. there is no reason to perk it..
There is no reason to chicken little the entire post because its a request for a plane thats not another fighter.
This is a plane that will require great skill and finesse to use as an effective killer... just the way the current stuka does...
AH staff please add this plane to the game and ignore the plebians who are unable to see past the nose on their faces.
-sgt deaux
-
I remember we had the 87G when I used to fly WB2, very good ground attack plane but virtually useless if there is any fighter cover around. We even had it when there were no ground vehicles to attack, its only use was to de-ack fields and hit ships. I agree that it would be a great anti-vehicle ride that wouldn't affect game balance adversely. If anything it would be a nice option to up it when the badguys start spawning osties right under the only flight path away from your field.
However I can already see the a2a dweebs saying "you've already got a Hurricane with 40mms, why do you need a Stuka with 37mm cannons?"
-
Yep people will complain about it, actually thay already are on the other forum. I like the idea though. I say bring in as many different planes as you can in this game. The more the mearier.
To those that say perk it, my reply is, I think your scared of change.
"It'll unbalance the MA!!!!!!"
Bull. We need more planes to fly and fight with and against. So what if it turns into a hanger queen? It was in the war so it should be here. This game is about WWII combat correct?
I would love to see every plane and vehicle that saw combat in WWII in this game, no matter if it was a piece of crap or the hottest thing going.
Bring em all!!!!!!!
-
Like I said in the other forum, they dont want this plane because they dont want to have to worry about something called 'air support' when they roll their tanks. It's about time something was out there that would make tank drivers think twice about rolling without some friends above them.
-
Nothing match 1000lb in terms of antitank effectiveness. Except for 4000lb :eek:
Ju87G will not unballance game, it will be pretty useless imho.
-
Yea, its just like the 87 we have in the game, useless, unless u have other buddies with you that are protecting you. Be the same with the Ju87G cuz it slow, takes skill, and u need buddies still. If the GV guys are ganna complain about it when there in the field, y dont they take a couple of M16, or Ostwinds with them on their missions. Doenst take much thought, to know that the M16 and Ostwinds is not just to protect fields, but for GVs as will.
I say bring the Ju87G, I like a little challange in the air and on the ground.
-
I think with the current damage mdelling on vehicles, the 87G would only really be useful against non-tank vehicles (M16s, M3s, M8s). I regularly watch 40mm shells bounce off the tanks, so I doubt it would be too useful against the Tigers, Panzers, and T34s as the damage model stands now. Maybe not even the Osties.
But it would be absolute murder against the halftracks and armored cars. And probably a more stable gunnery platform (slower, fixed gear, heavier) than the HurriII also.
Allies get the Sturmovic (which is flown more as a fighter anyway...) so why not give the Germans something comperable? Might be a great addition for scenarios and CT-type setups.
-
Bigger caliber doesn't mean better penetration. The 37mm on the Stuka absolutely dominates tanks.
-
Originally posted by sgtdeaux
Attention all shortbus riders.. (GV drivers)
If you look in the aircraft forum there is a request for the anti-tank version of the stuka.
below it are 40 posts from people who are fearful that this plane will end the game in GV's as we know it.
Let me sum up my request for this airplane with the following phrase.
A 200MPH PLANE WITH TWO 37MM GUNS WITH 6 ROUNDS EACH THAT WAS COMMONLY REFERED TOO AS THE "FLYING TURKEY" WILL NOT UNBALANCE THE GAME."
you people seriously need to deal with that fact that airplanes thru the war continually spanked tanks.. tigers ect...
the addition to the stuka gun boat will not destroy the game... Ive been flying stukas since I started this game I average about 2 stuka flights a night...
Thisis not an overly fast or heavily armed/armored plane.. there is no reason to perk it..
There is no reason to chicken little the entire post because its a request for a plane thats not another fighter.
This is a plane that will require great skill and finesse to use as an effective killer... just the way the current stuka does...
AH staff please add this plane to the game and ignore the plebians who are unable to see past the nose on their faces.
