Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: moot on April 29, 2009, 03:01:46 PM
-
Is too high. It should either be lower or it should get historically correct advantage in optics, or something.
-
Tiger's price is fine. Firefly's is way too low.
-
Same difference... The Tiger doesn't warrant however many perks it's priced at right now VS the rest of the tanks. Ridiculously disproportionate to its actual performance (VS the rest of the tanks). Proper optics would shake up the tactical game and fix the perk pricing.
-
Well if we had a regular Sherman...you know...the tiger was FEARED on the battlefield. It used to be in AH back in the TT days. When someone upped a Tiger you'd hear screaming over VOX, because it dominated the battlefield there, and it was just like world war II, you needed 4-5 tanks to kill it (usually). Then the Sherman came along with it's 5 perk price and it's the new king...
Up the Sherman as in this game it seems better than the tiger. At least in my POV...I've taken one hits from Panzers in Shermans and Tigers...should not be the same..the Tiger should have lasted a lot more hits.
-
moot I have to disagree because tigers seem to kill with one shot more easily at over 3k then it does at 1k. A tiger can also kill a panzer with one hit of HE to the turret and nothing drops hangars faster than a tiger but also you can miss an ack by a lot more with tiger HE and still kill it. The same is true of shooting airplanes on the runway or any of the m3s or m16s or m8s. A tiger can also depress its gun more than a panzer or sherman but it is true that anything inside of 800 will kill a tiger with one shot and the turret cannot elevate high or traverse quickly. I think the plus column out weighs the minus column and there is a lot I left out on the plus side.
-
Well if we had a regular Sherman...you know...the tiger was FEARED on the battlefield. It used to be in AH back in the TT days. When someone upped a Tiger you'd hear screaming over VOX, because it dominated the battlefield there, and it was just like world war II, you needed 4-5 tanks to kill it (usually). Then the Sherman came along with it's 5 perk price and it's the new king...
I remember when Panzers had a hell of a time killing a Tiger from practically any range.
Up the Sherman as in this game it seems better than the tiger. At least in my POV...I've taken one hits from Panzers in Shermans and Tigers...should not be the same..the Tiger should have lasted a lot more hits.
There's a scenario running currently. It's Tunisia. We're seeing a force of Tigers and Panzers against a force of Sherman Fireflies and Panzers. Let me tell you, the Tigers dominate the Shermans in this environment. Everyone on both sides who has been involved in this large-scale desert tank battle can tell you that.
The crucial difference between what we're seeing in cartoon Tunisia, and what you're seeing in the MAs, is that in Tunisia we're fighting across very expansive desert terrain, where the shots are taken at much longer average ranges. At long ranges, say 2500-5000 yards, the Tiger's gun is able to breach the Sherman's armor a lot more readily than the Firefly's gun is able to breach the Tiger's armor. Even at closer ranges a Tiger has a better chance of withstanding a hit from the Sherman than the Sherman has of withstanding the Tiger hit.
In the MAs, people tend to be using Tigers and Shermans in wooded and hilly terrain where the average shots are more like 400-1600 yards or so. At these ranges the Shermans have better chances against Tigers than at much longer ranges, but the Tigers still kill the Sherman more often than vice versa, even at these ranges. Just look at the scores page and do the numbers - the Tiger has a greater than 1.0 k/d ratio against the Shermans in the LW arenas.
Bottom line is that the Tigers are definitely worth more perks than the Shermans. I would agree, however, that the difference in costs is currently too great. The Tiger perk price could probably stand to be dropped by five points, and raise the Sherman perk price by five points, and it would probably be about right.
If the T34/85's turret weren't made out of paper mache, I'd say its price could stand to go up a couple points too. Even with its soft turret, IMHO the T34/85 is still the most useful tank in the game for most situations.
ps: Just as an anecdote, in frame 2 of Tunisia two of my tank deaths were when I'd managed to get really close to the Tigers, much closer than usual, and hit Tigers from around 800-1000 yards and did no damage, and the Tigers subsequently killed me. In one of those deaths, I'd actually hit the Tiger twice from around 900 yards and did nothing. Arg!
-
nothing drops hangars faster than a tiger but also you can miss an ack by a lot more with tiger HE and still kill it.
