Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Nemisis on March 12, 2010, 07:18:47 PM
-
OK, WW1 is out, HTC tackled a big item on the list, and bugs are getting fixed at a good pace. Once we work the kinks out of the WW1 arena, and get the stuff it screwed with fixed, can we PLEASE get some new GV's?
Panzer III Ausf. J/N
Hetzer
StuG III Ausf. G
M4A3/M4A3 (76)
Churchill mk IV
Cromwell mk VIII
In order of preference of course.
-
IMO more aircraft need to be added before GV's. Especially since most of HTC's resources are going to be going into bettering WW1. This is a AIR COMBAT game after all.
-
ME410
-
I still want hills back!
-
This is a AIR COMBAT game after all.
sorry can you point me to ANYWHERE in ANY description that says this is ONLY an air combat game?
-
I'm willing to bet that most of HTC's efforts are going to be focused on working the kinks out of the new damage model in the WW1 arenas, then applying it to the WW2 arenas... Personally, I wouldn't expect too much in the way of new GVs or aircraft for awhile...
But honestly, I'm looking forward to the new damage model.
-
sorry can you point me to ANYWHERE in ANY description that says this is ONLY an air combat game?
Sure, Batch!
Originally posted by Pyro
09-18-1999 02:10 AM
The game is about aerial combat and that takes precedence to everything else. There will be tanks and such in the game but they won't ever be the main focus.
Vehicles will be useful for harrassing the enemy and capturing bases. There will be a lot more vehicle bases scattered around the terrain than airfields, so the travel distances won't be a huge factor.
But the gist of the message is that yes, we'll be putting more into this game than airplanes but our focus of the game is still aerial combat.
-
I would like to see the M4 Sherman, the 1st one along with the Panzer III Ausf H, and the M-3 Stuart.
-
Sure, Batch!
Pwnt.
-
Sure, Batch!
11 years ago that may have been true........ note the date...... that was posted literally days after this game was released......... back when they thought air only noobs could support them
now 11 years later......... take gvs out of the game and you take a huge chunk of the community with you
-
11 years ago that may have been true........ note the date...... that was posted literally days after this game was released......... back when they thought air only noobs could support them
now 11 years later......... take gvs out of the game and you take a huge chunk of the community with you
You're the spokesman for the entire GV community then? No one is suggesting we remove the GVs btw.
-
Pwnt.
sorry he didnt pwnt anything. Front page of HTC web site. in the red boarder, clearly says
"Engage in Air Land or Sea combat" it also says " WWII combat expierence".
-
11 years ago that may have been true........ note the date...... that was posted literally days after this game was released......... back when they thought air only noobs could support them
now 11 years later......... take gvs out of the game and you take a huge chunk of the community with you
I wish people would stop over analyzing everything the crew from HTC has said. I also doubt by removing GV's a very large group of the community would go with them. If they cared about ground combat that much, its probable they would be playing a different game.
HTC has limited resources, more people want aircraft then vehicles. Making a new thread every week begging them for gv's doesn't help.
It's in the name for heavens sake. :)
-
Last time I checked, Hitech was CEO of the company, not Pyro. If HT says there will be GV's ("engage in air, LAND, or sea combat"), then there will be GV's. If we had more of them, then they would start to rival AC in base captures, and usuage IMO.
About the only thing that tops GV's and AC in importance is working the kinks out of what we have now (we just got some new stuff). But since the main holes in the AC line up are EW, Jap, Italian, and, to a lesser extent, Russian planes and non US bombers, GV's should get a turn.
We have 5 tanks, to the 50 or so fighters we have. We have no tank destroyers, no panther, no KV tanks, and no british tanks (firefly uses a british GUN, the tank itself is US).
-
sorry he didnt pwnt anything. Front page of HTC web site. in the red boarder, clearly says
"Engage in Air Land or Sea combat" it also says " WWII combat expierence".
-
i like both ends of the game GV and air.
i would probably not have played for five years strait without the gv side of the game being there,,,
so i would like to see more gv's as well,,,, but i understand that it takes time and resources to produce any and all aspects of the game.
while it is fun :rock and might have been created as one thing,
it may well have morphed into something else, for better or worse, i think for the better,
i would love to see the m-18 hellcat and maybe the panther, those things alone would probably lock me in for at least another 5 years! :airplane:
-
I need to say that there are ALOT of players that only GV in game or people like me who throughly enjoy GVing from time to time. and ik one thing and that is if we get more GVs such as the Crusader IV the Cromwell IV (no Churchill, it actually was just a slow IST), the Panther, tank destroyers (prefer the M18 but the M10s fine) to create a new battle threat, and maybe some ARTILLERY... HTC would have more players using GVs and id probably drop my fighters and GV forvever... KV-1 KV-1 KV-1 KV-1!!!!! :aok
-
If we lost a lot of players from the community because HTC removed GVs, the ends would justify the means.
