Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Larry on March 29, 2009, 11:18:02 PM
-
Yep. Tigers need their perks lowered or the M4 needs a higher perk price. Today I lost two tigers from our super gunned cheap M4s. First one was from 2.2k out with a one hit kill. Next one was from 3k-3.2k with two pings. The tiger should be feared on the battlefield not dealt with easily with a single M4, and who cares if you lose one since you can get killed six times before tallying up for one tiger. IMO the M4 should be perked 15 and tiger 30 or tiger 15 and keep the M4 at 5.
-
I disagree. Nothing takes down 'anything' faster than a Tiger. Nothing.
-
Yea, we had that just proven to us in the Tunisia Beta Frame. Tiger Uber Alles.
-
the perk definitely needs to be changed.sherman way to low.If it was the regular mass produced one it would be different
-
Hello Larry,
Although I do not agree with the request, you may be better served in the wishlist.
Have a great day,
Way
-
Today I lost two tigers from our super gunned cheap M4s. First one was from 2.2k out with a one hit kill. Next one was from 3k-3.2k with two pings. The tiger should be feared on the battlefield not dealt with easily with a single M4, and who cares if you lose one since you can get killed six times before tallying up for one tiger. IMO the M4 should be perked 15 and tiger 30 or tiger 15 and keep the M4 at 5.
That's why I seldom up a Tiger anymore. I used to think "Ah crap, a Tiger" when in a Panzer or T-34. Now I up a Firefly and don't treat the Tiger any different than any other tank.
-
Yea, we had that just proven to us in the Tunisia Beta Frame. Tiger Uber Alles.
Maybe just better shooting?
-
Yea, we had that just proven to us in the Tunisia Beta Frame. Tiger Uber Alles.
Who ended up winning that frame? Allies or Axis?
-
I dont up Tigrs anymore, why up one when you can up a M4 for cheaper :noid
-
IMO the M4 should be perked 15 and tiger 30 or tiger 15 and keep the M4 at 5.
Which is it:? 2:1 or 3:1?
Whine is rejected on a technicality.
-
I don't think the M4's or better, just better players use the M4! :aok
-
Which is it:? 2:1 or 3:1?
Whine is rejected on a technicality.
Eather one is better then 6:1. Those ratios are just fine since it would mean eather cutting the tigers perk in half or tripling the M4s price. Whine rejection is rejected since you've made the same whine a few times youself.
-
I don't think the M4's or better, just better players use the M4! :aok
no Dr7 uses a panzer just to show off :aok
-
no Dr7 uses a panzer just to show off :aok
No he's just saving up for the new King Tiger. :D
-
Eather one is better then 6:1. Those ratios are just fine since it would mean eather cutting the tigers perk in half or tripling the M4s price. Whine rejection is rejected since you've made the same whine a few times youself.
I know. :D I think 10-15 perks for the M4 would be reasonable, though I doubt this obvious inequity will ever be addressed: I'll believe it when I see it.
-
What is the highest currently held kill to death ratio in an M4 and who holds it? Is there a way to find out? Reason I ask is I use the Tiger nearly every time and the usual way the enemy chooses to kill me is with a bomb and not a tank yet I can still manage something like 26-27:1 but I despise the M4 because the elevation of the gun is WAY too sensitive. About the only thing I use the Sherman for is to take down hangars from the spawn point so the base never flashes. I think it was the A8s that demonstrated this to me and so I learned a new trick for sneaking their fields. :D
-
What is the highest currently held kill to death ratio in an M4 and who holds it? Is there a way to find out?
With a little bit of effort, yes. If you check the new "plane" stats page, you can klick on the Sherman's kills tally. Another window opens, where you can again klick on all the GV's kills the Sherman got. A list of names appaear... for example all players that killed Panzer IV in A sherman. You could then look for the players with huge number of kills and start to examine their score. A bit cumbersome, but doable.
-----
I just took a look at our tank K/D's vs each other. I sampled the last two completed tours.
(http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5729/clipboard01r.jpg)
Giving the M4 Firefly 2/3rd of the Tiger's perk price doesn't seem to be completely senseless, though I personally have no problems with the current status - Since the introduction of the Wirbelwind, GV perks suddenly don't matter to me anymore ;)
-
- Since the introduction of the Wirbelwind, GV perks suddenly don't matter to me anymore ;)
I was getting my perk points with an Ostwind before the introduction of the Wirblewind. :D But it was MUCH harder to score a kill with the Ostwind, still is. :furious
-
Bottom line AH II will never change the defective perk system they have on M4 Sherman Firefly and the Tiger.