Actually, we'd have to test this, but I believe the T34/85 can drop a hangar more quickly then a Tiger. The T34/85 can do it with I believe 12 HE rounds. I might be off by one. I don't recall how many the Tiger takes, but I believe it's more than 12.
The T34/85's HE rounds pack quite a wollop. Many times I've turreted a panzer or wirble and then fired some HE rounds at them from my T34/85 in order to ensure I get the kill* after some stupid fighters had strafed them, and had the HE rounds kill them instead (and I get an assist... ARG).
*by stacking some extra damage in my column for this vehicle before administering the killshot
-
Tiger would kill it faster, T-34/85 takes longer to reload I believe
-
Chalenge - I'm not saying unperk it. I'm saying 30 perks vs the 5 perks for the M4 and /85 is too much. If the Tiger has more elevation range, its turret is also dead slow and its HE ballistics are terrible. Unlike the M4 which has a quick turret and by far the best ballistics for both AP and HE, and whose turret mostly deflects 12oc 88mm APs from long range and level ground. Hell.. Even point blank its mantle deflects 88-APs. And long range true hits aren't guaranteed kills at all. (http://dasmuppets.com/public/moot/OneWeekStuff/film14_m4vsTiger.ahf)
Sethipus - The tiger isn't dominating the M4. Tigers are definitely worth more than M4s, but not 6:1. More like 4:1, tops. == 20 perks at most.
-
I remember when Panzers had a hell of a time killing a Tiger from practically any range.
Those were the days. Nowadays it's just "Oh, Tiger is up, lemme up a Sherman I'll kill him"
-
Tiger would kill it faster, T-34/85 takes longer to reload I believe
The T34/76 takes longer to reload, but the T34/85 doesn't. It's as fast as the other tanks.
We should test this hangar thing. I'll see if I can do something with it this evening.
-
No need to test.. It's on the projectile strength table at the trainers' site. Scratch that.. It's not. PM one of the trainers, or add the info to its Wiki page (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/T-34/85) if you get an exact value.. You can do that by e.g. finding the exact hardness coefficient for an object offline that 1 85mm round destroys.
-
The ratios, as you stated m00t, are definitely FUBAR. Before anyone uses "learn how to shoot" thing, I've been around tanks for a long time (used to be a big tanker). I have hit M4's with a Tiger at 1600 yards (that's the little 16 on the gunsight for the clueless ones) and have them shrug off the damage, then in return 1 ping me. M4s have become sooo popular because of their low perk cost and dominance over other thanks (except Tiger, which is still kind of odd).
What does it really matter anyway? All tanks are used for is to camp the spawns and hangars. There is a great lacking in actual tanks fights like their used to be.
-
What does it really matter anyway? All tanks are used for is to camp the spawns and hangars. There is a great lacking in actual tanks fights like their used to be.
There are plenty of good tank fights. What's lacking is not good tank fights, it's good tank fights far enough away from airfields that the A-20 and IL-2 bozos can't come and dork it up.
-
1.4:1, or 7 perk Tiger for a 5 perk M4. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,262642.msg3268287.html#msg3268287) So nowhere near 6:1 like we have, and lower than the 15-20 perks I'd give it.
-
I'm not sure we should assume it would be most appropriate for the perk price to be based on a simple k/d ratio. If that were so, things like the 262 shouldn't cost nearly as much as they do, and I think the perk value of the 262 is just fine.
One of the benefits of perk requirements is to prevent people from upping that vehicle all the time rather than the other planes. In that respect, the 262 and Tiger perk prices succeed, but the Sherman perk price fails.
The question is, how much should the Sherman be perked in order to prevent people from just upping it all the time, for every fight? Would 10 points do it? 12? 15?
-
I'm not basing the argument that the perk price should be reduced on just the M4/Tiger K/D (that k/d is 1.4:1 and I'm arguing more like 4:1). Its proportions just support my argument and refute that the Tiger dominates the M4.
I don't have any experience in the /85. Isn't it at least as good as the M4? Or is there more difference than the better armor and lesser ballistics?
15 is probably too much for an M4. 10 would probably be good enough.
