Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Raptor on May 23, 2010, 04:57:01 PM
-
Ok so maybe I have spent too much time in GVs since the new patch and thinking about all of this. To resolve the issue with tanks traversing in one spot (or what was historically accurate for each model), why not add an engine 1 engine 2 option for tracked vehicles. You have similar controls in multi-engined bombers, so why not do this for tanks. This would allow the addition of mobile gun platforms such as the jagdpanzer or the elephant.
-
For the tanks in AH right now, other than the Tiger, all you need is a left and right brake option, which is also already modeled for aircraft. Tiger could actually reverse one track and keep the other going forwards to turn in place.
-
+1 for the left/right brake thing. It seems like it would be fairly easy to apply to tanks and ground vehicles.
-
For the tanks in AH right now, other than the Tiger, all you need is a left and right brake option, which is also already modeled for aircraft. Tiger could actually reverse one track and keep the other going forwards to turn in place.
somebody's been reading alot of tank wishlist threads :P
-
somebody's been reading alot of tank wishlist threads :P
If that idea was posted elsewhere, it is because it makes sense. I didn't read it but rather thought of it while typing out the post. It seemed to make sense.
-
Every now and again this one comes up....... Regardless of that, it's a good wish!
If that idea was posted elsewhere, it is because it makes sense. I didn't read it but rather thought of it while typing out the post. It seemed to make sense.
+1
-
how would you make this two engines/brakes work with people that only have 1 stick? or are you suggesting that pedals work the brakes to turn faster? and what about people that dont have pedals.
semp
-
how would you make this two engines/brakes work with people that only have 1 stick? or are you suggesting that pedals work the brakes to turn faster? and what about people that dont have pedals.
semp
C and V
wrongway
-
C and V
wrongway
so we would need to use stick and keyboard to move gvs? not a good idea. i have my stick set up so i only use the keyboard to type on 200 :D.
semp
-
so we would need to use stick and keyboard to move gvs? not a good idea. i have my stick set up so i only use the keyboard to type on 200 :D.
semp
What do you use for brakes now?
wrongway
-
What do you use for brakes now?
wrongway
in airplanes? the bottom of my plane. they do 120 to 0 in about 2 seconds.
semp
-
If that idea was posted elsewhere, it is because it makes sense. I didn't read it but rather thought of it while typing out the post. It seemed to make sense.
yeah karnak i was just messing with ya. there was a huge zero turn/brake turn discussion very recently in another thread
-
+1 for individual C/V brakes
and while they're at it, enable the throttle to control the engine like in PT boats and aircraft. more intuitive and would stop all the "help! my tank wont move!1!1!" from noobs. plus you could then steer and control speed from the turret/guns, even using a dual throttle if you have one.
-
+1 for individual C/V brakes
and while they're at it, enable the throttle to control the engine like in PT boats and aircraft. more intuitive and would stop all the "help! my tank wont move!1!1!" from noobs. plus you could then steer and control speed from the turret/guns, even using a dual throttle if you have one.
Independent brakes would be good. Controlling speed from any position other than driver, not so sure about. There is enough dweeb stuff going on without making it easier to be a dweeb...the current system take some getting used to but it can be done fairly rapidly.
-
in airplanes? the bottom of my plane. they do 120 to 0 in about 2 seconds.
semp
Well that's why you cant grasp AWwrgwys simple (and correct) statement. Those of us that have learned to land know that there is all ready the capability within AH for a left and right break control on airplanes. So extending that capability to a GV should be pretty straight forward.
-
There is enough dweeb stuff going on without making it easier to be a dweeb...the current system take some getting used to but it can be done fairly rapidly.
well a tank commander could steer and control speed from the turret, although not directly.
-
As noted above, most WWII era tanks could not put one track in forward, the other in reverse and do a zero radius turn.
Most could and would use the brakes to tighten a normal moving forward or reverse turn.
Adding track brakes to ground vehicles would be a logical next step.
Adding independent clutching and the ability for the tiger to have one in forward and one in reverse really doesn't seem that vital.
As for anyone who is to lazy to lower his gear or reach for a key to apply brakes. Well all I can do is hope HT makes getting a successful landing that way harder. :)
-
Independent brakes would be good. Controlling speed from any position other than driver, not so sure about. There is enough dweeb stuff going on without making it easier to be a dweeb...the current system take some getting used to but it can be done fairly rapidly.
I see nothing wrong with being able to control speed from other positions. What your saying is that a tank commander only had the ability to tell the driver to go left or right but for some unknown reason couldn't say forward, reverse, slow down or stop?
