Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: jerry54 on December 30, 2010, 09:10:36 PM
-
How about adding LST assult ship's to the game, they have AAA guns, they deliver tanks, troops,supplies or what ever they are assigned to carry, they could be with or with out a fleet, these ship's were very important in WW2 and would help a lot assulting far away port's or shore based fields, not to mention sneek attacks, it would add a whole new deminsion to the game
-
then wat would be the point of lvts
-
lvt's have to stay with the carrier's, lst can be independent, and they also deliver and off load directly on the beach with a much better chance of surviveablity b/c of their off loading speed, not sitting ducks a mile or two out in the sea. an lst is also a much smaller than an entire cv group and can beach miles away, lvt's dont carry tanks, werbels, fast m3's fast jeeps for supplies, any gv can be loaded on a lst, and a lot of them
-
lvt's have to stay with the carrier's, lst can be independent, and they also deliver and off load directly on the beach with a much better chance of surviveablity b/c of their off loading speed, not sitting ducks a mile or two out in the sea. an lst is also a much smaller than an entire cv group and can beach miles away, lvt's dont carry tanks, werbels, fast m3's fast jeeps for supplies, any gv can be loaded on a lst, and a lot of them
roll gv's from another base? also it would kill off the lvt because the lst would deliver troops and has a few AAA guns
-1000 :rolleyes:
-
roll gv's from another base? also it would kill off the lvt because the lst would deliver troops and has a few AAA guns
-1000 :rolleyes:
LS"TANK" yes it can land troops. but how would the troops run to the map room? not all towns are by the beach. I have actually taken an LVT from the opposite side of a fight to sneak a base from 10 miles away (yeah i was that patient)
An LST will do nothing more but provide a better fight for the CV groups
-
troops get on m3's on the LST,
-
troops get on m3's on the LST,
dont put the M3 on the LST? simple conclusion to the argument... tank only
-
:confused:
-
:confused:
owned :aok :rofl
-
LS"TANK" yes it can land troops. but how would the troops run to the map room? not all towns are by the beach. I have actually taken an LVT from the opposite side of a fight to sneak a base from 10 miles away (yeah i was that patient)
An LST will do nothing more but provide a better fight for the CV groups
yeah but imagine panzers, tigers, t34s, panthers m4's fireflys and m3s all rolling off a few LSTs. it would completely kill the idea of gving from another base and it would make base taking alot easier than it already is.
And on another note you have to be crazy to drive 10 miles in an lvt... :banana:
-
yeah but imagine panzers, tigers, t34s, panthers m4's fireflys and m3s all rolling off a few LSTs. it would completely kill the idea of gving from another base and it would make base taking alot easier than it already is.
And on another note you have to be crazy to drive 10 miles in an lvt... :banana:
so youre saying put a tiger on an LST that was American? M4/75s and M4/76s were used on them.
-
so youre saying put a tiger on an LST that was American? M4/75s and M4/76s were used on them.
he never specified what kind of tanks...kind of how we have different gv's (tigers m4's panthers t34's) rolling out of a hangar. it really doesnt matter because were not axis/allies in the MA's
-
i think sticking a tiger on an LST would be overkill :O
-
he never specified what kind of tanks...kind of how we have different gv's (tigers m4's panthers t34's) rolling out of a hangar. it really doesnt matter because were not axis/allies in the MA's
yet we are still historically accurate when it comes to how we use the planes and vehicles we have. putting a tiger on an LST is like putting hispanos on A6Ms
-
LST-1179! ftw!
-
yet we are still historically accurate when it comes to how we use the planes and vehicles we have. putting a tiger on an LST is like putting hispanos on A6Ms
why does it matter if we are historically accurate? its just a game and the only time it matters is in the AvA
-
hispanos on A6Ms
Perk the carrier-bourne tiger, and hizooka zeke!
-
yeah but imagine panzers, tigers, t34s, panthers m4's fireflys and m3s all rolling off a few LSTs. it would completely kill the idea of gving from another base and it would make base taking alot easier than it already is.
