Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: TheZohan on March 05, 2009, 05:25:08 AM
-
i have seen the tiger not be worth as much as it used to be. i see them going down alot easier with the new tanks being added and dont think they are worth the perks they used to be. the M-4s and T-34/85 seem to take out the Tiger better then when they wasnt in the game. making the Tiger not as Powerful as the Perks set for it.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
I agree with Zohan... I have not uped a tiger to fight in since the day the sherman was added.......
-
A snail will be along shortly to throw up a chart that shows the Tiger's K/D ratio has probably changed very little, thereby not deserving a change in perks.
wrongway
-
A snail will be along shortly to throw up a chart that shows the Tiger's K/D ratio has probably changed very little, thereby not deserving a change in perks.
wrongway
I'm not a snail, but there is something skewed with the perked GV's:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3294/3156728435_6b190f865c_o.png)
On average, users spend more perks to get a kill with the T-34/85 than they do with the M4, even though the M4 is more expensive. To me that says the M4 is too cheap. The Tiger is fine.
Note: this may be entirely due to the wonderful default skin of the M4, and the lousy "shoot-me" skins of the T-34/85 and the Tiger.
-
whats the time line on those K/D ratios.. i am curious is that for the month? year? etc
109 tour the tiger was 3.59
t34-85 was 1.44
sherman was 2.55
108 tour the tiger was 3.69
t34-85 was 1.49
sherman was 2.48
it may not be a drastic change but i see the tiger k/d getting lower and the sherman raising and the t34/85 staying about avg
-
My beef is that the M4 Firefly is so cheap for being as effetive as it is. It can take %90 of the punishment that the Tiger can AND dish out %99 as much damage, or so it seems.
The only real place I see the Tiger performing well is when the ranges are 2800+, and how often is that? Otherwise, the armor on a Tiger doesnt seem to hold up as it should and the gun is questionable. *shrugs*
-
I'm pretty sure the chart is from December's tour.
-
the other thing too is since the m4 and T-35/85 have been introduced on average the k/d may be staying the same but the same amount of people upping are about the same, just now its divided over the 3 perked tanks and not just the 2
109 tour m4 kills 46000
t34 kills 14000
tigers kills 10000
108 tour m4 kills 50000
t34 kills 16000
tigers kills 14000
Pre (t-34/85)
99 tour m4 kills 42000
tiger kills 17000
98 tour m4 kills 36000
tigers kills 14000
pre (m4 and t-34/85)
95 tour tiger kills 16000
92 tour tiger kills 17000
-
My beef is that the M4 Firefly is so cheap for being as effetive as it is. It can take %90 of the punishment that the Tiger can AND dish out %99 as much damage, or so it seems.
The only real place I see the Tiger performing well is when the ranges are 2800+, and how often is that? Otherwise, the armor on a Tiger doesn't seem to hold up as it should and the gun is questionable. *shrugs*
Sherman cannot take near as much damage as a Tiger. I think it is more a matter of 1-shot killing than anything else anyway. The 17 pounder doesn't bounce as much as other tank guns. Therefore, the Firefly doesn't have the same opportunity to die as a Panzer or T34.
The same holds true for the T34/76. Is it up-armored as well as up gunned? If so, is it that much better on an identical chassis?
If you don't kill them on the first shot, they have a greater chance of killing you on their first shot by not dying to begin with.
:noid
wrongway
-
Time to add the Panther!
-
the problem is that i see tigers being taking down alot easier then before the T-34/85 and M4 was brought into the game. when it was just the panzer and t-34/76 you would hit with 10 shots and not do anything.. now 1 hit from M4 and T-34/85 and Tiger is dead more often then not. thats my view its not as hard to take down with the new tanks
-
the problem is that i see tigers being taking down alot easier then before the T-34/85 and M4 was brought into the game. when it was just the panzer and t-34/76 you would hit with 10 shots and not do anything.. now 1 hit from M4 and T-34/85 and Tiger is dead more often then not. thats my view its not as hard to take down with the new tanks
A more powerful gun hitting them will do that....
wrongway
-
thats my point.. the tiger isnt as feared as it was and shouldnt be worth the perks it commanded when it didnt have the other 2 tanks present
-
Prior to the update, the armor/ballistics model was jacked up- so comparing it's ability to kill and survive when it was artificially tougher, and had no rivals isn't necessarily a good demonstration of it's perk value being skewed.
-
The tiger is the tank at the top of the heap, both in terms of armor and firepower. No stats reviewed will change this fact. It's perk is deserved and requires no changes, let alone lowering it's perk value.
