Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: xavrikx on May 19, 2010, 09:23:31 PM
-
I have been playing Aces high since when it was just Tigers and Panzers. Those were the days where vast armies of Panzer IVs fought each other over bases, and the occasional Tiger made every cry.
With the evolution of Aces High and how it has accommodated more medium tanks and different countries It has been refreshing, playing on a whole new battle ground. But I feel it is still incomplete. My wish is that High Tech creations will look deeper into the ground combat of this brilliant game (not trying to kiss ass). To go more indepth I would love to see Tank Destroyers, and other heavy tanks to ream the battlefield.
A lot of people might say that the ground combat is balanced and there would be no reason to bring in more vehicles, but in all honesty, lets look at the air combat, there are quite a few fighters out there that can all do the same thing, with little to no difference other than plane and country.
Now I am not saying jump the ball, but let us see something along the lines of say...
Jagdpanzer
ISU-122
Stug IV
KV-1(Early war, but still great)
M-10
Jaghpanther(Oh dear god what a monster)
Panzer III (A bit of diversity on the axis side_
That is just naming a few, but still, I would like to see more. Please Hitech, take a look at this, give it some thought, give us KURSK!
If you feel this would be a well improvement, please /sign this post.
/sign
-
M-18 :D
(http://www.milweb.net/classifieds/classpics/46360.jpg)
(http://www.milweb.net/classifieds/classpics/50229.jpg)
-
KV-1 :aok
(http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/4784/kv1eqz9.jpg) (http://img258.imageshack.us/i/kv1eqz9.jpg/)
Jagdpanther
(http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/691/jagdpanther2.jpg) (http://img37.imageshack.us/i/jagdpanther2.jpg/)
-
King Tiger
(http://www.airbum.com/BlogPix/TTM-KingTiger.Model-LW.jpg)
M-3 Stuart Tank
(http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/Images/MHD11.jpg)
-
Didn't the Stug have a non-rotating turret? I'd be all for it but until tanks turn realistically that could be a rather large challenge.
-
I'm loving the ideas being thrown out there guys! I just hope Hitech notices this.
I mean they did a wonderful job on the M4/75 and the 76.
And yes, the Stug, ISU-122, and Jagdpanther alike all had non-rotation turrets. They were meant to sit back in hulled down positions and fire. If you were hit by these bad boys, you were likely dead.
-
I have been playing Aces high since when it was just Tigers and Panzers. Those were the days where vast armies of Panzer IVs fought each other over bases, and the occasional Tiger made every cry.
With the evolution of Aces High and how it has accommodated more medium tanks and different countries It has been refreshing, playing on a whole new battle ground. But I feel it is still incomplete. My wish is that High Tech creations will look deeper into the ground combat of this brilliant game (not trying to kiss ass). To go more indepth I would love to see Tank Destroyers, and other heavy tanks to ream the battlefield.
A lot of people might say that the ground combat is balanced and there would be no reason to bring in more vehicles, but in all honesty, lets look at the air combat, there are quite a few fighters out there that can all do the same thing, with little to no difference other than plane and country.
Now I am not saying jump the ball, but let us see something along the lines of say...
Jagdpanzer
ISU-122
Stug IV
KV-1(Early war, but still great)
M-10
Jaghpanther(Oh dear god what a monster)
Panzer III (A bit of diversity on the axis side_
That is just naming a few, but still, I would like to see more. Please Hitech, take a look at this, give it some thought, give us KURSK!
If you feel this would be a well improvement, please /sign this post.
/sign
Nice list, +1. (sign/)
-
Didn't the Stug have a non-rotating turret? I'd be all for it but until tanks turn realistically that could be a rather large challenge.
most tanks in WWII could not do a rotation the way you think. what we have is almost completely realistic. Tigers had this form of movement. Im pretty sure out of all the GVs in our set the tiger should be the only one to rotate on its axis. SP guns such as the StugIV, StugIII, StuH, ISU-122, Jagdpanther, etc, would be great additions. StugsIII and IV actually only had 75mm cannons. the same cannon that the PnzrIVH had. IIRC these were not called non-rotating turrets due to the fact that they were NOT turrets :rolleyes: . They were also not meant to sit back hull down due to the fact that the HULL was the gun :rofl they were used as assault weapons along with PnzrIVs and IIIs.