-
The thing is, the game isn't based around gv's, it's based around aircraft. Therefore, theirs no reason for gv's to be added before other badly needed aircraft. Most of the players, I'd say around 75% AT LEAST, are here for mainly air combat. Seems to me like its more viable to prioritize aircraft over vehicles.
-
I still want hills back!
I still want them back more!
-
Unlike aircraft that become hangar queens after a relatively short period of time, the only GV that I see as a hangar queen is the 251 - you simply see M3s instead.
While the proportion of aircraft to armor is certainly skewed one way, no one is asking for 55 new GVs.
Realistically, 5-10 new GVs would probably shut everyone up for awhile, provided the were balanced.
Personally, I'd love to see a Jagdpanzer IV/L70, hell, give us an L48 and perk the L70. Low profile, Panzer IV chassis, 75mm high velocity weapon. 2 for 1 in terms of 3D modeling (especially since we already have a PzIV chassis)
M18 Hellcat - good speed, good weapon, excellent visibility from the turret (cuz its open top).
M10/M36 - make the M10 a non-perk, and perk the M36 - 2 for one in terms of 3-D modeling, etc.
Panther/Jagdpanther - mid-perk, excellent gun, good speed and maneuverability.
Fix the Tiger I - or at least adjust the perks on it.
Toss in something that will rule the battlefield - A Tiger II, JS-2, Pershing -give each an inherent weakness (Tiger II, mechanical or speed, for example), or perk the snot out of it.
Bring the little hills back and adjust some of the long-ass spawns that make us drive for 20 minutes. I feel that anything more than a 10 minute drive (direct line, with no resistence, between two spawn linked bases) is too much. I don't play the game to spend the majority of my time just driving to a point, especially when the chances of dying once you get there is pretty high.
-
I wish we could help with at least the gv part of the game! i love the airplanes and am thank full for the WW! arena as well as the P -47 m! i am not sure what i or we could contribute to the GV game but it is something that keeps a lot of people subscribed and helping to pay the bills.I would not now or ever want too take away from the flying part of the game but i do enjoy the GV side of it at least as much if not more, and i know i am not alone in that!!!
-
hubsonfire, if AH2 looses 25% of its players, it looses 25% of its profits. I don't think that there is ANY reason HTC will remove GV's, as, unless they are taking away from the game play instead of adding greatly to it, they remove a great feature from their game, and will probably piss off or annoy around 15-25% of their player basis.
I'm with herne,
Fix the tiger, or reduce the perk price (a lot, since an M4 can kill it quite easily, that or raise the M4 to 20 when the tiger is at 25)
Shorten the driving time from some of the longer spawns, but not too much, as you need to give the defenders a chance to defend.
All the GV's he suggested
Add some battle dominating GV's perked 3 times as much as the tiger, and some that can counter those (with some skill or luck) perked 2 times as much as the tiger.
Want the Stug III Ausf G and the Hetzer, as both were valued for their low profile, and survivabilty. Something that would see good use in here since you can't really hide anything but an M4 for any extened period of time.
-
Sd.Kfz pak 40 mod
-
hubsonfire, if AH2 looses 25% of its players, it looses 25% of its profits. I don't think that there is ANY reason HTC will remove GV's, as, unless they are taking away from the game play instead of adding greatly to it, they remove a great feature from their game, and will probably piss off or annoy around 15-25% of their player basis.
I'm with herne,
Fix the tiger, or reduce the perk price (a lot, since an M4 can kill it quite easily, that or raise the M4 to 20 when the tiger is at 25)
Shorten the driving time from some of the longer spawns, but not too much, as you need to give the defenders a chance to defend.
All the GV's he suggested
Add some battle dominating GV's perked 3 times as much as the tiger, and some that can counter those (with some skill or luck) perked 2 times as much as the tiger.
Want the Stug III Ausf G and the Hetzer, as both were valued for their low profile, and survivabilty. Something that would see good use in here since you can't really hide anything but an M4 for any extened period of time.
I seriously doubt that "25%" of the player base is so enamored of GVs that they would leave if no more
were added. The rest is just wishful thinking.
-
Personally I would like to see a new sounds for ground vehicles added, such as turret traverse in the tanks. I don't like how silent they are. Also, a simple gear grinding sound for changing gears.
-
Rino, it was an example. More realisticly, it would be around 10-15 MAX. And we all know the reason you don't want new GV's is you simply hate having me roll up onto your field and camping the RW with my 7.62mm, while destroying hangers with my cannon :D.
