Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: BigKev03 on February 10, 2010, 07:19:08 PM
-
We have all seen the pics of shermans in WWII that have the extra track links, logs or sand bags on the front, side or rear of the vehicle for added protection. I dont think it would be possible but man would it be ideal to be able to use perks to choose this type of field expidient armor application in the hangar when you choose your ammmunitiion load out and then spawn out. About 2-3 perks would be fair. I know it wont happen but it would be fun.
BigKev
-
No, -100 and epic fail :aok.
-
i say we should be allowed to have variants of armor styles. like how the pnzr IV has its anti AP round armor sheets. lets put in a pre normandy style and lower the eny to get better perk points. then we can put the M18 in realistically with its specialized AP rounds to take out the Pnzrs with the armor sheets
-
Later, lets get a few more tanks before we get customized armor.
Really we need a Panzer III ausf N, a Cromwell Mk IV, Nashorn, and a Sherman (75mm and 76mm) before we get anything like this.
-
This idea has merit. Also potential to purchase with perks additional camouflage items, nets, brush, etc... +1
-
No, -100 and epic fail :aok.
Pfft... Epic over reaction is more like it.
This is one of the better ideas I've seen. Field expidient armor was an option actually used by crews during and after WWII. Good idea Kev. +1
-
Pfft... Epic over reaction is more like it.
This is one of the better ideas I've seen. Field expidient armor was an option actually used by crews during and after WWII. Good idea Kev. +1
Yeah, but look at the plethora of field options that don't exist for anything...probably wont either too many variables...but it would be cool.
-
Thanks for all the comments guys. Just throwing an idea out.
BigKev
-
:aok
-
god that wouldn't make the game 'gamey' or anything....
epic fail -1
-
Would personaly love to see it along with waystin's camo idea. But the camo thing would probably drop FR's like a lead balloon. Would like to see the extra track links on the panzer and sherman actually affect shell hits. And maybe add degrees of track damage, and have the ability to fix minor ones (with the extra track links).
But still stand by what I said: Later, we need more tanks first.
-
god that wouldn't make the game 'gamey' or anything....
epic fail -1
Another "expert" chimes in...I'd facepalm you but it's not worth the effort.
-
No, -100 and epic fail :aok.
Uhh, no. This is actually one of the few good ideas that have been brought on here. I'd like to see this implemented, as this was VERY COMMON in WWII.
-
I'LL just take a king tiger and call it a day, ty vary much and have a nice day.
-
We have tanks in this game? :bolt:
-
Uhh, no. This is actually one of the few good ideas that have been brought on here. I'd like to see this implemented, as this was VERY COMMON in WWII.
Same here, but as I've said before, NOT YET. Not a "no, this is a bad idea. You're stupid for trying", its just a "no, not right now. Other things are more important".
-
I would have to agree with Nemisis on this one. We should at least get more tanks in here first, before we have expedient armor as an option for the vehicles. I definitely give this idea a +1 though. :aok
-
Not a "no, this is a bad idea. You're stupid for trying", its just a "no, not right now. Other things are more important".
No, -100 and epic fail :aok.
lol yeah, that's what it sounded like... You ran so fast to get the flamethrower you tripped over yourself. :lol
-
lol yeah, that's what it sounded like... You ran so fast to get the flamethrower you tripped over yourself. :lol
:rofl
-
I'm liking this idea +1
-
We have tanks in this game? :bolt:
yeah I seen one the other day when I was too close to the bottom edge of the sky.
-
Same here, but as I've said before, NOT YET. Not a "no, this is a bad idea. You're stupid for trying", its just a "no, not right now. Other things are more important".
Uhh, no. This is actually one of the few good ideas that have been brought on here. I'd like to see this implemented, as this was VERY COMMON in WWII.
-
Traveler, what are you trying to say? I don't understand you from the quotes you posted.
-
You ran so fast to get the flamethrower you tripped over yourself. :lol
You just made my day!! :rofl
-
No, -100 and epic fail :aok.