These tanks need the special transmission allowing the opposite rotation of the tracks or i doubt we could use any of these. Either that or for the GVs that did not use this we still need to be allowed to brake one track while the other turned due to the fact that all armor of WWII could use one track while the other was stationary///
-
321 couldn't of said it any better. Yes they were non-rotating turrets because the gun was indeed part of the hull; that being said I must disagree with the idea that they did not sit back hulled down. In most cases Anti-tank chassis such as the STUG IV and the Jagdpanzer, were used for ambushes. A proper idea for a STUG IV, camouflaged and in the right position could easily stop and disarray an entire column.
However I enjoy the support for this notion. Lets hope we get notice fellow Cav.
-
321 couldn't of said it any better. Yes they were non-rotating turrets because the gun was indeed part of the hull; that being said I must disagree with the idea that they did not sit back hulled down. In most cases Anti-tank chassis such as the STUG IV and the Jagdpanzer, were used for ambushes. A proper idea for a STUG IV, camouflaged and in the right position could easily stop and disarray an entire column.
However I enjoy the support for this notion. Lets hope we get notice fellow Cav.
NOT turrets... and these were "Self Propelled Guns" that does not mean they were made for AT role only. although some such as the SU-122, Jagdtiger and Jagdpanther, and the Mardar III/IVs, and Hetzers (clever little buggers) were meant for the AT role, all were also very capable in other roles. But yes, most were best for ambushes (perfect for our game due to the defensive necessity of some bases). I used an M4A3 76mm and sat for a half hour to rack up 10 kills just by sitting next to a barn with a grove of trees to my right and hills to my rear ambushing anyone who rolled by my gun. I'd have loved to have done this in a hetzer tank or in a stugIV instead of the M4. I didnt need to turn my turret until my last kill actually
-
Ahaaa what fun it is! Granted though the Self-propelled AT do have about a 75-90 degree gun movement. I just pray that Hitech creations will do such.
Also if it helps any, I'm currently in college and my major is Art Administration with a concentration in Digital and Media art. I've been graphic designing and texturing since I was twelve years old. So, if ever you guys need help with textures with the Sods and skins, don't be afraid to ask, I'd love to help.
-
Ahaaa what fun it is! Granted though the Self-propelled AT do have about a 75-90 degree gun movement. I just pray that Hitech creations will do such.
Jagdpanzer 38(t) (Hetzer) had 16 degrees of total gun traverse. The Jagdpanther 22 degrees. The StuG III had 25 degrees.
-
Jagdpanzer
ISU-122
Stug IV
KV-1(Early war, but still great)
M-10
Jaghpanther(Oh dear god what a monster)
Panzer III (A bit of diversity on the axis side_
Instead the ISU-122:
Su-85
(http://www.battletanks.com/images/SU-100-2.jpg)
:rock
-
Jagdpanzer 38(t) (Hetzer) had 16 degrees of total gun traverse. The Jagdpanther 22 degrees. The StuG III had 25 degrees.
Shows how much I know about this. I bow to you sir!
-
I don't know if the M-18 will ever be added. If it is it will need to be massively perked. AH's much less cluttered than reality, allow full road speed off road, terrain would be much too favorable to the M-18.
My personal preference is that it is never added.
-
M-10 Wolverine tank destroyer 312Bar...before the M-18 and pretty good.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/M10_tank_destroyer_italy_1945_sm.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/M10_Tank_Destroyer.JPG)
(http://www.tankdestroyersociety.com/images/M10_05.jpg)
More photos
http://www.tankdestroyersociety.com/more_on_the_m10.htm (http://www.tankdestroyersociety.com/more_on_the_m10.htm)
-
My personal preference is that it is never added.