-sgt deaux
Cant you just say you want the stuka to have the right guns? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by sgtdeaux
Attention all shortbus riders.. (GV drivers)
If you look in the aircraft forum there is a request for the anti-tank version of the stuka.
below it are 40 posts from people who are fearful that this plane will end the game in GV's as we know it.
Let me sum up my request for this airplane with the following phrase.
A 200MPH PLANE WITH TWO 37MM GUNS WITH 6 ROUNDS EACH THAT WAS COMMONLY REFERED TOO AS THE "FLYING TURKEY" WILL NOT UNBALANCE THE GAME."
you people seriously need to deal with that fact that airplanes thru the war continually spanked tanks.. tigers ect...
they did. They just for the most part Didnt do it with bullets.
the Very vast majority of Tanks. and german tanks in particular were destroyed not by bullets but by bombs.
Now may an uber gun stuka might have been able to take out the thin skinned Shermans( AKA by allied forces ad purple heart boxes). But thats another story. And we dont have Shermans here.
-
In case you'd like to see what it could look like:
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/31/Stuka%20ENH.jpg)
-
I lost count on how many times this model has been suggested and Im still highly against it.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
they did. They just for the most part Didnt do it with bullets.
the Very vast majority of Tanks. and german tanks in particular were destroyed not by bullets but by bombs.
Now may an uber gun stuka might have been able to take out the thin skinned Shermans( AKA by allied forces ad purple heart boxes). But thats another story. And we dont have Shermans here.
Ronson Lighters?
Karaya
-
A 200MPH PLANE WITH TWO 37MM GUNS WITH 6 ROUNDS EACH THAT WAS COMMONLY REFERED TOO AS THE "FLYING TURKEY" WILL NOT UNBALANCE THE GAME.
A 200mph plane with two 37mm guns with 6 rounds each that was commonly referred to as the "flying turkey" will not unbalance the game...
... for planes that fly over 250mph at deck with multiple cannon and heavy machine gun armament that flies much more graceful and deadly, which is commonly referred to as a "fighter aircraft".
However
... for hulking metallic brutes with 10~80mm armour that drives around at 35mph tops that is commonly referred to as the "tank", which a single hit from that "flying turkey" will immediately disable or destroy...
... yeah, it does.
It may be a flying turkey against fighter aircraft, but its totally irrelevant. Against that "flying turkey", the tanks are "turkey fodder", and that, is where "balance" is to be discussed - between the turkey and the turkey fodder, not between eagles and turkeys.
-
Thats why they need to bring an osti or m16 with each tank. Or here's a though bring some fighter cover.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
However
... for hulking metallic brutes with 10~80mm armour that drives around at 35mph tops that is commonly referred to as the "tank", which a single hit from that "flying turkey" will immediately disable or destroy...
... yeah, it does.
I have not data about BK 3.7 penetration capability, but i strongly doubt what it better than 75mm Panzer's gun or even close to it. Far from every 75mm AP hit disable or destroy tank even from 400-200 meters (normal range for straffing IL2 for example). So if BK 3.7 will modelled correctly it will not "uberwaffe". Most likely single kill in sortie will be summit of desires.
1000lb far more effective and easy weapon. As well as 23mm VYa (because of ammo amount)
P.S. Gun's effectiviness agains tanks still too high in AH2. Nothing close to RL.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Ronson Lighters?
Karaya
that too LOL
-
6 RPG in the stuka? What's the Hurri have? 15 or 30? 120 for the il2?
The Il-2 already dominates GVs with cannons, and it, the HurriD, and Yak9T all carry more ammo, and have far better performance, than the Stuka. What's the big deal?
Every time there's a popular request for an aircraft, there are endless squeals about how it will have to be perked, or it will ruin gameplay. How does anyone know until the plane in question is added?
Chalk me up as a "add more planes whenever possible" guy. I'd assume this one wouldn't have a chance until ToD was up and running, and an eastern front campaign was being planned, but I don't see the harm in one more big lumbering target.
-
The Il-2 already dominates GVs with cannons, and the HurriD, and Yak9T all carry more ammo, and have far better performance, than the Stuka. What's the big deal?