-
Was in a tiger today, was killed by a rocket from a P-38L
-
I looked through the stats and you can see the panzer and M8 die more then they kill. The Sherman has about 2/3 of the k/d of the Tiger. T34s trail behind but I think thats because so many people use them for taking down bases. There are a few people with good k/d in the Tiger.
-
Was in a tiger today, was killed by a rocket from a P-38L
Next time close the hatch.
-
I never gv unless absolutely needed... Turning the graphics all the way down so u can see peeps ruined it for me :salute
-
I never gv unless absolutely needed... Turning the graphics all the way down so u can see peeps ruined it for me :salute
Then you'd be happy to hear they fixed that a long time ago.
-
From a whole year of LW stats.
Tiger I has 15616 Kills of Sherman VC
Sherman VC has 13856 Kills of Tiger I
Meaning if at 1.0 perk multiplier tigers lost a total of 468,480 perks getting killed by Shermans and Shermans lost 69,280 perks getting killed by the Tiger. Now since in one year the Sherman only got around 2,000 less kills on the Tiger then the Tiger got on the Sherman but is 1/6 the cost of the Tiger. I don't know about you but that makes appositely no sense to me.
-
Maybe just better shooting?
There was plenty of good shooting on both sides. The sample size was large enough that the Tiger's supremacy at the long ranges we were fighting became obvious. I personally hit Tigers more than a dozen times (I was in a Panzer, not a Sherman) with exactly one shot resulting in any damage (a killed engine from 1600 yards and from the rear). Every single other shot ricocheted off with no damage, nor even a normal hit sprite. As far as our Shermans went, our Shermans tended to die more often when hit by the Tigers than the Tigers tended to die when hit by the Shermans.
I did a search of the relevant stats on the scores website a few months ago when a similar topic came up, and although the Sherman was much closer to the Tiger than any other tank was, the Tiger still had a >1 kill ratio against the Sherman. And at very, very long ranges, this is exaggerated even more.
-
A year or 2 ago I landed 650 kills in tiger at end of the tour. I was able to get on enemy bases with ease fearing nothing but another tiger.Now I am more worried about il2 now then anything else. I do think m4 firefly should be perked,and we also have the standard m4 not perked.How hard can it be for hitech to make a standard version since the firefly already exist.What change a few settings?? How hard can that be to do?
-
You just have to be a little smarter now when upping a Tiger. First off theres IL2s and Jabos to worry about so I'd never upp a Tiger to attack an enemy airfield. Even if ords are down an IL2 can take out a Tiger. That, and your losing a lot of the 88mms edge when your rolling up on entrenched enemies.
The Tank is at its best on the defense at a base where enemy air is contained and the terrain allows for full use of the cannon. The exception being, I guess, a huge GV mission. If you take it out like any other tank your probably going to be disappointed.
I think some means has to be made to allow GVs to tower out at spawn points a little easier. Either build some tower ramps or lessen the distance needed from the enemy to tower out. As it stands now if you spawn out a perked tank on an enemy air base assault the odds are your not going to be able to land any kills. Most of all in a Tiger which is guaranteed to attract a lot of attention from the enemy.
I feel the Sherman is a better all around tank then the Tiger, and, the T34/85 is the best tank in the game. The T-34 is very tough to take out with heavy cannon from aircraft I can tell you that much. The Tiger has a bit larger sweet spot on top, that is if you can get the high angles to drop down on them. Either way I think the pendulum has swung a tad to much to the defenders side, most of all if an airbase, and allowing for easier towering out by the offense would energize the Tank game more.
As it stands? It seems month after month, since the IL2 update, I'm seeing less and less Tigers on offensives at air bases. Since I generally leave GV bases to GVs I cant really comment on those fights.
Insert Quote
A year or 2 ago I landed 650 kills in tiger at end of the tour. I was able to get on enemy bases with ease fearing nothing but another tiger.Now I am more worried about il2 now then anything else. I do think m4 firefly should be perked,and we also have the standard m4 not perked.How hard can it be for hitech to make a standard version since the firefly already exist.What change a few settings?? How hard can that be to do?
-
The Tank is at its best on the defense at a base where enemy air is contained and the terrain allows for full use of the cannon. The exception being, I guess, a huge GV mission. If you take it out like any other tank your probably going to be disappointed.