Blasphemy!
-
Blasphemy!
It would make the vehicle game much more of a joke than it already is.
-
It would make the vehicle game much more of a joke than it already is.
I do agree with you on the ground game needing fine tuning. For instance: terrain impacts on mobility & speed, iron bushes and tree branches, drive through enemy vehicles, nuetral downhill rolls in excess of vehicles capabilities, I could go on... With that said, I would still love to see the M-18. I have to believe that HTC will continue to address the issues, just like they always have.
:salute
Way
-
Until AH has the steering of tracked vehicles properly modeled.... I say NO to any armored vehicles without a turret. Once AH allows for the zero turn ability of tracked vehicles, then below is a list of obvious candidates to add:
StG IV
Hetzer
Su-85
Preist (for HE fun!)
-
Until AH has the steering of tracked vehicles properly modeled.... I say NO to any armored vehicles without a turret. Once AH allows for the zero turn ability of tracked vehicles, then below is a list of obvious candidates to add:
StG IV
Hetzer
Su-85
Preist (for HE fun!)
Not all tanks in WWII had zero turn capabilties...I'm not sure which ones did but neither the Panzer nor the Sherman had the capability...I think 321Bar has a list of which ones did.
-
I don't know if the M-18 will ever be added. If it is it will need to be massively perked. AH's much less cluttered than reality, allow full road speed off road, terrain would be much too favorable to the M-18.
My personal preference is that it is never added.
I don't know about massively perked. Open turret would mean vulnerability to even MG fire from aircraft, and the thin armor would make it more likely to be a one-hit-wonder than any of the current tanks, and would even be fodder for the M-8. These shortcomings would offset somewhat the speed and firepower advantage. A light perk would probably be warranted, though.
-
I would LOVE to see the addition of German assault guns..., BUT the programers STILL havent seen fit to give German tanks the zero turn radius..., so I fear that thier ability to aim would be slower than comparible US tanks..., simply because the game has been stacked against them, in favor of allied tanks.
Both with terrain, and driving characteristics.. :headscratch:
-
I don't think the Panzer IV, or the AA units built on the Panzer IV chasis, could turn in place.
Tigers and Panthers could, but I don't know if the others could.
-
I don't think the Panzer IV, or the AA units built on the Panzer IV chasis, could turn in place.
Tigers and Panthers could, but I don't know if the others could.
I'm not a tank expert. I'm hardly even a tank enthusiast. My only experience with tracks comes from playing around on a tracked bobcat skid-steer. Even if a tracked vehicle could not pivot in place (true zero turn) by means of running one track forward and the other in reverse, it could/should still be able to lock one track up and move forward/reverse the other track giving the next best thing to zero turn. Im not a "coader", but once a system of driving a tank like it has 2 tracks instead of 4 wheels has been implemented, if a tank did not have zero turn capability (Pzr Mk IV?) then Im sure it could be modeled properly.
The way the tracked vehicles are modeled now lend them to having 4 wheels. That limits mobility in all directions vs if the tanks actually had tracks.
Also.. stop and think what tanks would be like in AH if there could be a driver AND a gunner inside one vehicle just like the aircraft with gunner. :rock
-
Instead the ISU-122:
Su-85
(http://www.battletanks.com/images/SU-100-2.jpg)
:rock
That is an Su 100
-
I don't know if the M-18 will ever be added. If it is it will need to be massively perked. AH's much less cluttered than reality, allow full road speed off road, terrain would be much too favorable to the M-18.
