Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Hoarach on May 21, 2006, 10:37:56 AM
-
I know this wont happen but why no one has ever requested for these german tanks.
The Maus, moving 13-20 km/h, had 128mm main gun, a coaxial 75mm gun. The 128mm gun had 55-68 rnds and 75mm had 200 rnds. The thinnest part of the armour was 7 inches thick and the thickest was 14 inches.
Some will say it never saw action but there is an account that less than 2-3 did encounter action.
There was also studies found by the allies showing that the Bear was in process of being planned. It carried a 800mm gun and 2x150mm guns. It was going to be powered by 4xUBoat engines.
Could only imagine if these tanks were put into full service.
-
That thing was a monster ;)
Soemone posted a few pics of it earlier this year, looked like a house on tracks :D
-
The Bear would have made a tremendously interesting target for jabos :D
But seriously there were many tanks used in large quantities in WW2 that would also be used in AH.
Sherman firefly comes to my head, then the Churchill, then some of Hobart's monsters perhaps. (Amphib flamethrower, mortar, etc). A late USSR tank like the Stalin, then some German tank destroyers, then biggies like the Elephant, then late war allied ones like the Comet, or just self propelled artillery with a jeep rider as a spotter.
An easy add on would be a newer T34 I guess, or for scenarios an earlier Panzer, but if you're into that, then the Matilda, the Grant, and god knows what :)
Tanks....
-
British Matilda or Cruiser Tanks would be cool.
US Sherman (variants) and a M18 Hellcat or M36 Jackson
Soviet T-28 and a KV-1
German Panther and a Jadgpanzer
-
I think a unicycle would be fantastic.
And maybe a tricycle for base assaults. We could have a rubber-band shooter between the handlebars.
However, the most crucial thing that needs to be added is a skateboard for the pilot when you bail out of the plane.
-
(http://www.militarypay.com/US%20Military/MilitaryTankImages/image003.jpg)
(http://3dcenter.ru/blueprints/tanks/panzer_maus.jpg)
-
To be frank, no amount of new tanks would make the GV portion of the game really 'interesting'. Don't get me wrong. I don't agree that the GV warfare in AH is as easy as 'point-and-click' as some people claim. I've tried tanks. Be it in open engagement or under forest cover, I can't survive for two minutes without being discovered and knocked out first. It takes skills and experience to be good in a tank, and I admire that. The problem, at least for me, is that the general tactical/strategical conditions surrounding the AH GV warfare is so outdated and poorly done that it is really hard to really concentrate on that portion of the game.
Many people say that the GVs are sideshow gimmicks, and were introduced as such. I know how much HT hates people claiming to know what he is thinking, so I won't even pretend to know what HTC was upto when they first introduced the tanks. What I do know is that how the GV warfare has changed along the years. To put it simply, this may be Aces "High" but it has grown into something much bigger than it was. The GVs aren't just fun rides anymore. The GV warfare is now an important part of AH with considerable cause and effect. A well planned armoured assault is deadly and effective, and dividing one's own forces between air power and ground power is a very important process for both attacking and defending a base. I've frequently experienced how a certain side has failed to balance their own numbers between fighter pilots and tank drivers, which as a result led to loss of the base.
There was no terrain stuff except ground clutter in the old days. The tactical maneuvering of GVs weren't as developed as combat maneuvering for aircraft. (I've seen tons of ACM threads and yet threads explaining how to drive, fight, and survive in GVs remain rare even nowadays, if not being ridiculed out of the forums by morons) People would still camp spawns, but in those days the tanks were so fragile that even a Zero could disable it by strafing it with its puny guns.
In short, the GV warfare has grown into something much more important than what it was, and yet the basic game system concerning the GV warfare remains ancient as ever. This tendency is matched by the same things happening in the air as well, where the ancient AH strat system more often than not gets in the way of a fun game, rather than aiding it.
...
We need a ground warfare system that remains separate from the aerial warfare system. The map depicting shifiting fronts, with ground forces deployed dynamically according to the situation, and spawn points changing along with it. Capturable targets that remain separate from the airfield itself. Maybe a certain portion of the AI system that might be used in the Combat Tour. An AI driven armoured column, which total strength is somehow effected by aerial offensives - such as cumulative damage done to oil refineries or ammunition factories reducing the total numbr of tanks the 'AI group' has.. various ground targets all around the terrain, so people don't just horde over to airbases and do nothing but the 'steamroller' bit... and etc etc..
So many things possible - yet the system remains as ancient and non-existant as ever, without even the slightest hints of a revised strat.
That's what turns me off from the GVs. I mean, spawning 100 miles behind enemy lines, milkrunning base after base with GVs assaults.... or spawn points toward enemy bases resulting in nothing but spawn camps and hordes of dweeb attack planes that auger every bombrun and then reup 4 miles away. Where's the fun in that? No important roads, important juntions, rails, bridges... nothing.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
I think a unicycle would be fantastic.