-
The thing is, the game isn't based around gv's, it's based around aircraft. Therefore, theirs no reason for gv's to be added before other badly needed aircraft. Most of the players, I'd say around 75% AT LEAST, are here for mainly air combat. Seems to me like its more viable to prioritize aircraft over vehicles.
yet again... even on the home page crazy, "engage in air, land, and sea combat". "WWII combat experience!" and i would like the new sounds also... M-18. the sounds would be great. M-18. and what else could we add in? Mmmmm-188888
-
Rino, it was an example. More realisticly, it would be around 10-15 MAX. And we all know the reason you don't want new GV's is you simply hate having me roll up onto your field and camping the RW with my 7.62mm, while destroying hangers with my cannon :D.
Doesn't bother me at all, there's always another runway/airfield :D
-
yet again... even on the home page crazy, "engage in air, land, and sea combat". "WWII combat experience!" and i would like the new sounds also... M-18. the sounds would be great. M-18. and what else could we add in? Mmmmm-188888
Just because there's a sentence on the homepage mentioning vehicles aircraft and ships, doesn't mean vehicles are a main part of the game. Going by what your saying, that also means ships should be treated the same as aircraft and ground vehicles. I don't see player controlled ships that would actually see use, anytime soon.
What I'm saying is that making unrealistic requests for 5-10 vehicles repetitively doesn't make much sense. Not to mention the resources required to create those 5-10 would not be overnight. I think people would be much more happy if 5-10 aircraft were added or updated, instead of vehicles. Especially when the only people getting lots of use out of them would be the "10-15%" mentioned. Seems much more viable to add more aircraft instead of vehicles, doesn't it? :)
-
sorry to say this but the naval ship idea would probably ruin the game first off and im happy very few people wish for it... (submarines included there). and since when has GVing been 10-15%? ik it isnt limited to that. everyone has tried it once in a while and yes of course we have the GV crews but its just like the planes... and if we had more GVs the GV tactics would change dramatically and can also add alot more to capturing bases and we'd easily have more GV drivers fighting. i mean look at tank destroyers: theyre extremely unbalanced units (fast and heavy punch but very light armor and turrets can be shot off by planes and ack and even whirbles!) imagine the new tactics that would be involved in GV warfare... and btw we're running low on planes to add crazy... and if we can add planes theyd only either become fillers or hanger queens...
-
Just because there's a sentence on the homepage mentioning vehicles aircraft and ships, doesn't mean vehicles are a main part of the game. Going by what your saying, that also means ships should be treated the same as aircraft and ground vehicles. I don't see player controlled ships that would actually see use, anytime soon.
What I'm saying is that making unrealistic requests for 5-10 vehicles repetitively doesn't make much sense. Not to mention the resources required to create those 5-10 would not be overnight. I think people would be much more happy if 5-10 aircraft were added or updated, instead of vehicles. Especially when the only people getting lots of use out of them would be the "10-15%" mentioned. Seems much more viable to add more aircraft instead of vehicles, doesn't it? :)
not really! i imagine that the GV's take less time to build less stuff to model,like the fact that they don't fly!!! so one dimension that needs no time at all, the M-18 would be a completely new GV and would take some time to build and model but probably half the time it would take to build a new aircraft, i also imagine there is more than a 10-15% player base that would like to see more GV's, not including new players that come here for ground war! we have a ground war now, why on earth would anyone think expanding the GV numbers in the game would hurt the air war any more than it is now?i dont think it hurts anything, probably even helps! not everyone is a dogfighter but we all pay to play! no one is asking for GV's that will kill more aircraft! only better tanks to kill other tanks with more GV players= more money=more money to spend on the game as a whole, and more targets for the planes to bomb!
-
Not true. Notice how I said "updated"? :)
GV's will always be secondary in this game. There are still lots of needed planes, not to mention variants of ones we currently have.
I know the GV's would be used by more than 10-15% of the community, what I meant was that vehicles will never be used as much as aircraft, especially not to capture bases. Base capture isn't the pint of the game either, much to contrary belief. Base capture is to "promote combat". The thing is, we need both vehicles and aircraft, more people will use aircraft, aircraft should be added right? :)
There are more aircraft then late war cannon rides. ;)
-
I don't see where any GV tactics would change. Different GVs same spawn camp. Good luck with that.
-
Not true. Notice how I said "updated"? :)
GV's will always be secondary in this game. There are still lots of needed planes, not to mention variants of ones we currently have.
I know the GV's would be used by more than 10-15% of the community, what I meant was that vehicles will never be used as much as aircraft, especially not to capture bases. Base capture isn't the pint of the game either, much to contrary belief. Base capture is to "promote combat". The thing is, we need both vehicles and aircraft, more people will use aircraft, aircraft should be added right? :)
There are more aircraft then late war cannon rides. ;)
First off, wwhiskey never mentioned anything about base captures as far as I see ?