-
I'm not basing the argument that the perk price should be reduced on just the M4/Tiger K/D (that k/d is 1.4:1 and I'm arguing more like 4:1). Its proportions just support my argument and refute that the Tiger dominates the M4.
When I said in an earlier post that the Tiger was dominating the Sherman, I was referring to the Tunisia scenario specifically, given the very long-range desert terrain. At short to intermediate ranges, the Tiger is still more effective against the Sherman, but not be nearly as much of a margin.
I don't have any experience in the /85. Isn't it at least as good as the M4? Or is there more difference than the better armor and lesser ballistics?
The T34/85 gun is not as effective as the Sherman Firefly's 17lber. The M4's gun is significantly more powerful. The T34/85's gun seems to be maybe a third of the way up between the Panzer IV's 75mm gun and the Firefly's 17 pounder in armor-piercing effectiveness. Some might argue that point, but I'm probably not that far off.
The Sherman has an infinitely more robust turret than the T34/85 (though it shouldn't, arg).
The Sherman has the widest-angle main gunsight in the game, allowing one to zoom out to take in a large field of view, then zoom in on specifics, whereas the T34/85's gunsight is like looking down a soda straw.
The Sherman also has a pintle gun, for what that's worth (not a lot IMHO). The T34/85 travels much faster, and the turret traverses more quickly, and I believe elevates higher, or at least similarly.
There are so many tradeoffs between the two tanks, and both have advantages and disadvantages compared to the other. Overall, the Sherman is probably easier to succeed with than the T34/85. The T34/85's advantages probably require more experience to really come into play. That said, assuming very experienced tank drivers, I believe personally that the T34/85 is the most useful tank in the game. Its speed is probably the biggest reason I say that.
15 is probably too much for an M4. 10 would probably be good enough.
I think 10 perks for the M4 would be appropriate, and 20 for the Tiger. Leave the T34/85 as it is. For as useful as I think the T34 is, it requires more tank experience to really use well, and it has a colossally weak turret.
-
Well seeing i have bouy 3 GV perks......PERK THE M4 MORE!!
-
I'm not basing the argument that the perk price should be reduced on just the M4/Tiger K/D (that k/d is 1.4:1 and I'm arguing more like 4:1). Its proportions just support my argument and refute that the Tiger dominates the M4.
I don't have any experience in the /85. Isn't it at least as good as the M4? Or is there more difference than the better armor and lesser ballistics?
15 is probably too much for an M4. 10 would probably be good enough.
Firefly should be 20 or 25 perks.
-
There are plenty of good tank fights. What's lacking is not good tank fights, it's good tank fights far enough away from airfields that the A-20 and IL-2 bozos can't come and dork it up.
My point. Example the other night: Was on the rooks for a change and noticed a town flashing and hear the explosions of buildings from the tower. I see no air cons so I up a Sherman. I head to a spot between the spawn and the town because by the time I got up another friendly. I was set-up a good 3k from the spawn. The enemy vehicles had to come over a hill to get to town or base, and I couldn't see the spawn. This gave the enemy a fair chance to get away from the spawn and not get "insta-poofed" and returned to the tower. I sat and waited, 1st victim...1 shot lands short, so he finds me and shoots back. He misses as well, so I finish. Not 3 seconds after his death I look up and see a friendly A-20 and a few friendlies in heavy fighters, not to mention the 2 or 3 friendly GV's headed to the spawn. So I wait it out to see exactly where they go...of course...it's the spawn. It seems like spawn camping is the "in" thing to do.
-
The T35-85 is bar none the best tank in the game, if I am getting battered in a gv fight guess what I bring out? No not a Tiger or M4 a little old t34, the thing is a juggernaut.
You let me get a round of supps out and a small dirt mound and I will fend off multiple tanks alone. Being that the turret is so weak its not worth more than 3-5 perks though.
The sherman is my main ride simply because I can cover such a wide area with the view it has down the barrel, it is not worth more than 5-10 perks.
In conclusion, have you ever noticed how when a gv mission rolls to an airfield the t34's are targeted last? That is because IL2's cant pop it 1 pass, the tanks gotta hit it square, and the Tiger looks so much juicy er.