My personal preference is that it is never added.
some of these maps the M-18 would die before any chance of being able to utilize the terrain. These needed speed and cover to get kills. some of these maps are so open that they would be seen far away like the M8 and would be neutralized quickly. Also, some tank battles have NO room to maneuver the M-18. I use the M8 alot and it is a terrain reliant unit. The M-18 would have the exact same problem and would be as usable as the new M4 76mm except with an aircraft problem instead of a ground problem. (btw, the M-18 only had 35mm armor MAXIMUM. a 20mm could kill it theoretically just like it can kill M8s and M3s...
I'm not a tank expert. I'm hardly even a tank enthusiast. My only experience with tracks comes from playing around on a tracked bobcat skid-steer. Even if a tracked vehicle could not pivot in place (true zero turn) by means of running one track forward and the other in reverse, it could/should still be able to lock one track up and move forward/reverse the other track giving the next best thing to zero turn. Im not a "coader", but once a system of driving a tank like it has 2 tracks instead of 4 wheels has been implemented, if a tank did not have zero turn capability (Pzr Mk IV?) then Im sure it could be modeled properly.
The way the tracked vehicles are modeled now lend them to having 4 wheels. That limits mobility in all directions vs if the tanks actually had tracks.
Also.. stop and think what tanks would be like in AH if there could be a driver AND a gunner inside one vehicle just like the aircraft with gunner. :rock
yes, almost all tracked vehicles of WWII had no zero turn (excluding the TigerI "PnzrVI", Panther "PnzrV", TigerII, and i believe very late PnzrIVs and T34/85s). Allied tanks excluding the 34/85 did not implement zero turn until the M26 IIRC.
+1 to the idea of coading brake turning in the tanks track system to allow near zero turn and +1 to Tiger zero turn.
Aces High already allows a tank gunner although many choose not to do this due to the fact they trust themselves more than a gunner or it is too hard to teamwork with a tank gunner. I've successfully gunned PnzrIVs for people for fun though and it is something that i recommend for a more fun experience if you dont care about "winning" or score horing... :aok
-
I do agree with you on the ground game needing fine tuning. For instance: terrain impacts on mobility & speed, iron bushes and tree branches, drive through enemy vehicles, nuetral downhill rolls in excess of vehicles capabilities, I could go on... With that said, I would still love to see the M-18. I have to believe that HTC will continue to address the issues, just like they always have.
:salute
Way
:frown: Been asking for this for a long time now. Would make roads mean something, and would bring about the need for bridges. There... I said it... REAL bridges that we can fight over. Think about a tank column moving down a road to a bridge, with soft ground on either side of the road... and a TD on the opposite side picking them off as they roll in. Stay on the road, and you are a sitting duck, off into the mud... even worse.
-
Not all tanks in WWII had zero turn capabilties...I'm not sure which ones did but neither the Panzer nor the Sherman had the capability...I think 321Bar has a list of which ones did.
yeah gyrene you're correct, i guess ill add that the quote you stated:
Until AH has the steering of tracked vehicles properly modeled.... I say NO to any armored vehicles without a turret. Once AH allows for the zero turn ability of tracked vehicles, then below is a list of obvious candidates to add:
StG IV
Hetzer
Su-85
Preist (for HE fun!)
all of the SP guns did not use zero turn except the Jagdpanther, Hetzer, and the other late war german SP guns.
-
I'd like to see:
M-3
M-10
M-18
Crusader
Valentine
Matilda
Stug
Jagdpanzer
I'm sure there's others but those come to mind immediately.
-
To the complaints about the limited traverse of the guns:
This won't prove much of an issue, given the fluid battle lines of our cartoon world (you will have to shift your possition to deal with the tanks that slipped around your side and are now threatening the town).
An effective and historicly used tactic would be to have a few set up on likely aproach routes, with tanks holding the enemy further ahead. The tanks then withdraw past the waiting tank destroyers, and the pursuing enemy walks (not charges. Most are far to passive when in tanks. Blitzkrieg tactics would be very effective in AH IMO) right into the ambush.
Personally, i would use them more as tanks than tank destroyers, as I usually "aim" with the tank, and "adjust" with the turret.