Yes their are definitely a large amount of new AC and new AC variants to be added. However Their are bigger glaring holes in the gv set. For example we have an m4 sherman firefly. This is an American tank with a British turret. We have NO real pure American or British tanks. (Americans have an m8 but that would be hard to classify as a tank.) Id say that is a pretty big gap their. Also we have no tank destroyer's. Another thing we are missing is something that would completely rule the battlefield, almost unchallenged. (Like a 262 but for the ground.)
I don't see where any GV tactics would change. Different GVs same spawn camp. Good luck with that.
And would flying tactics really change that much with the addition of a new aircraft?
-
First off, wwhiskey never mentioned anything about base captures as far as I see ?
Yes their are definitely a large amount of new AC and new AC variants to be added. However Their are bigger glaring holes in the gv set. For example we have an m4 sherman firefly. This is an American tank with a British turret. We have NO real pure American or British tanks. (Americans have an m8 but that would be hard to classify as a tank.) Id say that is a pretty big gap their. Also we have no tank destroyer's. Another thing we are missing is something that would completely rule the battlefield, almost unchallenged. (Like a 262 but for the ground.)
And would flying tactics really change that much with the addition of a new aircraft?
I was responding to Bar's post, not whiskeys.
I honestly didn't know there was that big of gaps in the GV set. What I was saying was aircraft should have priority, but I do realize now there are vehicles that defenitly need to be added. It's fair to say I have no real knowledge of vehicles. I do know when I'm wrong, and I admit it. :)
It is true that I hardly ever see actual fights with vehicles, just a lot of spawn camping. Thats just based off of my experience with the gv's in this game, which is very little. :lol
-
I was responding to Bar's post, not whiskeys.
I honestly didn't know there was that big of gaps in the GV set. What I was saying was aircraft should have priority, but I do realize now there are vehicles that defenitly need to be added. It's fair to say I have no real knowledge of vehicles. I do know when I'm wrong, and I admit it. :)
It is true that I hardly ever see actual fights with vehicles, just a lot of spawn camping. Thats just based off of my experience with the gv's in this game, which is very little. :lol
planes fly to were the fight is, GV;s drive to were the fight is! that is the only difference!
if the fight is at a spawn, so be it, planes camp spawns with ords easily as often as GV;s do with guns!
i love the good GV fights, the old tank town was awesome!
-
And would flying tactics really change that much with the addition of a new aircraft?
Sure! How you fight different planes is dictated by the type of plane your in and the type of plane the other guy is in.
GVs just park and range a spawn. It doesn't matter what your in or what your shooting at as long as your parked in the right spot to hit the spawnie on the first shot.
-
Actually, the Panzer III would pretty much just require a new gun, different transmition (add or remove some the the gears, and decrease or increase the increments in speed), different armor, and some visual changes. They don't have to design the suspension, chassis, hull or anything from scratch.
The KV1, we already have the gun for. Would just require some changes in speed, armor, and shape to the T-34/76.
Granted these won't be 2 day things, they aren't as hard as, say, adding the Gloster meteor would be, as GV's work in 2 dimentions near enough.
-
.
GVs just park and range a spawn. It doesn't matter what your in or what your shooting at as long as your parked in the right spot to hit the spawnie on the first shot.
:rofl I dont even know where to start...
-
Yeah fugitive, gv's don't ever go to an airfield, or bump inot eachother in TT. That NEVER happens, just no one EVER kill the VH so an M4 won't kill the troops :rolleyes:.
Really, do you expect people to buy that load of crap?
-
Yeah fugitive, gv's don't ever go to an airfield, or bump inot eachother in TT. That NEVER happens, just no one EVER kill the VH so an M4 won't kill the troops :rolleyes:.
Really, do you expect people to buy that load of crap?
hmmmmm lets see
Tank Town = bunch of buildings surrounded by a bunch of spawn points. Objective, hide in the building and shot spawning GVs
Vehicle base = single spawn point with 3 ack easily taken out by approaching GVs. Objective, to get into the hang behind the spawn and shoot as many spawning GVs as possible.
AirField = single spawn point with multiple acks. Objective is to kill enough ack to get into a position to kill BOTH spawning GVs and aircraft.
Some of the best fights I've seen have been in those areas were two bases spawn to an open area in the middle of nowhere. However, it doesn't take long until one side of the other gets numbers and a large spawn camp is set up.
Most... I can't say all, but most GV battles are around a spawn area. It isn't very often I get into a tank, but when I do I like to get into an ambush location. Some place between the spawn and the "objective", and try to pick them off as they go by. This fun for everyone. I have fun trying to hit them before they spot me, and they have a chance to spawn, get their vehicle in gear and move to a position to try and get a shot on me. It's kind of like a fight then.... and we all know that's all I look for, is a fight.....GV battle today are more on the line of a vulch fest. you work to set it up and then you get as many kills as you can before they stop upping or some enterprising player sneaks in with troops.