And maybe a tricycle for base assaults. We could have a rubber-band shooter between the handlebars.
However, the most crucial thing that needs to be added is a skateboard for the pilot when you bail out of the plane.
Hows about a samuari (sp?) sword also? Nothing beats camping the spawn on a runway and as soon as a plane spawns you run out and hack its wings off
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
Hows about a samuari (sp?) sword also? Nothing beats camping the spawn on a runway and as soon as a plane spawns you run out and hack its wings off
OmG!~ Bring the samurai sword and skateboard to AH!!111```11!!!!111oneoneoneleventyone
-
:D
-
sherman Firefly, one of the best main guns in the war
-
Tiger killer :D
(http://www.tedtoy.com/images/monarch_015.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
To be frank, no amount of new tanks would make the GV portion of the game really 'interesting'.
Excellent points all mate. They used what they could quite nicely, but an isolated corner of each map dedicated to tanks would be great for the groundsmen, but can it be changed enough within the existing game to make it a true tank experience?
Without artillery and infantry, it's doubtful and at that point it simply becomes WWII Online lite.
Sakai
-
in responce to the first post. there were only 2 Mauses ever produced, one of which had a wooden turret and was only to be used as a demonstration vehicle. it was destroyed about 50 miles from the factory to deny it to the russians, the other functioning one either faught off the russians at the factory where it was assembled or it retreated about 100 miles where it broke down. either way, it was captured by the russians and is now in a tank museum.
-
Excellent points all mate. They used what they could quite nicely, but an isolated corner of each map dedicated to tanks would be great for the groundsmen, but can it be changed enough within the existing game to make it a true tank experience?
Without artillery and infantry, it's doubtful and at that point it simply becomes WWII Online lite.
Not isolation - but total integration.
WW2OL has a lot of problems. I don't know how it is coming up recently but according to its first few versions it was plagued by numerous systematical problems. However, when it was first announced it created a sizeable response from all the simulation enthusiasts because the concept they had was great. Ultimately, to a certain extent the ideal WW2OL held would probably become a destination for all games involving WW2 era combat.
I believe that any solution that involves creating a separate 'pocket zone' for 'fighters only' or 'tanks only' is like a surrender - it represents a failure for the developers to create a system which integrates the various parts of WW2 warfare into the game to create a full experience.
AH isn't a recreation of WW2, and HT hates people saying that AH attempts to do any thing of that sort. But regardless of what he hates or likes, the truth is we have WW2 planes with WW2 performances fighting with WW2 style tactics, against WW2-era ground defenses and airbases. Under these circumstances, it is only natural that the warring environment of the MA becomes more and more resembling WW2 conditions, not to mention the people expecting that more and more.
AH doesn't necessarily have to be like WW2OL. It just needs a more integrated ground warfare system that is designed to function more or less separately from the aerial warfare. What I mean by this is, essentially Aces High Main Arena is like a ground battle being fought by pilots. Storming the fronts, attacking en masse like a mass of troops. Thinning out enemy defenses by attrition.. capturing individual air bases;; something like this is what ground forces are supposed to do, not planes and their pilots.
What if the MA terrains looked more like the real thing? Roads, bridges, many towns spread around, important cities being the collective point for supplies and transportation? Capturing individual fields directly would be impossible, but individual towns and cities may be attacked, so when a certain amount of territory is conquered the airfield that is attached with it is captured.
A part of the Combat Tour-ish AI mission planning system can be integrated into the MA system, with the system creating a ground assault mission every once in a while. Players are invited to participate, and the empty spots would be filled by AI. The GV assault is launched. The enemy will also launch their defenses - the response time and such being effected by how much destruction the planes have done against various terrain objects.. such as radar relay stations, railways, bridges, and etc etc..
The point is, the GV warfare doesn't have to be as detailed and player-consuming as WW2OL. All we need is a basic system of ground warfare that is logical. If the AI/system functions like described above, it could actually create a lot more stuff for even the plane pilots to play with.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
We need a ground warfare system that remains separate from the aerial warfare system. The map depicting shifiting fronts, with ground forces deployed dynamically according to the situation, and spawn points changing along with it. Capturable targets that remain separate from the airfield itself. Maybe a certain portion of the AI system that might be used in the Combat Tour. An AI driven armoured column, which total strength is somehow effected by aerial offensives - such as cumulative damage done to oil refineries or ammunition factories reducing the total numbr of tanks the 'AI group' has.. various ground targets all around the terrain, so people don't just horde over to airbases and do nothing but the 'steamroller' bit... and etc etc..
not only cannot not I be as clear as kweassa, i don't have the good ideas either. my idea factory is porked :O
well done K.
hap
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Not isolation - but total integration.