-
thats my point.. the tiger isnt as feared as it was and shouldnt be worth the perks it commanded when it didnt have the other 2 tanks present
"Fear" isn't a criteria. You're not going to up a Tiger if you think you are just going to die anyway. You are much more likely to spawn a panzer or even a T34/76. You aren't going to spawn a Tiger, or a Firefly for that matter, into a place being camped by 3 or 4 opponents no matter what they are in.
wrongway
-
well that is undisputed.. but the tiger where prone to problems too. and had major issues with there size and mechinical failures that AH modeling cant fix. if they could you'd probably never up a tiger.
-
but the tiger where prone to problems too. and had major issues with there size and mechinical failures that AH modeling cant fix. if they could you'd probably never up a tiger.
This is true. What a different game it would be if HTC actually modeled historical mechanical failures for each and every plane and vehicle.
-
This is true. What a different game it would be if HTC actually modeled historical mechanical failures for each and every plane and vehicle.
...with a randomizer. It would be better than the collision model. (I have no problem with the collision model.)
wrongway
-
"Fear" isn't a criteria. You're not going to up a Tiger if you think you are just going to die anyway. You are much more likely to spawn a panzer or even a T34/76. You aren't going to spawn a Tiger, or a Firefly for that matter, into a place being camped by 3 or 4 opponents no matter what they are in.
wrongway
well if i can kill a tiger with 1 hit now from a one of the other perked tanks. what good is it when before it took 5-10 shots if you was lucky to take it out. which was the whole reason people upped tigers, when they found out you could up a M4 or T34/85 instead at 1/10 the cost and do just as much damage. is the tiger worth the same amount of perks point it was when it come out going against panzers and t-34/76's
i dont think so based on the modeling now.
-
I'm not a snail, but there is something skewed with the perked GV's:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3294/3156728435_6b190f865c_o.png)
On average, users spend more perks to get a kill with the T-34/85 than they do with the M4, even though the M4 is more expensive. To me that says the M4 is too cheap. The Tiger is fine.
Note: this may be entirely due to the wonderful default skin of the M4, and the lousy "shoot-me" skins of the T-34/85 and the Tiger.
Once again your chart neglects the fact that the tiger is used very very conservatively, and the other tanks used very very liberaly. IF the tiger was used as liberaly as the sherman, I believe the K/D of the tiger would be worse than the sherman! And once again, anyone with an egg hunts the tiger 1st! Tis the way of things!! Just make the perk value of the sherman 3/4 that of the Tiger! At 3-4 perks for a sherman, it is hardly a choice tween it and the tiger. Some of us really enjoy the idea of the tiger, it just gets too much bombing attention for the cost! And it is easy prey for "an all to cheap" sherman!
-
I agree with Shreck the Sherman perk cost is too low, but dont you dare tough my t34-85. :pray
-
the tiger is fine but the t34/86 and sherman need to have perks increased
-
is the tiger worth the same amount of perks point it was when it come out going against panzers and t-34/76's
The perk cost of the Tiger was reduced 40% when the Firefly came out.
The Tiger is much harder than the T-34/85 or the Firefly to kill from the air.
The Tiger is much harder than the T-34/85 or Firefly to kill from a T-34/76 or Panzer.
The Tiger takes more punishment from field ack than the T-34/85 or Firefly.
The Tiger deserves its perk cost.
-
well if i can kill a tiger with 1 hit now from a one of the other perked tanks. what good is it when before it took 5-10 shots if you was lucky to take it out. which was the whole reason people upped tigers, when they found out you could up a M4 or T34/85 instead at 1/10 the cost and do just as much damage. is the tiger worth the same amount of perks point it was when it come out going against panzers and t-34/76's
i dont think so based on the modeling now.
Keep in mind the actual abilities of the projectiles that are being fired in the AH2. If a T34/76mm fired a round at a Tiger from 800 yards, what do the charts say will happen in a perfect world??? If a Panzer IV hits a M4 Firefly in the turret at 2000 yards, what to the charts say will happen in a perfect world? I am curious as to why the T34 series have turrets made of cheese. It seems a peasant can throw a rock hard enough to knock it out. What do the charts say the armor is on the front of a T34 76mm and 85mm turret??? The ranges tell the tale.
So many of the tank battle ranges that take place in AH2 are so much closer than what they were in WWII that tanks like the Tiger get a bad rap becuase they are not dominating like they truely did. If the ranges were 2000 yards or more on a more consistant basis then I would be willing to bet the Tiger would have even better stats. But as it is, there are too many trees, too many mounds, and too many places to use cover for the Tiger to really shine. Obviously, the Normal hedgerows were an exception to the typcial tank duels.