And on another note you have to be crazy to drive 10 miles in an lvt... :banana:
(http://www.gogaminggiant.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/facepalm.jpg)
-
yet we are still historically accurate when it comes to how we use the planes and vehicles we have. putting a tiger on an LST is like putting hispanos on A6Ms
Well in that case, no more Japanese planes taking off from American carriers. (Or vice-versa.)
No more Lanc-stukas.
No more turn fighting 262's.
No more hordes consisting of mixed aircraft.
No more etc. etc. etc. (See where I'm going with this?)
+1 For the LVT (and towable arty please.)
-
Well in that case, no more Japanese planes taking off from American carriers. (Or vice-versa.)
No more Lanc-stukas.
No more turn fighting 262's.
No more hordes consisting of mixed aircraft.
No more etc. etc. etc. (See where I'm going with this?)
+1 For the LVT (and towable arty please.)
hmm... lets think. turn fighting 262s... a 262 could turn the way it does in game. lanc stukas... they could do that in real life... You honestly think theyre gonna throw what you said as number one as anything valid? hordes of mixed aircraft in MAs ok...
No i dont see where youre going with this because there is a difference between historically accurate loadouts and weaponry and historically accurate gameplay. Never get the two mixed :rolleyes:
What you are doing melvin is being sarcastic to try and make an invalid point to an argument that has no merit. Please hang up and try again later... :aok
LSTs did not carry german armor therefore why in the world would it be in there for the loadout?
-
(http://www.gogaminggiant.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/facepalm.jpg)
im patient sometimes :D how bout you? :aok
-
hmm... lets think. turn fighting 262s... a 262 could turn the way it does in game. lanc stukas... they could do that in real life... You honestly think theyre gonna throw what you said as number one as anything valid? hordes of mixed aircraft in MAs ok...
No i dont see where youre going with this because there is a difference between historically accurate loadouts and weaponry and historically accurate gameplay. Never get the two mixed :rolleyes:
What you are doing melvin is being sarcastic to try and make an invalid point to an argument that has no merit. Please hang up and try again later... :aok
LSTs did not carry german armor therefore why in the world would it be in there for the loadout?
Zeros did not fly off American carriers into battle. Therefore why would it happen in AH?
-
Zeros did not fly off American carriers into battle. Therefore why would it happen in AH?
Because it is the only carrier we have and there are many more necessary things needed to be added other than a whole new fleet system. Because if you want that road. give us Jap Destroyers, cruisers, etc also. Which would take alot of time to model all of this correctly... HTC also wants subs and FPS style combat too added in. you expect that anytime soon without revamping a few things?
-
I would love to see all those things implemented. I'm aware that there is a lot involved and that if it happens, it won't be for a long time.
This is the "wishlist" forum, and the "wish" was for LST's. I'm all for these too.
My argument was that the current state of carrier ops isn't exactly historically accurate, therefore it is a moot point to call out the accuracy of putting a German tank on an American landing craft. (Actually, it's ALL moot as we don't have said craft.)
If everything that you suggested as far as different fleets for different countries was implemented, then I could see the validity of the "no Tiger" argument. I'd still +1 the LST, due to the fact that American iron could get the job done just as easily. This begs a whole new question.
Did the Axis forces have a similar piece of equipment?
-
My argument was that the current state of carrier ops isn't exactly historically accurate, therefore it is a moot point to call out the accuracy of putting a German tank on an American landing craft. (Actually, it's ALL moot as we don't have said craft.)
If everything that you suggested as far as different fleets for different countries was implemented, then I could see the validity of the "no Tiger" argument. I'd still +1 the LST, due to the fact that American iron could get the job done just as easily. This begs a whole new question.
Did the Axis forces have a similar piece of equipment?
You still do not see the point. :rolleyes: we have historically accurate loadouts and HTC WILL NOT DEFER FROM THIS. LSTs didnt carry german armor in WWII therefore we would not either. Its historically accurate loadout would be M4A3s and possibly light M8s M16s etc.
-
You still do not see the point. :rolleyes: we have historically accurate loadouts and HTC WILL NOT DEFER FROM THIS. LSTs didnt carry german armor in WWII therefore we would not either. Its historically accurate loadout would be M4A3s and possibly light M8s M16s etc.