The "big deal" is that the German BK3.7 firing Hartkernmunition ammo, achieves penetration up to 140 mm at 100m distance, 90 degrees impact, and 70mm penetration at 60 degrees deflection.
In comparison, our "dominating" IL-2 carries the VYa 23mm cannon which penetrates 75~90 mm at 300m, 90 degrees impact, which drops down to 42-52 mm when impacting at 60 degrees. The Hurri2D carries Vicker-S 40mm cannon which is much less powerful than the other AT guns, and can achieve upto 50-55mm penetation only with the aircraft's speed working as a factor. Our Yak-9T's NS-37 37mm cannon is not using AP rounds in the first place.
In short, the Ju87G can penetrate a Tiger tank from the front with not much of an horizontall angular setup, as long as the firing distance is close and vertical angle is low. None of our present AT aircraft can do that. Even the relatively frail Panzer sucks up enormous amounts of IL2/Hurri2D volleys if certain firing conditions are not met.
In other words, the risk-reward ratio of the Ju87G in strafing (which is always far more easier than lobbing ordnance) is far higher than acceptable. Tanks are easy meat for people who have much experience in flying the AT role. They neutralize tanks by setting the right horizontal/vertical angle, maintaining enough speed, and firing at close distance a concentrated volley in the weakest spot visible. The Ju87G does not need such setting, and a round fired close enough WILL penetrate.
An inexperienced pilot in AT planes might be unsuccessful, or even auger while attacking tanks with the gun, and it may take upto 4~5 respawns to kill or disable a single tank. However, with the Ju87G, you can just charge at the tank, let off one good hit and then crash, and still you'll be able to disable a tank with one suicidal attempt. If a newbie can do that, imagine what an experienced AT pilot, who can take out 3~4 Panzers with current AT planes, would be able to do in a Ju87G - at least 4~5 tanks dead in a short span of time(whereas it takes much more time in a Hurri2D or an IL-2), one-shot kills, Tiger and Panzer (and T-34) alike.
The "big deal" is, nobody in their sane mind would ever drive a 50 perk Tiger again. Or even dare to take a free Panzer. What's the point in taking up a tank and attacking enemy fields or towns, when your own aerial defenses are hardly ever adequate(unless they achieve total hordeage over enemy base), and every newbie can kill your tank by lobbing off a single shot into it?
...
Every time there's a popular request for an aircraft, there are endless squeals about how it will have to be perked, or it will ruin gameplay. How does anyone know until the plane in question is added?
Because in this particular case, we have previous experience on what the gameplay will be like. During the course of years the tank armour model has been changed, making tanks considerably more resistant to aircraft fire, which set up a realistical aircraft-tank balance in Aces High.
Before that, with no exaggeration, nobody - and I mean nobody - used tanks. Every GV encountered was an Ostwind. There was no such thing as a "ground assault" or "armoured columns" or "GV missions" or "tank battles", because even a Zero can sneeze at a Panzer at it will start fuming black smoke. The balance between aircraft and tanks was hugely leaning towards the aircraft, so naturally, nobody used tanks because it was so inefficient.
Remember - in real life, things were opposite. The single most effective means of destroying tanks was by another tank. The aircraft alternative always much less efficient than that. Among those "aircraft alternatives", planes wielding great AT guns were always far ahead in efficiency, compared to planes that carried great ordnance loads, because lobbing ordnance was incredibly inaccurare in most cases. In our Aces High, nobody worries about a failed bomb run, or a premature and dangerous type of bomb dropping, or wasting bombs to no avail - because we have unlimited lives and planes and resources at our disposal... and yet still, the planes that have acceptable AT guns are used in the AT tank role, much more than other ground pounders such as the P-38 or the P-47, in Aces High. And, even with much of its pilots being largely average or meek in skill level, people still complain that the tanks are no match for IL-2s or Hurri2Ds, when the only real threat is when a much experienced pilot is toting his aircraft AT gun at tanks.