Which one is it?
-
Both: untill we get more tanks, its a fail. End of story.
-
Both: untill we get more tanks, its a fail. End of story.
This sounds like a decision HTC should make. A simple yes or no for your interest would suffice.
-
Both: untill we get more tanks, its a fail. End of story.
I don't understand why it would be a fail with the tanks that exist...there is an unused 3rd row in the hangar that could be implemented fairly easily...whether more tanks are desired is not the issue here, it's the addition of some things that should be less difficult to add than a completely new tank.
-
Good idea, +1. I wouldnt take nemisis seriously anyways hes just a spammer.
-
Think what you will stodd, think what you will.
And gyrene, the problem is that we're trying to spice up the GV'ing by adding features to the current line up, instead of adding more tanks to it.
Personaly would love to see this, but would love to see a Panzer III J, and a Sherman more.
-
And gyrene, the problem is that we're trying to spice up the GV'ing by adding features to the current line up, instead of adding more tanks to it.
Personaly would love to see this, but would love to see a Panzer III J, and a Sherman more.
Same here...quite a few others too.
-
Think what you will stodd, think what you will.
And gyrene, the problem is that we're trying to spice up the GV'ing by adding features to the current line up, instead of adding more tanks to it.
Personaly would love to see this, but would love to see a Panzer III J, and a Sherman more.
Nemisis, it's not that people don't respect you having your own opinion, it's how you said it. Coming out with "epic fail" and then coming back later to say, "no no, that's not what I meant, I didn't say that, I said this", well you kind of got what you had coming.
Think before you post.
-
We have all seen the pics of shermans in WWII that have the extra track links, logs or sand bags on the front, side or rear of the vehicle for added protection. I dont think it would be possible but man would it be ideal to be able to use perks to choose this type of field expidient armor application in the hangar when you choose your ammmunitiion load out and then spawn out. About 2-3 perks would be fair. I know it wont happen but it would be fun.
BigKev
If your gonna perk something dumb like that, make it so for a decent amount of perks you could rearm on Vbase's or Port's. Just a thought...and laugh!
-
If your gonna perk something dumb like that, make it so for a decent amount of perks you could rearm on Vbase's or Port's. Just a thought...and laugh!
Hmm, dumb? Why repair for perks? Just have soem of your buddies bring you supplies like I do? What I am talking about it just addding field expidient armor to your vehicle so that we can spend perks on Gv's otehr than a perked ride and provide some added protection to the GV's much as they did in WWII.
BigKev
-
IMO, the panzer would be much improved by some additional armor. Good AT gun and a decent amout of armor, just too weak a gun for such thin armor at standoff ranges, wich seems to be the majority of fights.
-
Same here, but as I've said before, NOT YET. Not a "no, this is a bad idea. You're stupid for trying", its just a "no, not right now. Other things are more important".
What?
You've gone from:
No, -100 and epic fail :aok.
Would personaly love to see it along with waystin's camo idea. But the camo thing would probably drop FR's like a lead balloon. Would like to see the extra track links on the panzer and sherman actually affect shell hits. And maybe add degrees of track damage, and have the ability to fix minor ones (with the extra track links).
But still stand by what I said: Later, we need more tanks first.
Later, lets get a few more tanks before we get customized armor.
Really we need a Panzer III ausf N, a Cromwell Mk IV, Nashorn, and a Sherman (75mm and 76mm) before we get anything like this.
You spam so much you don't remember what you've posted. You jumped right in with the first quote, which was your FIRST REPLY in this thread. Then when others view this as a plausible option, you come back with the "I said maybe later".
Only person that "failed" in this thread, was yourself for incorrectly taking the wrong stance on your 1st post in this thread.
-
Currently, its a fail. It doesn't solve any problems with lack of variety in the GV line up. The only thing that will solve that is new tanks.
This may be a quick fix, but I'd give it about 2 weeks before it looses its shine. If we had a filled out line up with an EW, MW, and LW tank from each country then this would be a +100, but for now its a -100. Anything that takes time away from modeling new vehicles is at least a -1 IMO.