While I will vulch and spawn camp, I don't do it often because it really isn't all that much fun. It gets boring pretty quick, except for those who love having a million kills and their name in lights. The GV battles in this game will never be anything more than a spawn camp until something is put in to stop it. Players can't handle ALLOWING people to spawn and get moving... they are much harder to kill that way :rolleyes:
Pick this scenario....
A lone fighter spots dust trails, with a quick dive in he spots 5 panzers heading toward his base. A radio call goes out and tanks start rolling out of the hangers. Mean while the panzer column, knowing it's been spotted takes up defensive positions over looking a valley a couple miles outside the base.... or they split their force and advance in a pincer movement attacking from two sides instead strait in from the spawn. Either the defenders get cocky and fall into the trap set in the valley, or are caught in the crossfire of the pincer movement, a battle ensues !
Things like this could happen all over the map. The thrill of springing a trap, or the thrill of getting out of one sprung on you would get your heart pounding much more than "chatting with your buddies" while popping tanks as they spawn. Thats the thrill I get when I get in a fight and the guy I'm fighting maneuver for a shot instead of going for the HO time after time. It's the thrill I get when flying my B24s over a town and getting my load out on target and getting to the guns BEFORE I get hammered.
Thats why I play this game, for the thrill. Adding GVs won't add much to the thrill if all people do is camp spawn points. At least if they add planes I have a chance that I'll have some different kind of battle to face whether I'm fighting from a fighter, or defending from my buff.
-
Sure! How you fight different planes is dictated by the type of plane your in and the type of plane the other guy is in.
GVs just park and range a spawn. It doesn't matter what your in or what your shooting at as long as your parked in the right spot to hit the spawnie on the first shot.
That may be what you do, however thats not the only thing to do. I love a good double spawn gv battle. I also enjoy rolling a tank to town when its under attack by gv's. Also it does matter what type of gv your in. Mabey not to the same degree as planes but it does. For example, if im in a t34, im going to try and either get close to the enemy tank using my speed advantage and sloped armor or let him get closer to me and stay hidden because I know that the t34's HVAP rounds are more effective at close range. If im in a tiger im going to try and keep my distance from enemy tanks because I know my turret will be slower. If im fighting a tiger in, lets say a panzer, I would try and avoid a long-medium range battle with him if possible. Letting him get close and or flanking him to get an engine shot is well worth the extra time instead of just charging him from 2k out full speed gun's blazing. If im in a m4 I will try and get in a firing positon where only my turret is showing because that is generally the best area to get hit in an m4 and survive. Another thing that makes a differnce is the ability to shoot on the move, as well as using rudder and shifting gears while under fire to make the enemy miss.
Also, gvi'ng is way more then just "park and range a spawn". Shutting down to listen to hear enemy engines is crucial, as well as the type/amount of cover you have. How you angle your tank when parked will sometimes determine if that enemy round kills you or bounces off. Also, knowing where exactly to hit the enemy tank depending on what type of tank it is will often determine life and death. (Fro example the t34'85's turret is very easily taken out with 1 shot and an ideal place to hit, where as the m4's is not.) Obviously aim is crucial one of the most important things. Also making use of smoke rounds can be very effective in many different ways. (disguise a retreat, flanking, moving up etc.) Repositioning is another key concept, as well as using tree's to blend in (especially for the m4's green skin)
-
Most... I can't say all, but most GV battles are around a spawn area. It isn't very often I get into a tank, but when I do I like to get into an ambush location. Some place between the spawn and the "objective", and try to pick them off as they go by. This fun for everyone. I have fun trying to hit them before they spot me, and they have a chance to spawn, get their vehicle in gear and move to a position to try and get a shot on me. It's kind of like a fight then.... and we all know that's all I look for, is a fight.....GV battle today are more on the line of a vulch fest. you work to set it up and then you get as many kills as you can before they stop upping or some enterprising player sneaks in with troops.
Yes, that happened just today at A53. A handfull of us (around 7) were defending against a mission, and after having ambushed them several times, they took down our VH. We upped and rolled about halfway to town, and by then they had taken 64 VH down. We stopped them for quite a while, untill an M3 snuck up along the beach and took the base. Thanks to Ruler2, we got the base back in 3 minutes or so, and another fight got started. No one camped or tried to camp. I was ambushing around 1500yds away from their spawn, but I was facing toward our town and got several nice shots at the back of some panzers.
While I will vulch and spawn camp, I don't do it often because it really isn't all that much fun. It gets boring pretty quick, except for those who love having a million kills and their name in lights. The GV battles in this game will never be anything more than a spawn camp until something is put in to stop it. Players can't handle ALLOWING people to spawn and get moving... they are much harder to kill that way :rolleyes:
yes, they are harder to kill. Thats what makes it fun. Just as playing in a panzer III ausf J would make things fun. It would be interesting to see if any new tactics would arise from it being added.