The delicate balance of aircraft and tank, is currently at an accpetable level in AH. The AT planes are fearsome, but if the spawn point is close enough, or if many people are gathered to up GVs to "Blitzkrieg" the town and sneak a M3 in, or if enemy ground defenses are weak and it is seems possible to overrun it with legions of tanks.. the risks are deemed acceptable and people choose to take up despite the risk of AT aircraft, because, they think they can achieve their purpose before being obliterated by it. We have a fun "ground warfare", which did not exist back in the "old days".
Add an unperked, unrestricted Ju87G to that equation and we go right back to the "old days" - no tank usage whatsoever, because it would be stupid to up a tank in the first place. We have that experience, and that's why I KNOW it will ruin gameplay. It would be fun flying Stukas to hunt tanks, but I for one, would never up a tank again, unless our "horde" totally overruns the enemy field - in which case tanks aren't needed anyway, and you're only playing a game you know you've alreay won.
...
Chalk me up as a "add more planes whenever possible" guy. I'd assume this one wouldn't have a chance until ToD was up and running, and an eastern front campaign was being planned, but I don't see the harm in one more big lumbering target.
Ironically, if the tank usage drops, then the AT aircraft usage dies along with it. The past experience proves this. In the old days, nobody used tanks, and thus, nobody used Hurri2Ds and IL-2 at all. They were hangar queens. Only after tanks were made resistant to normal aircraft fire, did the Hurri2D and IL-2 begin to shine as capable tank busters.
Add an unperked Ju87G into the equation, and you not only kill off the tanks from the game, you also kill off the Hurri2D and IL2, and the newly introduced Ju87G, alongside it.
I'm a "add more planes whenever possible" guy myself.
However, the difference is, I don't approve of adding in a plane so it can commit a career suicide, and take an entire section of the gameplay with it. The perks is suggested to keep alive the plane, and the type of warfare which makes that plane meaningful. Perks are to make it live, not to destroy it.
-
My two cents:
This stuka was in the war. It made tanks cannon fodder and became cannon fodder when fighters would come.
Now, if this is added to the game, then it would chew up tanks and get chewed up by fighters, right? So, ppl say that since they chew up tanks they will unbalance the game. My response is this:
How many times do ppl complain about uber tanks that suck up loads of eggs and shells and still rumble along unscathed? HT has lectured us many times on armor thickness and shell impact angles, and other technical stuff. The point is that ppl are sick of tanks that are tougher to blow up than mount everest, yet they can't do nothing about it since HT sez it's in the coad. So with that said, ppl need a plane that is reliable in tank busting.
Will it unbalance the game? No, because the tankers are pampered enough due to the coad and due to lag from the bombers, I admit that this doesn't apply to all tankers, but it does happen. At least with the new stuka, tankers would be forced to fear the threat from the skies - making the game more realistic.
That's all I have to say about the argument BUT I am against the addition of this plane, because it'll pretty much be a very small adjustment to gameplay. I'd rather have HTC concentrating on getting the TOD finished.
-
a good arguement for adding a perked Ju87G..............
pity there is not a separate perk column for attackers.............
-
With no disrespect, I must point out that the other responses to this subject, as in Naytch's above, in defending free Ju87Gs, is a very typical misconception in regards to the fact that "balance" must be compared to issues that are relevant to one another. Take the following example;
"The Hawker Tempest might be the fastest fighter at MA engagement altitudes, diabolically toting quad-Hizookas, but you can always up a La-7 and make it turn and slow down, and then the better maneuvering fighters will come and eat it alive. So, it doesn't need to be perked."
To explain, the above statement assumes a very particular condition in which the Tempest may or may not fall under to justify itself. Its basically assuming a condition where a certain vehicle will do its worst, and its opposition will do its best - which makes the argument pretty pointless. It's like laying an military plan upon assumptions that the enemy will make mistakes and thus, automatically one's own troops would be advantageous. Such a plan is totally dependant on what-ifs, and not at all objective or reasonable.