Also i never did understand why the GV throttle wasn't linked to stick throttle. Seems to me it would be like having a gas peddle, the way it is now is like the driver is having some form of major leg cramp and his foot is mashed down on the accelerator all the time......
-
Well that's why you cant grasp AWwrgwys simple (and correct) statement. Those of us that have learned to land know that there is all ready the capability within AH for a left and right break control on airplanes. So extending that capability to a GV should be pretty straight forward.
I didnt say i didnt grasp it, i just dont use it. I dont see the point of spending a lot of money on a stick just so I dont have to use the keyboard. I am lucky enough to have stick, pedals and throttle, some people dont. I dont see the need to have individual brakes to control the tank. you want realism then a better option would be to make sure the tank cant fire while moving or maybe stop those 5k kills. and yeah sure how many tanks landed airplane kills in ww2 with the main turret?
btw there's another recent thread that agrees that to individually control each engine on airplanes doesnt really give anybody an advantage.
semp
-
GV's with proper throttle control is a must. Also independant "C/V" braking would be nice. +1
-
Why would this wish make you spend more money?
If you all ready have rudder pedals you could map the right and left breaks for GV's, just like you can currently with aircraft breaks. As for your other historical issue, my grandfathers best friend was a Canadian Sherman driver in WW2. And he said they did fire on the move (abet horribly inaccurately) so I don't see any reason to remove that from the game. getting kills as extreme range is another issue, but that's going to take much more detailed work to show an issue with the AH model.
I really don't care for getting shot down by a main gun either but, there needs to be much more proof to show why it shouldn't happen. I suspect it has to do with the damage model and how HTC models the HE fuse for a tank gun. My personal opinion is that I think that unless the round hits something substantial (i.e. armor plating, wing spar, big cast metal parts) it would probably be more likely to pass through without exploding. But this may be all ready modeled, and we just can't tell.
I just don't see anything in your position that would change anyone's mind about the validity of this wish.
-
I see nothing wrong with being able to control speed from other positions. What your saying is that a tank commander only had the ability to tell the driver to go left or right but for some unknown reason couldn't say forward, reverse, slow down or stop?
Get a driver in the tank and problem solved. As you said, the tank commander gives the driver instructions, he doesn't control the entire movement of the tank including gear changes, from the turret. Having that control puts the GVs in AH in the arcade console realm of cartoon dweeb. I'm guessing you don't have any issues with the current capabilities even with the knowledge that the level of accuracy attainable in a tank traveling 30mph off road was not possible in reality.
Oh yeah, I keep forgetting, it's just a game...but then that negates all of the arguments for having zero turn or individual braking capabilities.
-
Get a driver in the tank and problem solved.
this...is...so...MUCH...FUN!!!
-
you want realism then a better option would be to make sure the tank cant fire while moving
WWII tanks couldnt fire on the move? :headscratch:
-
As both my kills and score suggest, I mostly GV. Personally, I would love to be able to brake one track. Often times my view is just barely obscured by a tree, or one side of my tank is just barely peaking out around a burm and I'm forced to back up, adjust my angle, and then pull forward. It would be much nicer if I could just hit C or V and push forward on my stick.
-
its especially needed in AH with the flipping trees, whenever I need to maneuver a tank in a tight spot I'm reminded of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLKR9tCiwvA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLKR9tCiwvA)
-
What we really need to do is make trees stop flipping 50 ton tigers and 30ton (I'm guessing here) panzers. We also need to remove the tank fliping hemp bushes that are almost identicle to their cousins you can drive over.
-
What we really need to do is make trees stop flipping 50 ton tigers and 30ton (I'm guessing here) panzers. We also need to remove the tank fliping hemp bushes that are almost identicle to their cousins you can drive over.
That would make things just as good as having zero turn capability for me.
-
+1
-
And does anyone know if HTC has ever said what the POINT of having them in the game is? It seems their soul purpose is to piss GV'ers off, since they only stop bullets/shells from tanks, and not the bullets/cannon rounds (B25's 75mm excluded) from aircraft. I have yet to hear any sort of explanation for their existance other than as a hinderance to GV's.
-
ok seriously, the tree flipping problem goes with the extreme difficulty of coading the GV damage model. HTC says its very hard to do without ruining the GVs. The trees kind of have a very BIG place in a tacticians point of view...USE them to your advantage nemesis...
-
Yes, but I can all but see the gears turning in HT's head: "hmmm.... I should make all the ground objects flip all the gv's at the slightest touch, so they make better targets for aircraft. I should also make the teees stop the blast from 4000lb bombs, just so I can screw with people."