A lone fighter spots dust trails, with a quick dive in he spots 5 panzers heading toward his base. A radio call goes out and tanks start rolling out of the hangers. Mean while the panzer column, knowing it's been spotted takes up defensive positions over looking a valley a couple miles outside the base.... or they split their force and advance in a pincer movement attacking from two sides instead strait in from the spawn. Either the defenders get cocky and fall into the trap set in the valley, or are caught in the crossfire of the pincer movement, a battle ensues !
Things like this could happen all over the map. The thrill of springing a trap, or the thrill of getting out of one sprung on you would get your heart pounding much more than "chatting with your buddies" while popping tanks as they spawn.
One of my favorite things to do is either break a trap sprung on me, or a spawn camp (very simmilar if your on the recieving end). I love to mess with the guys in the panzers camping my spawn by upping an M8 and killing one of them before I die from the 15 75mm AP round flying at me.
Thats why I play this game, for the thrill. Adding GVs won't add much to the thrill if all people do is camp spawn points. At least if they add planes I have a chance that I'll have some different kind of battle to face whether I'm fighting from a fighter, or defending from my buff.
As for the spawn campers, maybe have some Pak36(r)'s or some Zis-2's entreched around the spawn (in concrete block houses, so a tank can't destroy them) that fire on anything within 2000yds (you can camp out past that, but it gets harders, (IMO) enough so that the defenders could possibly break the camp.
-
I agree Stodd, Nemisis those things "can" happen and I'm sure they do, however you have to admit it isn't the norm. It is a very rare that I see anything other than a spawn camp. I give one death to a spawn camp and then move on to look for a fight. Unfortunately I almost never find one. Personally I'd love to see a no kill zone into the spawn area. That would give the GV a chance to run for cover and work his way into a position to find someone trying to pick him coming out.
I understand the options available, but poor game play and the rush to have the most kills takes many of them away. I don't have a problem with "win the war" types, I have a problem with how they go about it. I think GVin would be a blast if I could get off the spawn point more often and maybe get a few lessons on spotting enemy GVs. but I just don't see it happening soon. Unfortunately adding GV wouldn't help that either, and Im sure if some of those request can hit reliably from 2 miles out would hurt it even more. Be carefull what you wish for, you might get it and then your screwed.
-
sorry can you point me to ANYWHERE in ANY description that says this is ONLY an air combat game?
:aok
-
Fugitive, the problem with an area in wich you can't kill someone is that no one will leave it, or that the "campers" will trail the uppers untill the pass out of the no kill zone and then fire on them from behind.
As to the vehicles that can fire accuratly from more than 2mi out, I personally never asked for anything worse than a nashorn or a panther while being serious. Nothing I've asked for in this thread has more than a 76mm cannon, the german tanks I asked for use the same cannon as the panzer or a 50mm, and the US/British tanks weren't known for their superior ability to destroy a tank at 2mi out.
AND when have you seen a GV battle where you get a clean line of fire for 2mi? I think the max I've seen (asside from firing into a valley from a hill side, which exposes your top BTW) is around 2000 yds. Usually, thats the most I have to elevate my gun to start shooting past my target.
-
I've been in several excellent GV fights only to have them ruined by bomb****ing Lancasters. Hell, I've even seen other countries complain that GV fights were ruined by their fellow countrymen.
Is there spawn camping? Sure. Even during a spawn camp situation, getting into a firing position while taking fire is still a challenge in itself.
As to additional vehicles that could be added with a minimal amount of work...
Stug IV, Jagdpanzer IV/L48, Jagdpanzer IV/L70, Brumbar - are all 'new' vehicles that use the existing Pz IV chassis.
SturmTiger would use Tiger I chassis
M10, M36 both use the existing Sherman suspension and running gear, sponsons and upper hull would have to be modified, but the moving parts are already there.
SU-85, Su-100, Su-122 - all use the existing T-34 chassis.
There's 10 vehicles that could be added using chassis and running gear that's already in game. That means only minor modifications to vehicle performance data, speed, etc., and more than likely, utilize an existing gun sighting system based on existing vehicles.
OK, so an SU-85 has the same gun as the T-34/85. Since it has a limited traverse, don't perk it. Upgrade it to an Su-100, you still have limited traverse, but you've got a better weapon, so perk it for a couple points. Su-122, you got a portable town killer, but not great against against tanks at longer ranges. Some thing with the Stug and Jagdpanzer IV series. Perk the L70...perk the M36, perk the snot out of the Sturmtiger and Brumbar, using them as hangar and town killers.
-
nice list.
-
Don't forget the Pz III ausf J, as someone said before almost nothing is a hanger queen in the GV world. It would replace the Panzer IV for me, since it would be fun to rack up 17 kills in a Panzer III before finally being taken down by Jherne's Jagdpanzer IV/L70 from 4000yds out.