The point lies in the objective comparison of performances between the relevant vehicles(and the expected overusage due to it) which gives grounds to perk stuff. The Tempest was never tested unperked, however, judging by its relative and objective performance, it would be safe to say that it is in much advantage over other planes in speed, acceleration, (particularly) armament, and the multi-task role, which makes it perkworthy. The same reason applies here, and likewise, the same mistakes can be seen in other people's response towards perking the Ju87G.
Again, the fact that it is an easy kill for a fighter, is totally irrelevant. We're not discussing a plane-to-plane balance here. We're discussing a plane-tank balance.
The point on whether the Ju87G is an easy kill for a fighter or not, whether a tank may bring an AA vehicle(Osty, M-16) with him or not, all relies on particular assumptions to justify itself. However, speaking truthfully, how many people really do bring a friendly AA vehicle to wait right next to it for God knows how long? How many friendly fighters offer a strict, organized aircover when a ground offensive spawns right next to an enemy field, to which he must risk engaging swarms of enemy fighters from a still active field, in order to shoot down Ju87Gs and IL2s and such?
Only at a totally overrun enemy field, inactive, shut down, already swarming with friendly fighters, and blockaded, can a tank driver really feel safe from the threat of AT planes. However, this is the ending phase of a ground offensive. The whole fun lies in the beginning phases, not when everything is already decided to one's own favor.
In other words, above assumptions on the Ju87G being not a threat, applies to only a very small part of the entire ground warfare. We're talking about how a ground warfare can start, and take up action, in the face of enemy AT threat - not how one can conveniently choose to spawn vehicles at enemy field/town which is already inactive.
I can always make simular "assumptions" in discussing balance, which might sound good, but doesn't picture the reality at all. I can go argue that the Me262 doesn't need to be perked, since our own pilot may listen to friendly reports, up his own Me262, and go and hunt it down. If everytime an enemy 262 appears, we can always up our own 262s and at least neutralize his threat so he may do nothing. Therefore, even if it is unperked the Me262 won't be overused, since there are always "countermeasures" which can make it undesirable to fly a jet fighter, over 100mph faster than most fighters at all altitues, toting four 30mm cannons. It will be unreasonable to think that a free Me262 will cause unbalance, right?
But then again, the whole point of perking the Me262 was the balance between that particular plane, and other prop-fighters. It wasn't about how easily one can neutralize a 262 threat. It was about how we can keep its numbers low in the first place(!).
The same applies.
To repeat the conclusions of a previous post;
It may be a flying turkey against fighter aircraft, but its totally irrelevant. Against that "flying turkey", the tanks are "turkey fodder", and that, is where "balance" is to be discussed - between the turkey and the turkey fodder, not between eagles and turkeys.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
In comparison, our "dominating" IL-2 carries the VYa 23mm cannon which penetrates 75~90 mm at 300m, 90 degrees impact, which drops down to 42-52 mm when impacting at 60 degrees.
http://www.battlefield.ru/pics/il2_test2.gif
-
(http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/ju87g-1.jpg)
Type: Dive bomber and ground attack
Origin: Junkers Flugzeug und Motorenwerke AG
Models: G-1
Crew: Two
First Flight: N/A
Final Delivery: N/A
Production: N/A (5,609 of all models)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine:
Model: Junkers Jumo 211J
Type: Water-Cooled Inverted V12
Number: One Horsepower: 1,300 hp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensions:
Wing span: 50 ft. 0½ in. (15.25m)
Wing Surface Area: N/A
Length: 36 ft. 5 in. (11.1m)
Height: 12 ft. 9 in. (3.9m)
Weights:
Empty: 6,080 lbs. (2750 kg)
Loaded: 14,500 lbs. (6585 kg)
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 250 mph (402 kph)
Cruise Speed: N/A
Range: 620 miles (1000 km)
Initial Climb: N/A
Endurance: N/A
Service Ceiling: 24,000 ft. (7320m)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armament:
Two 37mm BK (Flak 18 or Flak 36) Cannon in underwing pods.
One 7.92mm MG 81 twin barrel machine gun in rear cockpit.