I think my argument is going right over your head BAR.
Could someone please help him out with this?
-
I think my argument is going right over your head BAR.
Could someone please help him out with this?
i will help-BAR the argument going on here is about the LST itself, prefferably just having one added and not the loadouts.
Does that help?
-
i will help-BAR the argument going on here is about the LST itself, prefferably just having one added and not the loadouts.
Does that help?
:aok
-
:aok
my pleasure melvin
-
Both Bar and Melvin have good arguments,except,ya'll are actually talking about two different things.Melvin is talking about the planes themselves and how they are used.What Bar is talking about is what those planes carry.What Bar is trying to say is HTC doesnt have multi-country armaments for planes,and he wants the tanks to be a load out option for the LST. Thats why he used the example of putting Hispanos on Zeros.Thats why he doesnt want a Tiger on the LST,but if you find a German LST I will say have at it and get your one an army landing craft lol.
-
I think my argument is going right over your head BAR.
Could someone please help him out with this?
what monkey said. it was never over my head. you just need to see that it would most likely be a loadout selection in the hangar as what to drive off the LST. and this will not include any other armor but american/british
-
what monkey said. it was never over my head. you just need to see that it would most likely be a loadout selection in the hangar as what to drive off the LST. and this will not include any other armor but american/british
:aok
-
what monkey said. it was never over my head. you just need to see that it would most likely be a loadout selection in the hangar as what to drive off the LST. and this will not include any other armor but american/british
what "british" armor do we have other than the firefly?
-
Brits used the M8, and Sherman tanks...
-
and he never said there was more than one type of British armor that we use in AH :P
-
what "british" armor do we have other than the firefly?
just because i said brit doesnt mean i thought more than the firefly was brit.. second, much later on in this game's development there will most likely be crusaders/cromwells/comets/churchills too... :rolleyes: why must everyone argue with me? :rolleyes:
-
just because i said brit doesnt mean i thought more than the firefly was brit.. second, much later on in this game's development there will most likely be crusaders/cromwells/comets/churchills too... :rolleyes: why must everyone argue with me? :rolleyes:
well this is the BBS what do you expect? arguing is in almost every wishlist thread...
-
true
-
A simple solution to this might be to allow the LST in the game but not allow it to land vehicles unless the nearby base is dropped to a certain level (i.e. nor ord, no radar, no troops, etc, etc). This would represent the fact that LST's did not land and drop their vehicles until a beach head was established. I know this is not the nest solution if at all a solution but it may open up other ideas to this concept but still keeping it histoical in the fact that LST's did not hit the beach until after assualt troops had cleared the beach and moved inland. LST does stand for Large Slow Target!!!!
BigKev
-
A simple solution to this might be to allow the LST in the game but not allow it to land vehicles unless the nearby base is dropped to a certain level (i.e. nor ord, no radar, no troops, etc, etc). This would represent the fact that LST's did not land and drop their vehicles until a beach head was established. I know this is not the nest solution if at all a solution but it may open up other ideas to this concept but still keeping it histoical in the fact that LST's did not hit the beach until after assualt troops had cleared the beach and moved inland. LST does stand for Large Slow Target!!!!
BigKev
scratch this idea... one word "perks" :aok perk all GVs that are used on an LST
-
scratch this idea... one word "perks" :aok perk all GVs that are used on an LST
:rofl oh hell no!
-
:rofl oh hell no!