Again, would love to see this, but would love to see a panzer III J or a sherman more.
-
Currently, its a fail. It doesn't solve any problems with lack of variety in the GV line up. The only thing that will solve that is new tanks.
This may be a quick fix, but I'd give it about 2 weeks before it looses its shine. If we had a filled out line up with an EW, MW, and LW tank from each country then this would be a +100, but for now its a -100. Anything that takes time away from modeling new vehicles is at least a -1 IMO.
Again, would love to see this, but would love to see a panzer III J or a sherman more.
(http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww279/stodd602/epicF.jpg)"spammer"
-
(http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww279/stodd602/epicF.jpg)"spammer"
:aok
-
I'm close to 2000 posts......... I may have to start spamming soon too! :x
-
This is a great idea. I don't see why y'all hatin' so much.
I'd love to have a variety of tank outfit options when trying out a brand new panzer out of the hangar. From different varieties of camouflage (A choice of oak tree branches to palm branches tied to our tanks) to what fuel my panzer should be filled up with (Biodiesel anyone? War is not an excuse to remain oblivious to our natural environment and pollution).
-
While extra track links and palm logs and sandbags did add some expedient armor protection, for the most part it wasn't going to stop a 75mm or 88m round from disassembling a tank. As long as it takes multiple hits in-game from a 75mm or 17lber. to kill a WW, or Sherman, all this does is convolute the issue. I posted this up a long time ago...and I'll do it again...this is what happens to Shermans and Panzers and T-34s when they're hit. If we're to go on the premise of semi-historical accuracy versus balanced gameplay, then it doesn't make much sense.
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/jherne/tigers/StugIIIAusfG.jpg)
75mm round on the side of a Stug III. Perfect example of one-shot, one kill.
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/jherne/tigers/Pz4destroyed2.jpg)
Panzer IV Ausf F2 cooked off by a 75mm Sherman in the Ardennes.
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/jherne/tigers/pzivdead.jpg)
Panzer IV - or what's left of it. The caption says it was killed by a 45mm ATG.
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/jherne/tigers/blown_up_t-34.jpg)
T-34/76 killed by a Panzer IV Ausf E outside of Kursk.
I agree we need more tanks - I'd love to see a low-profile Jagdpanzer IV/L70, a Hetzer, Stug III, non-perked Sherman (M4A2 early for example). If you want an up-armored Sherman, look at the M4A3E2. We're still lacking a Panther, Jagdpanther, King Tiger, JS-1, JS-2, the entire KV-series of tanks, Su-85, 100, 122, and JSU-152. Then you add in the MW and EW Panzer III and IVs, Matildas, Crusaders, Lee/Grant, etc...
But...who's absolutely dying for a Semovente??? Italian or Japanese tanks? What about Humbers, or Staghounds, or 8-rads?
I think the key is to ensure balance. King Tiger vs. JS-2, both highly perked, both able to dominate the battlefield in most cases. Jagdpanzer IV L/70...spawn camping under some trees? Damn near impossible to see, much less hit. Same with Su-85 and Su-100. Rolling into a base take with JSU-152s?? Wow.
I think for the sake of gameplay, it takes several rounds or a lucky one-shot to kill a tank. No M8 driver is going to run around shooting at Tigers or Panzer IVs, he's going to get the hell outta Dodge. If we want to add in expedient armor, then GVs need to die like real GVs did in order for it to make a difference... in order to do that, we need more GVs types to balance things out even further, or to increase the probability of running into a GV that you can go nose-to-nose with in a fight.
Donning my Kevlar and heading for the bunker now...flame away.
J
-
I agree we need more tanks - I'd love to see a low-profile Jagdpanzer IV/L70, a Hetzer, Stug III, non-perked Sherman (M4A2 early for example). If you want an up-armored Sherman, look at the M4A3E2. We're still lacking a Panther, Jagdpanther, King Tiger, JS-1, JS-2, the entire KV-series of tanks, Su-85, 100, 122, and JSU-152. Then you add in the MW and EW Panzer III and IVs, Matildas, Crusaders, Lee/Grant, etc...