-
You guys are complaining about a plane that you have to aim at small vehicles to get hits? How do you think it feels when a Lanc can carpet bomb an entire group of vehicles in a single pass. Those vehicles have to knock out THREE Lancs compared to a fragile, slow Stuka.
It'll teach you tank boys the real meaning of using trees for cover and bringing Osties and M16s...thats what they were used for!
-
Does the meaning of nap of earth mean any thing?If they attack in a mass group most will get through.
-
Tankers pampered? LOL I think not
If tanks were as easily disabled and destroyed by guns IRL as they are here the allies. or the germans for that matter wouldnt have needed tanks.
Or self propelled anti tank guns. or 88s
As it is now a few rounds from a hurricane can disable the gun on a panzer or tiger in a single pass. or sometimes outright destroy it .
Add to that thos rounds manage to kill everyone in the tank capable of firing any of the turret guns including the pintle.
Must be a real complicated setup that even the driver of a tank change positions and fire the pintle gun
And I understand the explination behind it. But your still talking about and aircraft flying at around 200 MPH hitting a target area thats what? at best 3 feet wide? Then take into account convergence and IMO its just a bit too easily done here
By FAR more tanks were disabled and destroyed by bombs then by the guns of any plane in WWII.
The best way to kill a tank then, and still hold true now is with another tank.
and thats the way it should be here
-
If tanks were as easily disabled and destroyed by guns IRL as they are here the allies. or the germans for that matter wouldnt have needed tanks. Or self propelled anti tank guns. or 88s
It is a mistake to compare a game situation on a 1:1 scale with reality, without properly taking into context which factors may intervene.
For instance, the utter lack of fear of death alone has an overall effect in grossly exaggerating the effects of aerial strafing(everything that has to do with shooting, bomb lobbing, rocket firing, and etc etc.. for that matter). Real planes and pilots had safety measures. they were trained to engage targets in a certain, designated way, which was invented to keep the pilot alive and out of unnecessary harm as much as possible.
Do game players abide by such rules and regulations? Do they have a certain method or discipline which they should stick to? Remember that in a game, many factors are simplified, and the risks which follow such factors are also nonexistant. People dive to target in negative G dives at under 2k alt, achieving a 60+ angle to lob a bomb over a tank and pull out 100ft over the ground. People do that stuff, and they get away with it. If they succeed, they kill a tank real quick. If they fail, they just respawn and try it again.
Our real-life counterparts don't have such luxury. In a game, everything is almost ALWAYS easier. Just look at the gunnery distances in the game. We say that AH2 has vastly improved in that respect, and yet, still the average killing distances are like 200~300 yards.
As it is now a few rounds from a hurricane can disable the gun on a panzer or tiger in a single pass. or sometimes outright destroy it. Add to that those rounds manage to kill everyone in the tank capable of firing any of the turret guns including the pintle.
Must be a real complicated setup that even the driver of a tank change positions and fire the pintle gun.. And I understand the explanation behind it. But your still talking about and aircraft flying at around 200 MPH hitting a target area thats what? at best 3 feet wide? Then take into account convergence and IMO its just a bit too easily done here
You grossly overestimate the game population at hand which could manage to achieve such accuracy. In most cases, people fail a lot, and die a lot to kill just a single tank. Sit by an enemy base and see how many proxy kills you can earn by just staying there. I've gotten as many as 26 proxy kills in a Tiger, sitting right in the middle of an enemy base, before a veteran came to dish me out with 2x1000lbs bomb.
At the moment, it takes at least a certain amount of skill, to neutralize a tank EFFICIENTLY with an IL-2 or Hurri2D. There aren't really all that many people who can kill a Panzer with one Hurri2D pass. In my case, I have to line up behind the target tank, maintain a speed of at least 250mph+, and aim either the rooftop or the rear base of the tank and land 2~3 consecutive hits with those 40mms to totally destroy a Panzer in one pass. This takes time, and more often than not, it takes at least 3~4 passes average to just disable a tank - because there are conditions to be met.
