Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Wobblin-Goblin on April 14, 2007, 06:41:32 PM
-
The Panther was arguably a better tank than the Tiger I, and certainly better than the PzIV.
-
They will NEVER get rid of something. Also this game isn't about having the absolute best things that where out there. Hell the B-25 just won the vote for the next plane to be added.
It's not about the best, it's about how best to use what you got.
PzIV is just fine as it is. I'd personaly like to see the M-24 Chaffe light tank added. Small, fast, and had a decent gun if you got close enough with it. Maybe the StugIII as well.
-
And, btw, the Panther was the Pz. V, not VI: we already have the VI, it's the Tiger.
Achtung Panzer! (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzer.htm), very nice site about Wehrmacht vehicles.
-
Originally posted by Gianlupo
And, btw, the Panther was the Pz. V, not VI: we already have the VI, it's the Tiger.
Achtung Panzer! (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzer.htm), very nice site about Wehrmacht vehicles.
I believe the V was the Tiger and VI was the Panther.
-
Originally posted by Wobblin-Goblin
I believe the V was the Tiger and VI was the Panther.
Strike that, reverse it. :D
-
Originally posted by Wobblin-Goblin
I believe the V was the Tiger and VI was the Panther.
You may believe it but the Panther was indeed the Panzerkampfwagen V (Sd.Kfz. )
Tiger: Panzerkampfwagen VI (Sd.Kfz. 181)
King Tiger: Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf. B "Tiger II" (Sd.Kfz. 182)
-
Lol, the funny thing is I even gave him a link to check it! :D
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
I'd personaly like to see the M-24 Chaffe light tank added. Small, fast, and had a decent gun if you got close enough with it. Maybe the StugIII as well.
might as well bring the stuart while we are at it lol
-
how about some quality italian armor!
(http://wio.ru/tank/for/l640.jpg)
-
Bring on the 88mm FlaK ..!
A whole new dimension of ground-warfare will follow.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
They will NEVER get rid of something.
They got rid of the 109-G10 config :p
Regards,
Matt
-
I would like to see an M-10 Achilles tank destroyer :t
-
Well, I'd like to see a JagdPanther! :D
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
PzIV is just fine as it is. I'd personaly like to see the M-24 Chaffe light tank added. Small, fast, and had a decent gun if you got close enough with it. Maybe the StugIII as well.
Churchill and the Matilda too!
ack-ack
-
I would like too see good, honest airplanes.
-
Originally posted by Wobblin-Goblin
The Panther was arguably a better tank than the Tiger I, and certainly better than the PzIV.
... because there's no place in this game for anything but the best.
Modeling more GV is a waste of time. They all get bombed the same :)
-
Originally posted by Wmaker
I would like too see good, honest airplanes.
Yes! No more of those evil, lying, cheating, philandering airplanes! We have too many of those already! :mad:
-
I have never seen AH take away anything in all the 5 years I've been on it and I am sure they never will.
The Panther is a nice idea that has Quite obviously been suggested before.
About the M24 Chaffee light tank, It is NOT armed with some feeble 37mm but with a M6 75mm (In fact, it's the same gun that was put on experimental models of the B-25 for anti-ship use) It was supposed to replace the M5 Stuart (The M5 Stuart is not to be confused with the earlier M3 Stuart which was officially considered obsolete in July 1943) The M24 was designed after the ordinance committee wanted a replacement for the M5 Stuart. The M24 was standardized in 1944 and saw action in Italy and the Rhine River crossings
And I must say, we are actually fine with what we have in response to Hornet's message.
P.S.: There are several models of the Panther...choose one!
M24 Picture
(http://www.electric-image.co.uk/mv/armour/Chaffee/Pic166.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Wmaker
I would like too see good, honest airplanes.
Careful, that would rule out the Buffalo. :aok
The Stuart (M3) would be an excellent tank if we had the MkII and MkIII Panzers along with the short 75 MkIV.
Then we would need an early version of the Sherman and voila desert war time.
Excellent footage of the M24 in "Bridge at Remagen" and "Battle of the Bulge".
Cheers
-
What the heck, how bout a nice early war PzKpfw III Ausf.G. or J with the short barrel 50 just for fun and because they look good.
Everyone always wants the latest and greatest so they can't be beat. How bout something that you might have to work at a bit?
Throw that one in with the early T34 and the early Sherman with the short barrel 75 and then see how folks do. And with the Sherman and Mk III as well as the Mk IV you've got North Africa and Tunisia battles. And with the T34 you've got Barbarossa, Stalingrad etc.