WW2OL has a lot of problems. I don't know how it is coming up recently but according to its first few versions it was plagued by numerous systematical problems. However, when it was first announced it created a sizeable response from all the simulation enthusiasts because the concept they had was great. Ultimately, to a certain extent the ideal WW2OL held would probably become a destination for all games involving WW2 era combat.
I believe that any solution that involves creating a separate 'pocket zone' for 'fighters only' or 'tanks only' is like a surrender - it represents a failure for the developers to create a system which integrates the various parts of WW2 warfare into the game to create a full experience.
AH isn't a recreation of WW2, and HT hates people saying that AH attempts to do any thing of that sort. But regardless of what he hates or likes, the truth is we have WW2 planes with WW2 performances fighting with WW2 style tactics, against WW2-era ground defenses and airbases. Under these circumstances, it is only natural that the warring environment of the MA becomes more and more resembling WW2 conditions, not to mention the people expecting that more and more.
AH doesn't necessarily have to be like WW2OL. It just needs a more integrated ground warfare system that is designed to function more or less separately from the aerial warfare. What I mean by this is, essentially Aces High Main Arena is like a ground battle being fought by pilots. Storming the fronts, attacking en masse like a mass of troops. Thinning out enemy defenses by attrition.. capturing individual air bases;; something like this is what ground forces are supposed to do, not planes and their pilots.
What if the MA terrains looked more like the real thing? Roads, bridges, many towns spread around, important cities being the collective point for supplies and transportation? Capturing individual fields directly would be impossible, but individual towns and cities may be attacked, so when a certain amount of territory is conquered the airfield that is attached with it is captured.
A part of the Combat Tour-ish AI mission planning system can be integrated into the MA system, with the system creating a ground assault mission every once in a while. Players are invited to participate, and the empty spots would be filled by AI. The GV assault is launched. The enemy will also launch their defenses - the response time and such being effected by how much destruction the planes have done against various terrain objects.. such as radar relay stations, railways, bridges, and etc etc..
The point is, the GV warfare doesn't have to be as detailed and player-consuming as WW2OL. All we need is a basic system of ground warfare that is logical. If the AI/system functions like described above, it could actually create a lot more stuff for even the plane pilots to play with.
This is a good write, I don't think anyone (myself included) want's AH to be a "ground game" OR "GV game" as referred to many times.
It always comes back to the same old argument of "this is a flying game not a GV game!!!" but not everyone likes to "fly" they may like the idea of fighters and bombers, but would rather command or do something strategic.
The use of roads, strong points, cities, bridges and so on would only (IMO) make for some better fighting and gameplay. You can search these threads to death for all the "pork, vulch, take, wash, rinse & repeat" threads that have been posted and argued. Point being the end result is always the same, flyboys want this magnificent WWII air battle to take place, with realistic flight models and such and the GV crowd would like more vehichles and involvment.
The ground game is here to stay, if not HTC wouldn't have introduced the Tiger, T34 and Jeep. Weather or not it evolves with the times is unclear.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Not isolation - but total integration.
A part of the Combat Tour-ish AI mission planning system can be integrated into the MA system,
I have always thought that supply and reinforcement needed to have a more viable role in any RPS venture and even in the MA.
Brdiges are not used well, nor are trains and barges form what I can tell (and the trains need some fixing up graphically).
You'd think roundhouses and railyards would be high priority targets so base porking wasn't the only blood sport. And it might give more diverse targets for the buffsters and the tankers.
Also, shipping convoys should have some value. Merchantment ranging from single, medium class ships of a fewk tonnes to convoys with multiple freighters, tankers, etc. You escort one safely, x perks. Sink one, x perks.
The Desert war, the Pacific theatre . . . shipping was the key.
Ground warfare could play a great role in taking strategic rail passes, junctions, cities with major switchyards . . . etc.
It does sound vastly superior to the MA hamster wheel. The immersion missions in the Axis Allied arena have been the most superior experience I have had in this sim. In Air Warrior it was the historical events. We do need something along those lines with enough participants to make it sing. I fear that the ToD thing is going to devour all resources and end up killing the party. At this point, can expectations ever be met? Best perhaps to start with small, implementable changes and work toward something akin to what you've suggested.
Sakai
-
I agree
-
I havent had much luck with the GV section of the game either. I find it immensely frustrating and a lot like Murphy's Law.
Me in panzer, bad guy in tiger. Zillions of hits, no damage. Tiger one pings me. Me die.
I get in Tiger. I engage Panzer. Panzer kills me in one shot.
How do I get the model made of butter? LOL :)
The tree cover is a bit odd, it seems to act as a "sheild" in my JABO encounters with GVs. Bombs seem to loose their blast radius when dropped in a grove of trees where a GV is hiding.
When in a GV dashing along the terrain, I find it odd that a shrub can stop you dead. Its too bad a GV can still hide in craters
But, the terrain we have lacks immensely, especially the trees.
So, I stick to my P-38s :)
-
Again I agree