J
I agree 100% but just about ANYTHING to enhance gv play would be good, even if its not a new vehicle. (I cant wait for hills to be put back in the terrain which should happen with the next update.)Donning my Kevlar and heading for the bunker now...flame away.
J
:rofl :rofl
-
+1 for idea and +1 for posting it. Armor skirts FTW.
-
"But...who's absolutely dying for a Semovente???"
YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! :banana: :banana:!!!!!
-
Imagine this guy rolling around in the EW and MW arenas...lol
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/jherne/guesswho4.jpg)
-
I think JHerne has a good theory with the balancing things out. But we would probably have to adjust the perk system a little, or play around with the prices for a little while ***. It would take a hell of a lot of panzers kill knock out a JS-2, and if once side had the JS2 perked at 75, and another at 40, the first will see more JS-2's, king tigers, tigers, M4's, etc., which will slaughter the panzers which will make up a majority of the tanks for the first country.
Which brings in the tank destroyers, like the hetzer, and jagdpanzer IV. Both would have to get in close to get a kill, and likely have to make it from the side or rear. They are easy to hide and likely the JS2 driver will be keeping an eye out for tanks that can challenge it, and not be keeping as close an eye out for hetzers and whatever else we might get.
That said, I think we need to adjust the terrains. Add some plowed fields, and some brown and tans into the color. And once we get that, I want to be able to camouflage a tank. Have it so you can have partial camouflage (some branches tied to the hull and turret to break up the outline) and a complete, all out camo job (the branches, with shallow pit to lower your outline, maybe up to the bottom of the hull, and some camouflage netting on the top, back and sides). Maybe have the latter take 5-6 minutes to set up, and if you move at all (the tank, not move the turret), you get rid of all your camouflage.
***
It seems (to me anyway) that the perk system is linear, and doesn't take into account very well that equipment only goes so far to make up for numbers. If you had 20 players with perk prices at rock bottom (1 for the T-34 and M4, 2 for the tiger, a 15 perk 262, etc) stacked against 150 players that have only planes and tanks with 30+ eny, the guys in the 262's will be swamped by dozens of P40's and P-39's for every one plane they have up.
-
I think the balance comes from the perked vehicle being able to die - and the subsquent loss of precious perk points. While there are obviously those don't care about wasting perks because they have 24000 of each, they're obviously the minority players in the game.
Can a JS-2 be killed by a Panzer IV with a 75mm, an 85mm, or a Sherman's 17lber? Certainly. Much the same way (historically) that 75mm Shermans had to gang up on Panthers and Tigers to kill them. There's a well documented battle where a single T-34/85 with both standard HP and HVAP rounds killed 3 King Tigers from a concealed position.
No tank was impervious to anti-tank fire. Obviously, hitting a Panzer IV with a 122mm gun is going to be, should be, and historically almost always was, a one-shot kill. But tracking a JS-2 or King Tiger, or getting a flank or rear glacis shot, were usually enough to kill them, or at least immobilize them.
I think the perk system would have to be revamped for GVs, especially with the addition of tanks like the Panther, Jagdpanther, etc., that have decided advantages in armor protection and penetration. A good balance can be found by adding vehicles with equal firepower and less armor for fewer perks. They make up for inferior armor with lower visibility and good maneuverability. We obviously don't have to balance a JS-2 with a King Tiger, because a player could simply match another JS-2. The balance would come from having the ability to up a low to medium perk vehicle that was capable of killing the high-perk tank. If you take survivability out of the equation, and give that low-perk GV a low profile, you have a semblence of balance. Here's a list of possibilities, just thinking LW at the moment, but obviously, some of these apply to mid war well. Early war would require a new list of vehicles that we currently lack, Churchills, Matildas, Crusaders, Lee/Grant, Stuart, etc.