-
I heard of this happening alot lately but I had an il2 strafe my Tiger once and kill me....I really didnt think il2 wwas that great of plane in WW2 but i guess so. Il2s should be 5 eny and tigers should be about 15 perks when M4s are at like 7
-
I roll the 34/85 when speed is cruical - to get to a town flooded by wirbels for example.
Also in very "fluid" battles in mixed terrain (esp hedgerows) with a lot of ambushs & repositioning.
Everything else -> Tiger über alles ;)
I rarely use the M4, I dislike it's gunsight. I have my head positions moved all the way forward in all tanks. You can't to that as much in the M4, so the range marks in the gunsight are very different for me from all the other tanks - whats at D8 for me in Panzer, Tiger & T34 is at almost D16 in the Firefly.
I heard of this happening alot lately but I had an il2 strafe my Tiger once and kill me
Tiger can be killed quite easily by the Il-2s guns.
Two things have changed the ground war massively in recent times: The Wirbel and the introduction of the 37mm Il-2 version.
-
I would love to see the Sherman perked to 24 or 25 because it can lob shells (HE even) from the spawn to any field if you have the clear line of sight. You dont have to move from the spawn even. Experimenting with this I found that 6 shermans can take down a vehicle field in minutes without the field flashing or anyone hearing the shells land from the tower of the vfield. If its timed right all three hangars will explode almost simultaneously and its a milkrun from there.
Increasing the perks of the sherman makes more sense.
-
I miss the good ole days when the only thing that could kill a tiger was a 1000lb down its turret or a (HV?)AP round up its rear. :D
I don't LW much, more often I'm in MW and there the Tiger is still king. But as quoted above the problem with effectively using a tiger is you need a vast expanse of relative flat terrain with less hills. Ive fended off GV attacks and won 6 vs 1 in a tiger once. Only reason that was possible was the enemy had a large section of relatively flat ground to cover.
In most normal battles though, even in MW, a Tiger gets killed easy to close range shots. I only up Tigers when my chess piece is heavily outnumbered and the perk price is like 5-10. Otherwise Ill take a panzer or a T34-76 over a tiger any day.
I agree on the firefly perk price being too low. I say raise the firefly's perk cost and introduce a plain M4 for the sherman buffs. That would be fair. T34/85 is almost as capable as a sherman, but with poorer optics, gun and survivability. I think it wone be used much as long as the sherman stays cheap.
-
I enjoy rolling the M4 and even I agree the price is too low... I think a price of 15-20 seems reasonable.
-
I think that's too high, but as far as I'm concerned that'd be an improvement over what we have now.
-
No need to change the Perk on the Tiger. However I do think it's damage model needs to be upgraded a bit. Seems to me that it is not quite as fearsome as it once was in comparison to other vehicles out there.
-
Supporting evidence?
-
The armor and cannon were bar none some of the best of the best in the war. I have no other supporting evidence to offer other than what I know. My thinking that the damage model should be upgraded is based on constant complaints from folks getting hit and killed quickly in the Tiger by other tanks. I do not use the Tiger very often, but it seems to be much softer in the armor department than it should be.
-
I agree something should be changed. I'd say leave the Tiger price as is and increase the m4 firefly to 10-15 perk points per.
Seems to me that it is not quite as fearsome as it once was in comparison to other vehicles out there.
Supporting evidence?
Evidence from stats page:
(Tour 111LW)
Tiger kills on M4 Firefly: 1,097
M4 kills on Tiger: 945
(tour 110LW)
Tiger kills on M4 Firefly: 1,201
M4 kills on Tiger: 1,027
(tour 109LW)
Tiger kills on M4 Firefly: 1,043
M4 kills on Tiger: 945
NOT FINISHED
-
The problem many of you seem to be having is that you are only comparing the Tiger and Firefly in head-to-head match ups.
For sake of argument, let us pretend the Tiger vs. Firefly was exactly 1 to 1. When head to head, all even -- flip a coin.
The Tiger would still be worth considerably more.
Here is why (March Tour):
Tiger vs. Panzer: 5.42 K/D ratio.
Firefly vs. Panzer: 3.20 K/D ratio.
Tiger vs. T-34/85: 3.08 K/D ratio.
Firefly vs. T-34/85: 2.04 K/D ratio.
Tiger vs. T-34/76: 27.77 K/D ratio.