Skinners could have a ball with all those Mk III paint schemes.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Skinners could have a ball with all those Meteor Mk III paint schemes.
I agree :t
-
"Everyone always wants the latest and greatest so they can't be beat. How bout something that you might have to work at a bit?"
C'mon, isn't that a bit too much asked... :D
No really, it would actually make sense but I'm beginning to think that the tank warfare suffers of somewhat inaccurate modelling. I mean that if you shoot a tank into a well known weak spot it is not modelled so nothing happens, or tanks may even explode when hit in tracks or track wheels etc. That means that with a bit worse guns you only option is to get really close or behind to penetrate and hitting a certain spot from greater distance has no effect.
-C+
-
Originally posted by Charge
No really, it would actually make sense but I'm beginning to think that the tank warfare suffers of somewhat inaccurate modelling. I mean that if you shoot a tank into a well known weak spot it is not modelled so nothing happens, or tanks may even explode when hit in tracks or track wheels etc. That means that with a bit worse guns you only option is to get really close or behind to penetrate and hitting a certain spot from greater distance has no effect.
"Aces High"
This game was designed for airwar with quite impressive aerodynamics modeling. GV were a side show that grew too big for its original box. The GV modeling is very simplistic compared with the planes and at least till now it seems - by intention.
What ever HTC decides to do in the future, I hope the ground aspect will not be developed at the expense of the air simulation. Even though it may attract a much wider player base, there are enough vehicle games out there, but very VERY few good (combat) flight simulators.
-
"What ever HTC decides to do in the future, I hope the ground aspect will not be developed at the expense of the air simulation. Even though it may attract a much wider player base, there are enough vehicle games out there, but very VERY few good (combat) flight simulators."
I concur, but since the ground war is getting more intention all the time there might be some pressure to develop it (one way or the other).
But yes, it is an excellent flight simulator and that should be its main focus.
-C+
-
Originally posted by Charge
No really, it would actually make sense but I'm beginning to think that the tank warfare suffers of somewhat inaccurate modelling. I mean that if you shoot a tank into a well known weak spot it is not modelled so nothing happens, or tanks may even explode when hit in tracks or track wheels etc. That means that with a bit worse guns you only option is to get really close or behind to penetrate and hitting a certain spot from greater distance has no effect.
I disagree -- especially after the new patch. They updated the damage modeling on all the tanks. Even before that, you could track a tank, or just take out an engine leaving the crew compartment / turret able to continue fighting, or just take out the turret leaving the driver to continue tooling about. There were weak spots to hit before - a slight misjudgement in aim could be the difference between hitting a bogie wheel and tracking a tank vs. hitting the hull and killing the crew. So, I don't quite get the criticism here.
I have never played WWIIOL, so I can't compare to it - but compared to BF1942, for example, AH tank warefare is much, much more realistic to put it mildly. I think this is why GVs have such strong player support (aside from the "purists" who want them removed entirely).
The monster is loose -- might as well continue to feed it.
-
Originally posted by E25280
I have never played WWIIOL, so I can't compare to it - but compared to BF1942, for example, AH tank warefare is much, much more realistic to put it mildly. I think this is why GVs have such strong player support (aside from the "purists" who want them removed entirely).
The monster is loose -- might as well continue to feed it.
Agreed. I like playing both the air and ground combat. Both are very entertaining and the loss of one or the other would be to the detriment of AH.
-
Originally posted by Keiler
They got rid of the 109-G10 config :p
Regards,
Matt
Just as an aside:
No, they didn't. They never had a G-10. They had the numbers for a K-4, and they modeled a K-4 (note, same K-4 as is in Warbirds!). Only, in the early AH days they wanted to be able to include another version in (the "G10" was the only 109 in the game). So they took it, left the performance exactly as it was (superior to any G-10 model ever was) and simply added a 20mm nose gun and underwing weapons add-ons, to simulate a G-10.
In the 109 update, they simply removed those options, and relabeled it what it was the entire time, since day 1, "109K-4". Also, since we have the 109G-14, more accurately modeled (not like a G-10 that flew like a K-4), it has the exact same weapons options as the old G-10. So there was no need for a faked/kluged "g10" that we used to have.
Basically they made the K-4 more accurate and shifted the extra gun options to the new ride - the G14.
-
@ Krusty,
ok that clears it up. Heard/read some rumours about that but never any conclusions.
:aok
Matt