Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Nemisis on June 20, 2010, 04:07:29 PM
-
I want something light and fast, that still has a decent level of AT capabilites. Around 800 produced, and carried 59 75mm rounds.
Would be very easy to do, since it uses the same M3 gun as the M4 sherman (meaning its already coaded). This would be our first tank destroyer, and would be a good test to see how the limited traverse would affect others.
Sure its lightly armored, but it can out run anything it can't out hit.
-
Oh, found another one. How about the M6? Its a WC-52 Dodge with a 37mm gun mounted on the back. Might be interesting at the very least.
-
Dont know if this would be used in the anti tank role as it could only penetrate 3.2 - 2.8 inches of armor at abotu 500 yds at best. Now if given HE rounds I think it would be good for base/town killing. The open top though is a weakness thought. But I like all new vehicles that enhance he play of the game. I like it because it would fit good in early war and mid war.
BigKev
-
M-18 :aok :x
-
Stuart Tank? I say yes. :aok
-
Kev, it uses the same gun as the M4A3(75), and thats at least usable up close or on someone's flanks (its mounted on a damn M3 for christ's sake. You can out run any tank, so I don't think flanking will be a problem). You can kill a T-34/76 in one shot at at least 1000yds. I know the T-34 has more than 81mm of armor (factoring in the slope).
Also, HE rounds WERE used, so you could get 59HE round to the town as fast as an M3 can get there. It would be a faster, more powerful LVTA4 when carrying them. Personally, I see no reason for excluding it, as it will add something that will improve the game, which is always good.
But honestly, I think this would be a good test for tank destroyers. And since it would require a minimal ammount of change, I figure that it wouldn't be too much to ask for.
-
I like the idea of a small and fast hard hitting but yet easy to kill vehicle. Moving fast (55mph+), being smaller than a tank (harder to hit), and waiting in ambush would be the bane of many tankers. Having one of these fend off or slow down an incoming gv horde would be its shining moment.
The M3A1 GMC would fit the bill nicely. It would be "easy" to add all things considering.
-
Like the SP gun and German Tank Destroyer wishes, you would have limited traverse of the gun. Otherwise, why not?
wrongway
-
I like the idea of a small and fast hard hitting but yet easy to kill vehicle. Moving fast (55mph+), being smaller than a tank (harder to hit), and waiting in ambush would be the bane of many tankers. Having one of these fend off or slow down an incoming gv horde would be its shining moment.
thats one of those missions were you get lots of medals,,,, but they send them to your family!
-
AWwrgwy, the reason I asked for the M3A1 GMC as opposed to say, the Marder II, is that if it turns out to be a failure, all that will be wasted is maybe two days of work, rather than several weeks to a month.
Also, I don't think the limited traverse will be much of a problem, given the shoot and scoot tactics that will likely be required.
-
Actually the T48 57 mm GMC would make a lot of sense, my understanding is the russians replaced the US 57mm with the Russian 57mm which was a bit more powerful....
-
AWwrgwy, the reason I asked for the M3A1 GMC as opposed to say, the Marder II, is that if it turns out to be a failure, all that will be wasted is maybe two days of work, rather than several weeks to a month.
Also, I don't think the limited traverse will be much of a problem, given the shoot and scoot tactics that will likely be required.
What makes you think it would only take two days of work? HTC would most likely redo the M3 chassis model before adding more variants to the line. It would make more sense to add the Sdkfz 251/22 since we already have a new SDKFZ 251 chassis.
*EDIT* I would like to add though that I would love to see the M3A1 GMC added to the game. :)
-
Like the SP gun and German Tank Destroyer wishes, you would have limited traverse of the gun. Otherwise, why not?
wrongway
simple to use, and easy to kill :aok unless its the German TDs :O But i still want my M-18 first.
-
Beefcake, it was just an M3 tank gun mounted on an M3 halftrack. It used the same engine, same chassis, same transmistion. All HTC would have to do is model the changes to the superstructure, model the other half of the M3 gun (you can see it from the turret my moving your head possition), and slap it on top.
Just like the M6 GMC was just a regular WC-52 with a 37mm gun mounted in the back. They didn't have to change anything about it. In fact, it says they couldn't depress the gun to 0degrees when facing forward because the windshield, driver, and whoever was sitting in the passanger seat got in the way.
How long do you honestly think it will take to change the shape of the M3 superstructure, create a mirror image of the M3 gun, and put it on top? Provided they don't start from scratch.
-
How long do you honestly think it will take to change the shape of the M3 superstructure, create a mirror image of the M3 gun, and put it on top? Provided they don't start from scratch.
it'd take alot longer than you'd think. coading takes a long time.
-
I guess. Some how still I have trouble seeing HiTech clacking away at a computer for days at a time to change the shape of an object.