Firefly vs. T-34/76: 10.83 K/D ratio.
Tiger vs. M-8: 33.67 K/D ratio.
Firefly vs. M-8: 17.6 K/D ratio.
Tiger vs. IL-2: 2.13 K/D ratio.
Firefly vs. IL-2: 1.07 K/D ratio.
Tiger vs. A-20: 0.92 K/D ratio.
Firefly vs. A-20: 0.15 K/D ratio.
Against everything else, the Tiger is enjoys considerably better K/D ratios because it's armor is much better than the Firefly's. It therefore should have a considerably higher perk cost.
I would agree with several who have said that a base 5 perks on the Firefly is too low, but IMO there is nothing wrong with the Tiger's base perk cost. It is still king of the ground war.
-
Agree to disagree then. I don't think those stats tell the whole story, don't think they refute the 1.4:1 ratio Brooke found in practice in a scenario (instead of random stats skewed by camping and crappy driving), and I certainly don't think the Tiger's King of anything but paper figures and bomb-proofness.
-
You cannot base the merit of a tank on stats of people that drive them, half of tank drivers in AH suck sorry. I myself have driven Tigers at 1200 yards camping which is going to get you killed.
If you want the real test of tank toughness let me sit at 4,000 yards in a Tiger and a tanker of your choice in a Sherman, the Sherman if far less likely to survive the first hit.
-
Agree to disagree then. I don't think those stats tell the whole story, don't think they refute the 1.4:1 ratio Brooke found in practice in a scenario (instead of random stats skewed by camping and crappy driving), and I certainly don't think the Tiger's King of anything but paper figures and bomb-proofness.
Both your and Belials postings are not contradicting.
Brooke tested Sherman VC vs Tiger.
Belial pointed out Tiger vs other tanks in MA, where indeed the Tiger fares better than the Sherman. And that'S no surprise, because vs the gun of a Panzer IV or a T34/85 the Tigers thick armor matters more than vs a Firefly
And also Brookes test is actually also "random" stats - he's based on a lot smaller numbers of samples than a whole arena battling month after month . A small number of players in a single specific battle situation.
-
You mean E25280? You guys are saying the Tiger is better than the other tanks. Fine, but that's not my point. I'm saying the perk price and actual performance are disproportionate.
-
You mean E25280?
Ooops, yes, of course :o
-
Don't forget the tiger is the #1 tank sought after by bomb****s, I would say, when a tiger is in the area it will recieve 3-4 times the air to ground attacks! I agree with moot, raise the perk value on the sherman! :aok
-
There is nothing wrong with Sherman perk price, it is as soft as a panzer and if I spend 15 perks on a Sherman and some IL2 dweeb kills me I will be royally PO'd.
I know your thinking but BeLial the Tiger can be killed by IL2 too, boo on you only experienced IL2 strafers know the trick to the high angle Tiger pop.
Flame on, thats my story and i'm stickin to it. ;)
-
Yeah that's why I think it's the Tiger's price that ought to come down. You can't really pay more than 5 perks for something with the M4's survivability.
-
There is nothing wrong with Sherman perk price, it is as soft as a panzer and if I spend 15 perks on a Sherman and some IL2 dweeb kills me I will be royally PO'd.
The Sherman is not as soft as the Panzer. Nope. If you really want to see this, it's not hard to test. Just take up a T34/76 and have at it. You will kill Panzers with frontal armor and turret hits in the T34/76 all the way out to 1200-1600 yards (not every shot, but the kills will happen on average with X number of such hits). You will neither turret the Sherman from the front, nor kill it with hits into the hull from the front, at any range you choose. From the side you will kill Shermans with the T34/76, but you won't do it from the front. And you will kill the Panzers from the side even more easily.
Also, the T34/76 will rarely kill a Sherman from the rear - it will usually kill the engine, but not destroy the tank. The T34/76 gun will, however, kill Panzers outright with shots through the engine block. Just ask anyone who has camped a VH before.
Bottom line is that the Sherman is a tougher nut to crack than the Panzer, and has a monstrously powerful gun. Both of those advantages, not just the gun alone, contribute to the Sherman perkworthiness.
-
Yeah that's why I think it's the Tiger's price that ought to come down. You can't really pay more than 5 perks for something with the M4's survivability.