and why is this bad?? most GVers have more than 1000 perks. and it is very easy to get perks so why wouldnt this be a good idea? :headscratch:
-
and why is this bad?? most GVers have more than 1000 perks. and it is very easy to get perks so why wouldnt this be a good idea? :headscratch:
seriously? perking a perked gv on an LST would be pointless! (M4's aint free ya know) btw with my 8 months of being on AH i was hardly able to get 300 perks, and that was in the fighter sorties
-
I would bet a lot of the negative forum trolls (http://image.wetpaint.com/image/2/0zINPx8yjz_jC4TPzI0iUw28602/GW80H88)
here voted for the B-29- guffaw! we need a new emoticon for guffaw! B-29 what a waste of resources. This is an interesting Idea and all some of you can do it criticize. :huh
-
seriously? perking a perked gv on an LST would be pointless! (M4's aint free ya know) btw with my 8 months of being on AH i was hardly able to get 300 perks, and that was in the fighter sorties
so a 5 perk GV on an LST isnt 300... most of us will be able to use an LST. and they wont be using the LST freely while theres a huge cap over the base/enemies nearby
-
I would bet a lot of the negative forum trolls (http://image.wetpaint.com/image/2/0zINPx8yjz_jC4TPzI0iUw28602/GW80H88)
here voted for the B-29- guffaw! we need a new emoticon for guffaw! B-29 what a waste of resources. This is an interesting Idea and all some of you can do it criticize. :huh
called fine tuning a wish to make it available for game use... :aok we like the wish then think of ways to implement it. and those two keep shooting down everything i add to the idea
-
so a 5 perk GV on an LST isnt 300... most of us will be able to use an LST. and they wont be using the LST freely while theres a huge cap over the base/enemies nearby
ok if there isnt a huge cap over the field, you dont waste your time using it.
if there are a good amount of enemies you still dont use it.
when you do use it is when there is nobody around but you so you sit there forever until something shows up? im not really into that idea... :uhoh
-
ok if there isnt a huge cap over the field, you dont waste your time using it.
if there are a good amount of enemies you still dont use it.
when you do use it is when there is nobody around but you so you sit there forever until something shows up? im not really into that idea... :uhoh
so youre the type who wont spend one perk or 5 perks on a GV huh? M4 76 is one perk. do the same for LSTs
-
so youre the type who wont spend one perk or 5 perks on a GV huh? M4 76 is one perk. do the same for LSTs
i dont use perkrides...i always loose them and i never can earn back the points to use it ever again. i got lucky with a 262 before...but almost every time i get a perkride i loose it and im set back to almost ZERO perks.
thats my reason...
-
i dont use perkrides...i always loose them and i never can earn back the points to use it ever again. i got lucky with a 262 before...but almost every time i get a perkride i loose it and im set back to almost ZERO perks.
thats my reason...
fly better lol jk,I know how you feel i was in a tiger and got strafed by an IL-2 and lost a tred right next to the spawn :furious
-
I'd pay 1 perk for the ability to launch a tank from an LST.
As long as it's a Tiger. :neener:
-
fly better lol jk,I know how you feel i was in a tiger and got strafed by an IL-2 and lost a tred right next to the spawn :furious
that is why i never up any perked gv's...im usually stuck in a panzer until i get about 30 perks then die in my tiger and loose it all
also every time i upped a 262 i have augered right as i landed...i get a good amount of kills (4 or so) then smack into the dirt afterwards
-
I dont see why not an LST or why not let a Tiger come off it.
Point 1- Tanks woudlnt be firing from LTS's
Point 2 - Not all shore bases have spawns from other bases
Point 3- As for the Tiger. someone will just up an IL2 with its Warthog like depleted uranium cannons and just knock it out anyway just like they do now when it spawns in from any other spawn point.
The Tiger would not be a game changer.
but if you wanted to exclude the Tiger. that would be ok on different grounds.
Im not sure it would fit in an LST
(http://veteransbreakfastclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/LST-with-tank.jpg)
Tiger
Width with wide combat track . . . . 12 feet 3 inches
Width with narrow transport track . . . .10 feet 4 inches.
http://www.lonesentry.com/tm_tigertank/index.html
Sherman It is 8 ft 7 in wide
http://www.dimensionsguide.com/m4-sherman-dimensions/
-
The loading ramp is 14ft wide by 23ft long I had looked into this before aswel out of sheer curiosity :)
-
did that in ma one time, had 7 kills in a 262, I was comming in perfectly and i was so happy i got that many kills i didnt notice i had twisty stick turned all the way :joystick: , then BAM.me and the dirt became very acquainted
-
so youre the type who wont spend one perk or 5 perks on a GV huh? M4 76 is one perk. do the same for LSTs
Nothing wrong with that idea... :salute
-
Nothing wrong with that idea... :salute
along with that. people would be more cautious in using them due to the fact that the tanks in the LSTs will not be able to be used until landing.