So, do they actually write the code by hand, kinda like binary code? Or do they have a content creation program, where they create the shape they want, and the program coads it? Seems like that would be the way to go, if possible.
-
Creating even a variant of an existing vehicle or plane takes time. HTC has already said they will never reveal how long it takes to do this process so it could be a few days like you say or it could be a month or longer. Only HTC knows and honestly thats the way I think it should be. You also have to look at this logically, why in the world would HT and the crew waste time to create a new gun model but attach it to the outdated M3 chassis? HTC can correct me if I'm wrong but I would think they would remodel the M3 chassis before bringing new variants into the game.
Although I have nothing against the M3 GMC, 321BAR's constant request for an M18 would make more sense for a 50mph tank destroyer. It's faster than the M3 GMC, it has a turret which would be the bane of the M3 GMC, and it's better armored overall.
-
I cant see HTC re-modeling the M3/M16 so they can add the M3A1. the M3 is of the same category as remodeling the the "troops" that head into the map room. The M3 might look nicer, but a remodel I doubt would change its speed, turn radius, gear ratio, cargo capacity, etc.
Again, Im not a coader, but one would think that adding the M1A1 gun to the rear of the M3 would be about as easy as it gets for adding in new vehicles into the AH game. Same goes for the SdKfz 251/22 by simply adding in the Pak 40 75mm AT gun (same as Pzr IV).
-
Thats just it Loon, it would requre nothing more than asthetic changes, and adding then gun on top (mounted toward the front actually). Aside from the changes to the superstructure to accomidate the gun, it was unchanged. And the SdKfz 251/22 would be a nice addition as well. It would better show how tank destroyers would be used in the game, and what impact they would have.
Come to think of it, we would probably need an ENY change for that one; you could just list the M3A1 as 35, and that would work. But the SdKfz 251/22's gun is too powerful for an ENY of 35, but it would be too easily destoyed for an ENY of 25.
Tiger: 5
Sherman firefly: 10
T-34/85: 15
M4A3(76)W:20
Panzer IV:20
SdKfz 251/22:25
T-34/76:30
M4A3(75):30
LVTA4:35
M3A1 GMC:35
M8:35
-
HTC can correct me if I'm wrong but I would think they would remodel the M3 chassis before bringing new variants into the game.
You're pretty much spot on. It would be a terrible waste of development resources and time to add an object to a model using AH1 graphic standards. All that means is additional resources later down the line when the M3 is eventually upgraded to AH2 standards, basically doing a job twice when you could have done it once.
Not saying it would be a difficult job but it would take some time because you'd have to create a new model, new graphics and animations to fit the AH2 standards in addition to any new objects that are added (like the 75mm cannon) would also have to be up to AH2 standards.
Would be cool to have but it is a wish that should be low on the priority list but when the time comes to update the M3 model, would be nice to see a M3 GMC varient.
ack-ack
-
You're pretty much spot on. It would be a terrible waste of development resources and time to add and object to a model using AH1 graphic standards. All that means is additional resources later down the line when the M3 is eventually upgraded to AH2 standards, basically doing a job twice when you could have done it once.
Not saying it would be a difficult job but it would take some time because you'd have to create a new model, new graphics and animations to fit the AH2 standards in addition to any new objects that are added (like the 75mm cannon) would also have to be up to AH2 standards.
Would be cool to have but it is a wish that should be low on the priority list but when the time comes to update the M3 model, would be nice to see a M3 GMC varient.
ack-ack
Yea,,,, You wouldn't feel that way if it was a JEEP!!!!! lol joke!
-
Ah, I wasn't aware that the M3 used AH 1 graphics. So if the M3A1 GMC is out of the question for now, can we at least get the SdKfz 251/22? It would probably better represent a tank destroyer too, seeing as its gun is better, and more like what we would see. Plus, those things can be damn hard to see from the ground; IDK why, I guess they're just small.
-
Ah, I wasn't aware that the M3 used AH 1 graphics. So if the M3A1 GMC is out of the question for now, can we at least get the SdKfz 251/22? It would probably better represent a tank destroyer too, seeing as its gun is better, and more like what we would see. Plus, those things can be damn hard to see from the ground; IDK why, I guess they're just small.
The SdKfz 251 seems to be able to fend off MG and light cannon fire a bit longer than the M3 as well. I know the armor is almost identical, but the sloping of the armor or the smaller opening in the top rear area must have something to do with it being able to survive longer. The big advantage the M3A1 has over the 251 is speed (double the speed!)
-
Yea,,,, You wouldn't feel that way if it was a JEEP!!!!! lol joke!
Being a Jeep owner, of course I wouldn't! :D
ack-ack
-
Yup loon. The M3A1 might be able to scoot fast enough to get out of the search area (of enemy aircraft), while the 251 would be unlikely to do so. The M3A1 has speed, the 251/22 has its gun and a bit better armor.