-
Ok, you got me. Jagdpanzer IV/L70 is a kick-ass design, and I'm partial to it simply because it combines the reliability of the Pz IV chassis with the high velocity 75mm gun. Personally, anything that's low profile has an advantage in my opinion, even with the limited traverse.
J
-
I don't see where any GV tactics would change. Different GVs same spawn camp. Good luck with that.
you dont GV much do you? :huh stick a fast and light big punch vehicle to hit the sides of tanks and tactics change. just like tactics changed for GVs when the T34/76 originally entered years ago and when the firefly (WHY NOT THE M4A3???) entered also... tigers have to watch out for the fireflies at distance now because now you got 3 shermans to every tiger in battle... The T34 adds a faster moving tank which although doesnt have the best gun for a 76mm can still somewhat flank armor and attack bases. and the 85 is a better version of the 76.
-
M-18. Conversation is over gentlemen! :aok
-
M-18!!! should i make an anthem to the M-18? :joystick:
-
Would love to see an M18 in as well. Would provide a nice target for my 50mm.
-
By the way nemesis, the KV-1 is actually much more different than the T-34 models, the KV-1 was MUCH larger than T-34s and also MUCH slower on rough terrain. Level terrain it could go 35kph (NOT mph)... along with the fact that the armor thickness was 70mm in every direction except up and down. the 41 models used the crappy F32 and F34 guns and the 1942 versions had the less crappy ZiS-5 and varied between the EXTREMELY bulky KV-1 model which went only 25kph on road with only a 600hp engine and the faster lighter KV-1S that could go 45kph on road but only had a max armor protection of 82mm compared to its other 42 model with 130mm. The reason i want the KV-1 is because of Soviet tank commander Zinoviy Kolobanov who engaged an entire German column of 43 German tanks of which 22 tanks and 2 artillery pieces his tank destroyed alone and his 4 other KV-1s in his command finished the column off only deploying one KV-1 at a time to engage the enemy... Of the KV-1s that engaged the column 2 still remained in reserve. 43 tanks destroyed by THREE KV-1s. Of course though this was in 41 when the Germans didnt have any effective AT weapons. Kolobanov's crew of KV-1 number 864 counted a total of 135 hits on their tank after the battle. The KV-1 was the Tiger of the early war...
-
In the end HTC should add new GV's :aok
-
In the end HTC should add new GV's :aok
Sure, after more aircraft are added.
-
In the end HTC should add new GV's :aok
Mini Bump :lol
Sure, after more aircraft are added.
gyrene you and i both know that we need more GVs. there's many gaps in the GV fights and GVing is a massive role in capturing many bases on most of our maps. Ground assaults with air support can be virtually unstoppable if done correctly and the leaders dont have their heads up their butts. :neener: in fact i think air ground combinations have a higher percentage of takes than air only or ground only on some maps.
-
true true true gv and air base takes are way harder to make possible (ie getting people to work together) but are VERY succesful
-
true true true gv and air base takes are way harder to make possible (ie getting people to work together) but are VERY succesful
and if you have more Gvs...? :D
-
I agree with 'Nemisis" on wishing for the creation of new GV's. I also find that the list that was provided is very acceptable. GV's are a very important resource in this game as are various types of aircraft and as such, should be considered to enhance the variety in game play. Personally, I would really like to see HTC add the PanzerV (panther), as well as the Cromwell mk VIII and the A-22 Churchill mk IV, at the very least.
-
I'd like to see the rest of the GVs updated first. The Tiger, Panzer, LVTs & M-series vehicles are still old AH1 models.
-
Then why do we keep getting silly stuff like WW1 even though it was fun fora bit, and no new tanks or planes for MA......
You say its bout aircraft but then add no new planes but ya dont add tanks either.............strange.
-
I've been in several excellent GV fights only to have them ruined bybomb****ing Lancasters. Hell, I've even seen other countries complain that GV fights were ruined by their fellow countrymen.
Is there spawn camping? Sure. Even during a spawn camp situation, getting into a firing position while taking fire is still a challenge in itself.
As to additional vehicles that could be added with a minimal amount of work...
Stug IV, Jagdpanzer IV/L48, Jagdpanzer IV/L70, Brumbar - are all 'new' vehicles that use the existing Pz IV chassis.
SturmTiger would use Tiger I chassis
M10, M36 both use the existing Sherman suspension and running gear, sponsons and upper hull would have to be modified, but the moving parts are already there.
SU-85, Su-100, Su-122 - all use the existing T-34 chassis.
There's 10 vehicles that could be added using chassis and running gear that's already in game. That means only minor modifications to vehicle performance data, speed, etc., and more than likely, utilize an existing gun sighting system based on existing vehicles.