The only reason it looks easy in the game, is because even if an attempt or two fails, you can up again and again and again, until you finally kill that tank. It takes a tank driver a long time to drive even just 5~10 miles on the map, while the pilot only needs a few minutes to attempt multiple attack passes.. and replane if he dies in his (wreckless) process. We have the gift of unlimited QUANTITY, which compensates our lack of QUALITY - how can things not be easy?
By FAR more tanks were disabled and destroyed by bombs then by the guns of any plane in WWII.
In an examplar situation; you drop one million bombs to kill one hundred tanks in the span of one thousand sorties. I up a dedicated AT platform and knock down ten tanks in the span of five sorties.
Yeah, you can go say that "by FAR more tanks were disabled and destroyed by bombs then by the guns of any plane in WWII" - except it hardly means anything. I don't know if the absolute figures do tell that bombs destroyed more ground vehicles than AT aircraft, however, in regards to overall efficiency and effectiveness - bombs and rockets were the WORST choice of all the means to try and neutralize a tank threat.
A recommended article by Anthony williams;
TANKBUSTERS: AIRBORNE ANTI-TANK GUNS IN WW2 (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm)
The best way to kill a tank then, and still hold true now is with another tank... and thats the way it should be here
That's why the Ju87G should be perked.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
[still the average killing distances are like 200~300 yards.
[/B]
Good post.
Ok But I'd have to say if its going to be perked. it should receive tiger like perks and not CHog type perks.
I used to spend alot more time in tanks. and I've received my share of proxies. But lately thats become the exeption and not the norm.
I dont spend as much time in them anymore because
A- on most maps its too hard to find a decent GV battle.
B- lately if you do find one sonmeone ups and aircraft and disables my tank (reguardless of plane type. in more often then not a single pass and almost as often at angles where he shouldnt be able to do so.
C- the ability of being able to be hit while using the forest as cover but the inability of being able to shoot out of forests even when there is a clear shooting path (no trees or leafs) in front of you.
in short. bombs and shells can come in freely but they cant go out without being stopped by invisable leafs
But.. that is a different subject
As for killing distances.
Arent those distances feet and not yards?
From a visual perspctive it sure loooks like feet and at (200-300 yards)
600-900 feet those planes should be looking one hell of alot smaller.
If it is yards then there is something off about the scale of the aircraft IMO
Stand on the goal line of a football feild and park your car facing you on the other goal line and you will see what I mean.
thats how I came to this conclusion. only in my case it was a full sized van parked on the other end. Which I think is pretty safe to say is larger then the *fuselage* of a WWII aircraft.
-
Ok But I'd have to say if its going to be perked. it should receive tiger like perks and not CHog type perks.
I agree.
I'm not sure if it needs to be as high as the Tiger, but it should be at least over 20. Considering that most people have a loooooooot of buff perks accumulated over the Tours, for a considerable amount of time even that price might not be sufficient to keep the numbers under adequate levels. But still, the price should be considered somewhat high - so that people would refrain from using it lightly.
It should be treated as sort of an "ultimate weapon", the kind you'd be needing despite the perk risks, such as if there is a huge enemy tank column with multiple Tigers and Panzers coming towards your base - not the everyday tank-busting tool which people can conveniently use.
I used to spend alot more time in tanks. and I've received my share of proxies. But lately thats become the exeption and not the norm.;
A- on most maps its too hard to find a decent GV battle.
B- lately if you do find one sonmeone ups and aircraft and disables my tank (reguardless of plane type. in more often then not a single pass and almost as often at angles where he shouldnt be able to do so.)
C- the ability of being able to be hit while using the forest as cover but the inability of being able to shoot out of forests even when there is a clear shooting path (no trees or leafs) in front of you.
in short. bombs and shells can come in freely but they cant go out without being stopped by invisable leafs
But.. that is a different subject
A and B probably has to do a lot with how the MA has changed toward the "horde" mentality, than it has to do with the tanks and aircraft. When you spawn a tank and drive it towards an enemy field, there are often 10~20 times more enemy planes in the air than there are friendly tanks in the area. While your tank might survive a certain number of enemy attacks, in the end, at least one of those 10~20 enemies buzzing by deals damage. Or, at least one of those enemy pilots go as far as to up a three-plane Lancaster formation and just carpet bomb the entire area at very low altitudes to kill your tank. C, is a fault in the game which should be addressed sooner or later.