-
So many of the tank battle ranges that take place in AH2 are so much closer than what they were in WWII that tanks like the Tiger get a bad rap becuase they are not dominating like they truely did.
Actually, I've found the opposite to be true. Tank engagements seemed to have typically taken place easily under 500 yards. 2000 yards is 1.13 miles. That's alot of clear space for a fight.
wrongway
-
See Rule #4
-
Just to add to the toughness of the Tiger, I watched a guy drop no less then five 1000 ponders on a Tiger and it just kept on cruising!
-
Tiger doesn't need to be cheaper, Sherman "Firefly" VC needs to be more expensive.
-
For the record I would just like to state that Tigers are only worth 30 perks when you're attacking them. For some reason whenever I drive one I always lose the turret or engine in the first hit and I always get killed with the first bomb drop.
-
For the record I would just like to state that Tigers are only worth 30 perks when you're attacking them. For some reason whenever I drive one I always lose the turret or engine in the first hit and I always get killed with the first bomb drop.
OH, you must be using the cheep wal-mart version :D
Jokes aside it varies I know a guy that has a film where he is in the Tiger and parks it right in front of a T34 and the T34 is shooting him at point blank range and he plays with this T34 for no less then 5 min. Until a friendly kills the T34. And I also seen this for myself, a Tiger parked and they drop bomb after bomb on him and after I know it was 5 or 6 min. they finally got him, I was killed by this Tiger a couple of times trying to get a shot on him in a Sherman. After he was killed, at least 8 or 10 people including myself got an assist on this guy.
-
I don't think the tiger should come down in perk points but I do think the M4 should come up in perks. Historical data shows less than 2500 produced from late 1943 to the end of the war. In a standard British tank platoon only 1 tank would be a firefly if they were lucky. So in a two year period (1944-1945) only an average of 1250 M4's were produced to outfit all British armored units. Production of the tiger which started in around early 1942 and ended in lat 1944 about 1400 were produced. So only a difference of (an average of 1100 units) produced between the two tanks but yet we see an average of only 5-8 perks for a sherman and 25-47 for a tiger depending on country strength. I think a sherman would be fair to perk starting at about 10-12 perks and maximum of about a 20-25 depending on country strength. This way the historical production numbers reflect in the game as well as the effecdtiveness of its armament. Still I say that a tiger in the hands of a seasoned tiger driver will outgun anything in this game. Since the introduction of the sherman I have adjusted my tactics to engage at long distance and use the advantage of the tigers long range. Historically the tiger could outgun even the firefly even though the M4's gun could penetrate more armour at 1000 meters but the round used at that time was not as accurate as the tigers. I would also like to see in the tiger a choice of armor piercing rounds that were historically used in the tiger (PzGr.39 (Armour Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap), PzGr.40 (Armour Piercing Composite Rigid) ,Hl. Gr.39 (High Explosive Anti-Tank), and Sch Sprgr. Patr. L/4.5 (Incendiary Shrapnel. But I understand this may be a bit much but at least have AP and HVAP as in the T34/85. Just a thought please feel free to chop as desired.
Out,
BigKev
-
This is true. What a different game it would be if HTC actually modeled historical mechanical failures for each and every plane and vehicle.
Maybe mud too so we would have ourselves a big pig pile in it :rock
-
This is true. What a different game it would be if HTC actually modeled historical mechanical failures for each and every plane and vehicle.
Not to promote another game "I only play this game" but I was reading some of the Tech that went into the damage modeling on another WW2 online game for there Tanks and such, and it was really impressive. They took into account where every crew member sat in the tank, where the tank was most vulnerable, where the engine was and also where the tracks were.
-
Not to promote another game "I only play this game" but I was reading some of the Tech that went into the damage modeling on another WW2 online game for there Tanks and such, and it was really impressive. They took into account where every crew member sat in the tank, where the tank was most vulnerable, where the engine was and also where the tracks were.