I concur. I very rarely use the Tiger for anything but defensive fighting. Not to say some folks are'nt stone cold killers in the Tiger, but I have found the Firefly or 85 to be better suited to offensive tank operations.
Have a great day,
Way
-
I disagree. Nothing takes down 'anything' faster than a Tiger. Nothing.
you are absolutely wrong
the M4 is a bit to uber and does need its perks raised.
-
My only knock against the 34/85, and it just might be me, but I find the turrets get taken out easily.
-
well in any situation something needs to be done by htc,when a 0perked gv or even a 5-6perked gv can take out a 30-50perked gv(given the perk cost at the time) in one shot.everyone says its due to game "fairness".if that was the case then why dosent htc do something about the difference in amount of players per side at times when one side has a huge advantage(eny does not help) and the side with the most players is dominating the arena.its all about "fairness" which most of the time in this game there is none,nor was there "fairness" during WW2.of course this isnt WW2,but it is a game pretty much soley based on WW2.in WW2 the tiger was only beatten by overwhelming numbers and at time still came out on top.example: a story of 1 tiger being engaged with 60 t34s and took over 230 hits which resulted in track and transmission damage,the tiger still destroyed 35 or so of the t34s and limped 40 miles or so back to its base.
-
Now there's an apocryphal story. :lol
-
Now there's an apocryphal story. :lol
read your history before you call someone a liar in round about ways
-
Tigers should be rare like they were on the battlefield. Shermans shouldn't. The Firefly was a relatively uncommon model, but we don't have a regular Sherman.
More important, the real purpose of perks as I understand it is to keep historically rare uber planes and GVs from dominating the battlefield. A 262 isn't worth ten F4U-4s, but if half the arena flew 262s the game would be radically changed in a way it wouldn't with more 4-hogs, or with 262s existing but being rare like they are now, and anyone flying non-perked prop fighters might as well stay in the tower. Same for the Tiger. If the perk cost of the Sherman went way up, you'd start seeing a lot more Tigers, plus the Tiger would be all but unbeatable *except* by other high-perk tanks. Panzers and T-34/76s would become useless, just slow M-8s. The Sherman doesn't have anything like that effect because it can be beaten by Panzers and T-34s with favorable circumstances or a little luck.
A better fix IMHO would be to keep the current perk costs but make the armor on the Sherman less effective, more or less equivalent to the Panzer IV.
-
Tigers should be rare like they were on the battlefield. Shermans shouldn't. The Firefly was a relatively uncommon model, but we don't have a regular Sherman.
More important, the real purpose of perks as I understand it is to keep historically rare uber planes and GVs from dominating the battlefield.
It's not about historical numbers. If that were the case, the Ta 152 would never have lost it's perk status. It's all about what HTC defines as being "Über" and what not.
-
I think I know why HT decided to perk the Sherman so heavily and a lot of people just havent figured it out yet.
The gun elevates so high you can shell from 8-10k distance. If you do it right three shermans could shell a Vbase down in mere minutes far out of the range of any tanks or manned ack. A tiger can do it from closer to the field and because its gun hits harder and the armor is thicker it can survive for longer even inside a manned acks range. So a few tigers could take down even a large field quickly but the field would be flashing the whole time. A Sherman can shell a field from the spawn point.
Okay the cat is out of the bag. :D Sherman should be perked even higher.
-
There was plenty of good shooting on both sides. The sample size was large enough that the Tiger's supremacy at the long ranges we were fighting became obvious. I personally hit Tigers more than a dozen times (I was in a Panzer, not a Sherman) with exactly one shot resulting in any damage (a killed engine from 1600 yards and from the rear). Every single other shot ricocheted off with no damage, nor even a normal hit sprite.
Anecdotical. Show the film.. As far as our Shermans went, our Shermans tended to die more often when hit by the Tigers than the Tigers tended to die when hit by the Shermans.
[...] And at very, very long ranges, this is exaggerated even more.
Sounds just like it should be...I think I know why HT decided to perk the Sherman so heavily and a lot of people just havent figured it out yet.
The gun elevates so high you can shell from 8-10k distance. If you do it right three shermans could shell a Vbase down in mere minutes far out of the range of any tanks or manned ack. A tiger can do it from closer to the field and because its gun hits harder and the armor is thicker it can survive for longer even inside a manned acks range. So a few tigers could take down even a large field quickly but the field would be flashing the whole time. A Sherman can shell a field from the spawn point.
Okay the cat is out of the bag. :D Sherman should be perked even higher.
Yep. The M4 is as good as arty, with its elevation, ballistics, and some terrain incline if available.