As for killing distances.
Arent those distances feet and not yards?
From a visual perspctive it sure loooks like feet and at (200-300 yards)
600-900 feet those planes should be looking one hell of alot smaller.
If it is yards then there is something off about the scale of the aircraft IMO
Stand on the goal line of a football feild and park your car facing you on the other goal line and you will see what I mean.
thats how I came to this conclusion. only in my case it was a full sized van parked on the other end. Which I think is pretty safe to say is larger then the *fuselage* of a WWII aircraft.
The distance counters are in yards. If you see an enemy plane at "d400", he is somewhere between 400~600 yards in front of you - 365~550 in meters.
It would be fair to say that indeed, AH2 has much improved in dealing with long range gunnery situations, looking back at how I'd probably be dead within 5 seconds when I see an enemy plane behind me at 500 yards, whereas in AH2, at a "400" marker, I still have a fair chance to jink slightly and evade the enemy attack long enough to accelerate away, if in a faster plane. Empirically, my opinion is that the "effective distance" - which you can expect to kill an enemy plane outright - of gunnery was between 500~600 in AH1, where as in AH2, it has dropped down to 300~400. But still, that's a bit too long to consider it realistic.
-
You could give it a lot of perks to start off with, then lower it as time goes on.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
The distance counters are in yards. If you see an enemy plane at "d400", he is somewhere between 400~600 yards in front of you - 365~550 in meters.
It would be fair to say that indeed, AH2 has much improved in dealing with long range gunnery situations, looking back at how I'd probably be dead within 5 seconds when I see an enemy plane behind me at 500 yards, whereas in AH2, at a "400" marker, I still have a fair chance to jink slightly and evade the enemy attack long enough to accelerate away, if in a faster plane. Empirically, my opinion is that the "effective distance" - which you can expect to kill an enemy plane outright - of gunnery was between 500~600 in AH1, where as in AH2, it has dropped down to 300~400. But still, that's a bit too long to consider it realistic.
If it is indeed yards and not feet then I am of the opinion that the planes themselves look to be too large for the distance they are at.
Again I am thinking of when Ive seen my parked full sized van on about the goal line of a football feild facing me and me standing on the other end and looking at it.
Now its safe to say my van had a larger profile then a WWII fighter (fuselage) yet at 100 yards my van looked smaller then the aircraft here do at 100 yards.
Actually it spretty safe to say that a WWII fighter fuselage could fit inside my van.
Just my opinion based on personal observation.
Perhaps if the size for distance were corrected the LRG would be improved.
but then again that would for many who's gunnery isn the greatest,
Im sure would make the game less "fun".
and the fun factor has to be a consideration
-
Originally posted by Oleg
Nothing match 1000lb in terms of antitank effectiveness. Except for 4000lb :eek:
Yeah, but IMHO the 500lb is enough for everything but the Tiger.
-
Well it's a moot point because the only GVs I've ever seen are on a hill behind GV spawn points, spawn camping, or moving onto an airfield runway to spawn camp the ends of the runway. Any other time they're hiding in the trees (which block all bullets/bombs anyways) -- so what's the point? Can't launch GV to kill GV, because they're spawn camping. Can't up a plane to shoot/bomb GVs because they're spawn camping.
:P
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Well it's a moot point because the only GVs I've ever seen are on a hill behind GV spawn points, spawn camping, or moving onto an airfield runway to spawn camp the ends of the runway. Any other time they're hiding in the trees (which block all bullets/bombs anyways) -- so what's the point? Can't launch GV to kill GV, because they're spawn camping. Can't up a plane to shoot/bomb GVs because they're spawn camping.
:P
Krusty hasn't been like this for some time now. You can now kill GVs that hide in woods.
Bronk
-
I dunno about that.. seems I've been seeing some whines posted recently about it. The rest of the stuff is true tho' (spawn camping)