I'll disagree that perks for anything should come down.
Perk rides are perked precisely to keep them rare compared to the non-perked rides. Right now the Sherman is anything but rare due to it's very low perk cost.
I say, increase the cost of them all.
-
Disproportionate perk/performance.
-
Yea I think people forgot what M00t said at first, never was saying Tigr wasnt best but that it just had too high of perk price to it, which I would have to agree seeing that the K/D ratio Stodd posted is almost 1:1...... :salute
-
There is nothing wrong with Sherman perk price, it is as soft as a panzer and if I spend 15 perks on a Sherman and some IL2 dweeb kills me I will be royally PO'd.
I know your thinking but BeLial the Tiger can be killed by IL2 too, boo on you only experienced IL2 strafers know the trick to the high angle Tiger pop.
Flame on, thats my story and i'm stickin to it. ;)
:rofl Do you even use the Tigr?
-
Just was curious again...
In tour 111, the il-2 was credited with 2.7% of all Sherman VC losses, and 3.52% of all Tiger losses.
Il2 K/D vs Sherman VC 1.01
Il2 K/D vs Tiger 0.49
-
Yea I think people forgot what M00t said at first, never was saying Tigr wasnt best but that it just had too high of perk price to it, which I would have to agree seeing that the K/D ratio Stodd posted is almost 1:1...... :salute
What is the k/d ratio of the 262? I would think a lot of people die in tigers because they are bomb magnets more than anything else.
-
We must keep in mind that just because someone is credited with a kill doesn't mean they actually killed it for real. Think M8 vs. Tiger. Do you really think very many people in M8s actually outright killed Tigers this tour? I don't. I would bet that far more people in M8s got credit for that Tiger than actually blew it up. And the same goes for the T34/76 vs. the Tiger and other matchups.
Heck, just look at the LA-7 vs. the Tiger and you'll probably see what I mean. ;-)
-
I'll disagree that perks for anything should come down.
Perk rides are perked precisely to keep them rare compared to the non-perked rides. Right now the Sherman is anything but rare due to it's very low perk cost.
I say, increase the cost of them all.
I agree... In fact, increase the perk cost for ALL perked planes/vehicles... Make perkies actually valuable! I'm certainly a poor (at best) AH2 player, and yet I currently have tons of perkies to spend. The only perked ride I even think about is the 262, all other perked rides are so insignificant that I don't consider the cost. Raise the perk cost on everything, I say!
-
Tiger's price is fine. Firefly's is way too low.
Seems HTC has always been afraid to really perk certain vehicles. Either do it, or make 'em free.
-
Seems HTC has always been afraid to really perk certain vehicles. Either do it, or make 'em free.
I agree. Make a perked ride costly, or it really doesn't matter at all.
-
I was in a Tiger the other day I got a good side shot on a sherman it didn't do any damage. The sherman shot me once and killed me. I think something needs to be done.
-
I was in a Tiger the other day I got a good side shot on a sherman it didn't do any damage. The sherman shot me once and killed me. I think something needs to be done.
The model is not nearly so simple that you can describe it like that and claim it needs looking at.
Firefly's perks should be 20-25ish and Tiger I's should be 30-35ish.
-
Based on the following numbers I would support a steep increase in the number of perks for the M4. The total number of shermans produced in WWII was around 2200 vehicles. In each British armored platoon on 1 in 4 tanks was a firefly. Total number of Tigers produced in WWII was 1355 vehicles. That being I say the perks for a Tiger are sufficent. However, if you used the vehicle production number as a starting poing for perks then I would say the M4 should start out at no les than 15 perks. That would be normally half the cost of a Tiger. In addition, I think there needs to be some change to the damage model. Like another poster said, I dont know how many times I hit an M4 broadside with shot from a Tiger and nothing happens only to be killed by the M4. Of course I have adjsuted tactics and started shooting long range. But something needs to change.
BigKev
-
The model is not nearly so simple that you can describe it like that and claim it needs looking at.
Firefly's perks should be 20-25ish and Tiger I's should be 30-35ish.
:aok
-
And m8's should be 15 perks because I can sneak up and kill panzers and m4's which is so devious it surely should be perked.