We aint noobs in AH we operate are own tanks :D :salute
-
I don't think the tiger should come down in perk points but I do think the M4 should come up in perks. Historical data shows less than 2500 produced from late 1943 to the end of the war. In a standard British tank platoon only 1 tank would be a firefly if they were lucky. So in a two year period (1944-1945) only an average of 1250 M4's were produced to outfit all British armored units. Production of the tiger which started in around early 1942 and ended in lat 1944 about 1400 were produced. So only a difference of (an average of 1100 units) produced between the two tanks but yet we see an average of only 5-8 perks for a sherman and 25-47 for a tiger depending on country strength. I think a sherman would be fair to perk starting at about 10-12 perks and maximum of about a 20-25 depending on country strength. This way the historical production numbers reflect in the game as well as the effecdtiveness of its armament. Still I say that a tiger in the hands of a seasoned tiger driver will outgun anything in this game. Since the introduction of the sherman I have adjusted my tactics to engage at long distance and use the advantage of the tigers long range. Historically the tiger could outgun even the firefly even though the M4's gun could penetrate more armour at 1000 meters but the round used at that time was not as accurate as the tigers. I would also like to see in the tiger a choice of armor piercing rounds that were historically used in the tiger (PzGr.39 (Armour Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap), PzGr.40 (Armour Piercing Composite Rigid) ,Hl. Gr.39 (High Explosive Anti-Tank), and Sch Sprgr. Patr. L/4.5 (Incendiary Shrapnel. But I understand this may be a bit much but at least have AP and HVAP as in the T34/85. Just a thought please feel free to chop as desired.
Out,
BigKev
You are absulutly right! the Tiger is still the best tank in the game, he has always the option to own the fight, if you handel him right.
other kinds of rounds and maybe the option to fire smocke from the turet would be cool. cant understand why the tiger doesnt have the smocke option here in the game??.
cu chris3
-
You are absulutly right! the Tiger is still the best tank in the game, he has always the option to own the fight, if you handel him right.
other kinds of rounds and maybe the option to fire smocke from the turet would be cool. cant understand why the tiger doesnt have the smocke option here in the game??.
cu chris3
Tigers had smoke grenade launchers on each side of the turret, I believe. It would be like the smoke from the Firefly.
Some other interesting tidbits I've found:
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt_tigervulnerability/index.html
From http://www.lonesentry.com/tigerflorence/index.html:
Sometimes the Germans used their Tigers with marked recklessness, the crews taking risks to an extent which indicated their extreme confidence in their vehicles.
A Tiger was observed about 3,000 yards away, engaging three Shermans. When it set one of the Shermans afire, the other two withdrew over a crest. A 17-pounder was brought up to within 2,400 yards of the Tiger, and engaged it from a flank. When the Tiger realized that it was being engaged by a high-velocity gun, it swung around 90 degrees so that its heavy frontal armor was toward the gun. In the ensuing duel, one round hit the turret, another round hit the suspension, and two near-short rounds probably ricocheted into the tank. The tank was not put out of action. The range was too great to expect a kill; hence the New Zealanders' tactics were to make the Tiger expose its flank to the Shermans at a range of almost 500 yards, by swinging around onto the antitank gun. The Tiger did just this, and, when it was engaged by the Shermans, it withdrew.
More stuff: http://www.lonesentry.com/tiger_tank_intel/index.html
edit: That was weird, direct links work with no HTML code
wrongway
-
Tigers had smoke grenade launchers on each side of the turret, I believe. It would be like the smoke from the Firefly.
Some other interesting tidbits I've found:
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt_tigervulnerability/index.html (http://VULNERABILITY OF TIGER TANKS)
From http://www.lonesentry.com/tigerflorence/index.html (http://NOTES ON TIGER TANKS IN THE BATTLE FOR FLORENCE):
http://www.lonesentry.com/tiger_tank_intel/index.html (http://more stuff)
wrongway
Links arent working for me bro, maybe its just me :salute
-
Quote
A Tiger was observed about 3,000 yards away, engaging three Shermans. When it set one of the Shermans afire, the other two withdrew over a crest. A 17-pounder was brought up to within 2,400 yards of the Tiger, and engaged it from a flank. When the Tiger realized that it was being engaged by a high-velocity gun, it swung around 90 degrees so that its heavy frontal armor was toward the gun. In the ensuing duel, one round hit the turret, another round hit the suspension, and two near-short rounds probably ricocheted into the tank. The tank was not put out of action. The range was too great to expect a kill; hence the New Zealanders' tactics were to make the Tiger expose its flank to the Shermans at a range of almost 500 yards, by swinging around onto the antitank gun. The Tiger did just this, and, when it was engaged by the Shermans, it withdrew.
So is the FireFly gun overmodeled? Or tiger armor undermodeled. I have switched to the T34-85 as my main tank because the tiger just isn't worth it anymore.
-
i was over at A1 and i killed about 12 tigers. maybe we should keep them perked high..
-
I recently discovered that the panzer is better for killing Tigers than the t34-85, for some reason the t34 round bounces off tigers turret and the panzer doesnt, imagine my delight in this knowledge.