OK, so an SU-85 has the same gun as the T-34/85. Since it has a limited traverse, don't perk it. Upgrade it to an Su-100, you still have limited traverse, but you've got a better weapon, so perk it for a couple points. Su-122, you got a portable town killer, but not great against against tanks at longer ranges. Some thing with the Stug and Jagdpanzer IV series. Perk the L70...perk the M36, perk the snot out of the Sturmtiger and Brumbar, using them as hangar and town killers.
I want these tanks. More for me to shoot at. :devil
And when I go bomb tard I only bring 1 lancaster. :banana:
-
Put new ground vehicles new planes. What we need is something to destroy in those tanks and planes. First everybody is flying the new war machine the first week or 2. Evantully everybody says to them selves,forget that plane I'm going back to my old plane. When you have something to destroy you say. I think I'm gonna get some perks or just bring my score up. Even just plan old fun mainly.
Add some bridges that we can destroy. If you can put mountains that go higher then mount everest you should put some bridges.
-
I want these tanks. More for me to shoot at. :devil
And when I go bomb tard I only bring 1 lancaster. :banana:
Where'd you find the Mario Cannon Dude video!?!? :rofl :aok anyways. I'm happy HiTech fixed the phantom trees now but i'd still love my M-18...for now though i am happy :aok
-
Add some bridges that we can destroy. If you can put mountains that go higher then mount everest you should put some bridges.
Get some realistic rivers before we talk bridges.
-
Personaly, Id love to see the King Tiger :D. The Tiger we have in game has lost its luster since the intro of the sherman
-
Get some realistic rivers before we talk bridges.
I thought we already had both. :headscratch:
-
I say put the sturmtiger in and heavily perk it
-
I have no idea of the finances that HTC has to work with, but I sure hope that they add more staff if they plan on expanding the WWI arena, hope to continue adding new aircraft, hope to add more gv's, and hope to continue improving the over-all game play and sim experience. Obviously, if finances are an issue there are talented enough people to volunteer their time to work with modeling aircraft and gv's (not flight models, just the "shells") to take off some of the load, but I've suggested that before and been called "arrogant and foolish" in thinking anyone else in this world could do that besides HTC.
There are already plenty of aircraft to pick from to keep most people satisfied, but historically speaking there are some major holes in the lineup (He111, Beaufighter, Pe-2, Oscar, etc). The GV section could use a boost in selection, too (but no more late war super machines like the Firefly).
Oh... and lets not even start on fixing many of the current issues with many of the current aircraft, issues that have been backed up with hard data and evidence but yet get passed over. How about tracked vehicles being able to "zero turn"? How about matching aircraft performance/abilities with historically accurate data (again, with data that has been presented)?
-
I have no idea of the finances that HTC has to work with, but I sure hope that they add more staff if they plan on expanding the WWI arena, hope to continue adding new aircraft, hope to add more gv's, and hope to continue improving the over-all game play and sim experience. Obviously, if finances are an issue there are talented enough people to volunteer their time to work with modeling aircraft and gv's (not flight models, just the "shells") to take off some of the load, but I've suggested that before and been called "arrogant and foolish" in thinking anyone else in this world could do that besides HTC.
There are already plenty of aircraft to pick from to keep most people satisfied, but historically speaking there are some major holes in the lineup (He111, Beaufighter, Pe-2, Oscar, etc). The GV section could use a boost in selection, too (but no more late war super machines like the Firefly).
Oh... and lets not even start on fixing many of the current issues with many of the current aircraft, issues that have been backed up with hard data and evidence but yet get passed over. How about tracked vehicles being able to "zero turn"? How about matching aircraft performance/abilities with historically accurate data (again, with data that has been presented)?
Skins and maps are already player made in most cases, even the new planes and vehicles we get the skins are player made in a lot of cases. 3D objects and any of the coding will never be released as it is the property of HTC and his livelihood. Think of it as KFC's special recipe, some may imitate it, but they are not going to get the real thing anywhere but at HTC :D
I think HTC is a small company with few employees because that's the way they like it. They all know each other well and work well together, as well as keeping the code in house available to as few people as possible. This protects their livelihood and makes for a less stressful place to work I'm sure.
People have got to learn a little patience. I'd love to have a few corvettes in my garage, but now just isn't the time so I'll be happy with my Accord. No amount of whining, crying, or complaining on Ebay/used car lots/Chevy dealerships is going to change that and I'm ok with that. Someday I'll have my vette or 2, but not today. The same goes for the game. There are a number of things I'd like to see, but I can be happy with what we have until they get around to adding them.
-
I say put the sturmtiger in and heavily perk it
Everytime I think that's the dopiest idea I've ever heard, you top yourself...congrats.
-
Everytime I think that's the dopiest idea I've ever heard, you top yourself...congrats.
he's already topped himself here by wanting perked nooks.
I thought we already had both. :headscratch:
bridges that MATTER. and rivers? where? i never see any