-
Tigers should be rare like they were on the battlefield. Shermans shouldn't. The Firefly was a relatively uncommon model, but we don't have a regular Sherman.
More important, the real purpose of perks as I understand it is to keep historically rare uber planes and GVs from dominating the battlefield. A 262 isn't worth ten F4U-4s, but if half the arena flew 262s the game would be radically changed in a way it wouldn't with more 4-hogs, or with 262s existing but being rare like they are now, and anyone flying non-perked prop fighters might as well stay in the tower. Same for the Tiger. If the perk cost of the Sherman went way up, you'd start seeing a lot more Tigers, plus the Tiger would be all but unbeatable *except* by other high-perk tanks. Panzers and T-34/76s would become useless, just slow M-8s. The Sherman doesn't have anything like that effect because it can be beaten by Panzers and T-34s with favorable circumstances or a little luck.
A better fix IMHO would be to keep the current perk costs but make the armor on the Sherman less effective, more or less equivalent to the Panzer IV.
http://www.alanhamby.com/tiger.html
-
...snip... in WW2 the tiger was only beatten by overwhelming numbers and at time still came out on top.example: a story of 1 tiger being engaged with 60 t34s and took over 230 hits which resulted in track and transmission damage,the tiger still destroyed 35 or so of the t34s and limped 40 miles or so back to its base.
Wow, that's fascinating. When/where did that take place?
-
Wow, that's fascinating. When/where did that take place?
The Germans built the best stuff and that's how they won teh war.
-
Wow, that's fascinating. When/where did that take place?
i saw it on a military channel documentry and am currently searching for the when and where.
-
i saw it on a military channel documentry and am currently searching for the when and where.
http://military.discovery.com/videos/top-ten-tanks-tiger.html heres one example but it dosent mention when or where or the destruction of the 35 t34s but i will look til i find it again.
-
http://www.alanhamby.com/tiger.html
Nice link, but what point are you getting at?
I'm not saying the Tiger shouldn't be a dominant tank, mind you - the Tiger should dominate any battlefield it's on, as it did historically, but it should also be much more expensive than other GVs so that it isn't present on most battlefields. IMHO, if there's an error in the current system it's that the Sherman is too tough, not that it's too cheap or the Tiger too expensive.
-
Tigers should be rare like they were on the battlefield.
my point is to your comment ^^^,if you looked at that site and maybe read some of it,the tiger was in just about every european theater from 1942 til the end of the war.its wasnt that they were rare so much as it took longer to produce them,and even so their kill/death ratio was amazing.most that were lost was due to mecanical overstress and/or fighter-bombers.
http://www.alanhamby.com/losses.shtml
-
That's not what Orange said.
-
That's not what Orange said.
yes i know,i messed up the insert quote,Tigers should be rare like they were on the battlefield. Shermans shouldn't. The Firefly was a relatively uncommon model, but we don't have a regular Sherman.
More important, the real purpose of perks as I understand it is to keep historically rare uber planes and GVs from dominating the battlefield. A 262 isn't worth ten F4U-4s, but if half the arena flew 262s the game would be radically changed in a way it wouldn't with more 4-hogs, or with 262s existing but being rare like they are now, and anyone flying non-perked prop fighters might as well stay in the tower. Same for the Tiger. If the perk cost of the Sherman went way up, you'd start seeing a lot more Tigers, plus the Tiger would be all but unbeatable *except* by other high-perk tanks. Panzers and T-34/76s would become useless, just slow M-8s. The Sherman doesn't have anything like that effect because it can be beaten by Panzers and T-34s with favorable circumstances or a little luck.
A better fix IMHO would be to keep the current perk costs but make the armor on the Sherman less effective, more or less equivalent to the Panzer IV.
but at the same time yes he did.
-
I would pay 100 perks for a Tiger if it was how the Tiger was pre M4 .
But gv's are so messed up & no consitency with them.
I don't care how many perks something costs but as the Firefly can kill a Tiger with relatively ease , as it did in real life, then it should be a comparable cost just for this ability alone.
Someone made some statement before about how Germany had the best stuff that is how they won the war. Geez how naive & stupid a statement.
They did have a lot of good stuff but over whelming numbers makes a huge difference also. If you can sacrifice 4 - 6 normal M4's to try & destroy one Tiger , as was the Americans tactics , that says volumes in itself. Not too mention they huge disregard for those in the M4's that were sacrificed also.
Think some people must watch too many American war movies & confuse them with being real documentries.