High Perk - King Tiger, JS-1/2, Jagdpanther, SU-100, Pershing, Panther, JSU-152
Mid-perk - Jagdpanzer IV/L70, M36, Su-85, SU-122, M18
No Perk - Su-76, Nashorn, Jagdpanzer IV/L48, Stug III, Hetzer, M10, M24, Marder III
In most cases, any of these non-perked tanks could kill a medium perk gv. Maybe even a high-perk GV if they're lucky or gang up on a player. Obviously, the medium-perked GVs could kill a higher perked GV. The trade off comes with survivability.
-
Depending on if your talking about a ausf A or an ausf G, the panther would be mid perk.
And we would definatly have to rework the perk system for this.
Adding to your list...
Kv-85 (wouldn't be perked too high and so we can say we have a KV tank in the game)
Cromwell Mk IV
Panzer III Ausf J and Pz III ausf N (would use both of those a lot, the J is just a nice beautiful tank)
M4A3
maybe a Brumbar, even this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Elefant_USAOM-01.jpg)
Ferdinand self propelled heavy AT gun
200mm armor
8.8 cm PaK 43/2 L/71
Weight 65 tonnes (140,000 lb)
Length 8.14 m (26.7 ft) with gun
Width 3.38 m (11.1 ft)
Height 2.97 m (9.7 ft)
Crew 6 (driver, radio-operator, commander, gunner, two loaders)
150 km (93 mi) road
90 km (56 mi) cross-country
30 kilometres per hour (19 mph)
Perked at 500 when the sides are balanced perfectly.
-
I dunno if I'd mid-perk a Panther or not... Panther Ds had teething troubles, the Ausf A and G were far more reliable. My reasoning for the higher perk would be not only the 75mm KwK, but sloped armor and very good mobility. The Panther's gun, although not having the heavy impact of the 88mm, made up for it with a much higher velocity weapon. Anything under 3000 meters would be almost straight line shooting.
Ferdinand, KV-85, KV-1, KV-2 (a perfect noob gunnery target) would all be excellent choices. The III Ausf N would be interesting with a 75mm, but the J model...definitely not in the late war arena...
J
-
I would take a J out in the LW arena. The long barreled 50mm is actually not bad closer in, IMO it was more of a medium tank than a light.
I hadn't thought of the muzzle velocity on the panther, your right. Maybe something like 30 if we perk a tiger II at 45 or 50.
The Ferdinand poses an interesting problem, it would be almost impossible to kill from the front by anything but the Js2 and Tiger II, yet its low mobility (19 mph) and extremely high silloute make it easier to kill, as even a Panzer could catch it and kill it from the side (we can't turn in place. We need to have that amended as well). I don't think HTC will add it, would love to see it, and would totally blow 500 perks accumulated over 3 yrs (if I was that bad) just to drive it and score a single kill, but HTC won't add it, at least anytime in the near future.
We may get it in the version just before this message:
"Host: The HTC servers will be shutting down in 20 minutes, thanks for the memories."
-
Another option we're forgetting altogether are M3 or 251-towed ATG guns. This is definitely where camo and concealment come into play to give a semblence of survivability, but perhaps balancing it out with a better rate of fire or a better sighting system. Obviously, there'd be a set-up time required based on the unit, a 37mm ATG takes less time to manhandle into position than an 88mm Pak 41/43 (Pak, not Flak). They'd be very vulnerable to aircraft strafing (much the way M3s are at present), and carry limited a limited number of rounds requiring vehicle supplies to re-ammo. It would be nice to finally be able to fit something into these barns and buildings as fire points....
Chances are it wouldn't be as popular as using tanks, but think about setting 3-4 Pak 40s up overlooking a GV base, pre-emptive before an air attack to bring the VHs down, or in one of those canyon choke points we typically find ourselves in. Course, this immediately sets the groundwork for artillery...
Just thinking with my crayons....
J
-
HTC appears to be focusing on A/C despite the fact that we have a much better plane line up than a GV one. We actually have some jap and italian planes, but not GV's.