-
Tiger doesn't need to be cheaper, Sherman "Firefly" VC needs to be more expensive.
That would be acceptable (Or make the Sherman die easier, which it ought to) I see no reason to spend 30 perks to up a Tiger when the Sherman is mebbe 4, and it 80% the tank the Tiger is (as modeled)
-
Quote
A Tiger was observed about 3,000 yards away, engaging three Shermans. When it set one of the Shermans afire, the other two withdrew over a crest. A 17-pounder was brought up to within 2,400 yards of the Tiger, and engaged it from a flank. When the Tiger realized that it was being engaged by a high-velocity gun, it swung around 90 degrees so that its heavy frontal armor was toward the gun. In the ensuing duel, one round hit the turret, another round hit the suspension, and two near-short rounds probably ricocheted into the tank. The tank was not put out of action. The range was too great to expect a kill; hence the New Zealanders' tactics were to make the Tiger expose its flank to the Shermans at a range of almost 500 yards, by swinging around onto the antitank gun. The Tiger did just this, and, when it was engaged by the Shermans, it withdrew.
So is the FireFly gun overmodeled? Or tiger armor undermodeled. I have switched to the T34-85 as my main tank because the tiger just isn't worth it anymore.
It never says the 17-pounder hit the Tiger. It never says the Shermans hit the Tiger. The Tiger apparently hit only one of the three Shermans it engaged from 3,000 yards. Or, is the Tiger's gun is over modeled begause it only killed one Sherman from that distance?
I've always believed we get too many hits, let alone kills, at much to far a range. Notice the unsuccessful Shermans from 500 yards. Point blank in AH2 terms.
wrongway
-
It never says the 17-pounder hit the Tiger. It never says the Shermans hit the Tiger. The Tiger apparently hit only one of the three Shermans it engaged from 3,000 yards. Or, is the Tiger's gun is over modeled begause it only killed one Sherman from that distance?
I've always believed we get too many hits, let alone kills, at much to far a range. Notice the unsuccessful Shermans from 500 yards. Point blank in AH2 terms.
wrongway
I agree with this, I for one have figured out how to set way beyond the range markers in a Sherman and consistently take out turrets or even kill the Tank set in AH. And IMO this shouldn't be, at these distances which or way beyond the 3200 yards the shells should be bouncing off the armor of all the Tanks in the set. I don't think plunging fire was a tactic used in tank warfare and in essence this is whats happening in this case.
-
definitely need to increase the perks on the sherman.It would be appropriate if it was the mass produced version but it aint
-
It never says the 17-pounder hit the Tiger. It never says the Shermans hit the Tiger. The Tiger apparently hit only one of the three Shermans it engaged from 3,000 yards. Or, is the Tiger's gun is over modeled begause it only killed one Sherman from that distance?
I've always believed we get too many hits, let alone kills, at much to far a range. Notice the unsuccessful Shermans from 500 yards. Point blank in AH2 terms.
wrongway
OK so I just reread what it said. Never really says which tank hit with the rounds. At first I thought the tiger hit the firefly...now it looks like the firefly hit the tiger. :rolleyes:
-
OK so I just reread what it said. Never really says which tank hit with the rounds. At first I thought the tiger hit the firefly...now it looks like the firefly hit the tiger. :rolleyes:
Read it one more time.
There was no Firefly involved in this encounter.
3 Shermans, 1 Tiger, 1 17 pounder anti-tank gun. The Shermans engaged the Tiger. Tiger Kills one Sherman. 17 pounder set up 3,000 yards away, engages Tiger. Tiger turns face on (90 degree turn) to anti-tank gun. Facing the threat with it's strongest armor. Tiger is hit 2-4 times, ineffectively due to the great range. Shermans move back up to within 500 yards of Tigers flank and engage. Tiger withdraws.
What I gat out of this is:
1. Tiger kills one Sherman from 500(?) yards.
2. 17 pounder anti-tank gun is ineffective from 2,400 yards against the front armor of a Tiger.
3. A (regular) Sherman's gun is ineffective against, or missed, a Tiger's flank from 500 yards.
wrongway
-
Ahhhhh says the blind man....guess I was assuming the HV 17lbs gun was a firefly.
-
17 pounder is the firefly mod
-
17 pounder is the firefly mod
Yes. They took an anti-tank gun and put it in the modified turret of a Sherman to make it a Firefly. That is a very astute observation on your part. Thank you.
(http://www.wwiiequipment.com/images/stories/ww2images/17pdr.jpg)
(http://www.nasenoviny.com/britarm_76mm.jpg)
wrongway