Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Beefcake on July 20, 2011, 09:04:55 PM
-
Flameproof Undies - Check
With the introduction of the Tiger 2 I'd like to throw out an idea on the regards to perk tanks. Perk tanks are fun to drive and can be tough beasts on the battlefield, however, most of the time they're at the mercy of attacking aircraft with little chance to defend themselves. Because of this it can somewhat ruin the fun of trying to use heavy tanks in a GV battle since they're usually singled out and bombed to death.
What I would like to propose is the removal or reduction in loss of perk points when a perk tank is killed by an aircraft. My logic is tanks can't runaway when in trouble like most perk aircraft, they can't really hide since there is limited cover, and unless the attacking aircraft comes in insanely low the tank as almost no chance of shooting down the plane. The problem is you can't reduce the perk cost of heavy tanks other wise that's all anyone would ever use, so instead you kinda separate the "perk point battlefield" if you will.
I guess what I'm trying to say is I'd like to use perk tanks more liberally where my primary threat when it comes to perk loss is other tanks. Aircraft are still the dominant threat to tanks but the loss of a perk tank to a plane won't hurt as much as it will to other tanks.
Thoughts? Flames? Popcorn?
-
Personally i think The perks awarded to the pilot who gets the bomb****-kill on the GV should be reduced.
When they realize they could make more perkies per kill in a gv vs gv instead of bomb vs gv they may shy away from using aircraft in favor for the higher perk-earnage choice.
:salute
-
When they realize they could make more perkies per kill in a gv vs gv instead of bomb vs gv they may shy away from using aircraft in favor for the higher perk-earnage choice.
If players would think that way, the ENY P-51D and Spit 16 wouldn't be the most popular rides by a huge margin. And the main airborne tank killers would be B5N and Hurri D.
Perks are not that important for the majority. Getting a quick and easy kills is. Less perks for killing tanks planes wouldn't change anything in the rain of bombs going down on the tankers.
-
Not a bad idea. I still think that there should also be a region around the spawn points where vehicles used in an attack can fall back to and 'land successfully' regardless of enemy proximity.
-
Massive FlaK batteries around GV spawns :noid.
+1, I can't tell you how many times I've had a good fight going, me and another tiger slugging it out at long range, and boom, I can hear an 'effing cookie dropped my way. Since the cookie gives the kill to the lanc pilot, I loose my perks, have a fun fight ruined, AND don't even get to know who I was fighting.
I'd say you loose 1/3rd of your perks when killed by a plane. It means theres less of a reward for bomb****s (often they do it to screw tankers out of their perks), it makes it harder for the "No fair, you're not allowed to shoot me :cry!" crowd to ruin a fight because they're upset, and it leaves the aircraft's ability to defend a base and uncamp a spawn perfectly intact.
-
Great idea, +1 :cheers:
-
perk or not perked when I hear bombs falling on me, I bail. a ditch only takes away some of the perks and fighter gets no kills.
semp
-
perk or not perked when I hear bombs falling on me, I bail. a ditch only takes away some of the perks and fighter gets no kills.
semp
That is not cool in my book. I expect to get the kills I worked for and I give the kills others worked for.
-
dropping a bomb on a gv is not working on a kill, I drop lots of them and wish they didn't earn perks unless you are in an airplane that was designed for it like the il2 or ju87.
anyway I like the idea proposed.
semp
-
From the front page:
While it may be the apex predator in tank to tank battles, don't leave your air superiority at home
Sage advice.
wrongway
-
dropping a bomb on a gv is not working on a kill, I drop lots of them and wish they didn't earn perks unless you are in an airplane that was designed for it like the il2 or ju87.
anyway I like the idea proposed.
semp
If I spend 15 minutes lugging a bomb and then drop it accurately, then I earned that kill just as much as anything else.
-
-100,000,000 :furious So you all want to eliminate realism in game? Ground support and air support go hand and hand as they did in real life. so why take away from that? ITS YOUR RISK FOR NOT HAVING FIGHTER CAP OR AA COVER I got SHOT DOWN, by a t34 from 2.5 k away just today by LTGOAT, i think your fine. However, beefcakes idea is honorable due to the fact that aircraft still get there kills yet Gvers don't lose as much.
-
-100,000,000 :furious So you all want to eliminate realism in game? Ground support and air support go hand and hand as they did in real life. so why take away from that? ITS YOUR RISK FOR NOT HAVING FIGHTER CAP OR AA COVER I got shot by a t34 from 2.5 k away just today by LTGOAT, i think your fine...
How would it eliminate that? You'd still be quite capable of bombing the perk tank into oblivion, stopping the its threat on the battlefield.
-
How would it eliminate that? You'd still be quite capable of bombing the perk tank into oblivion, stopping the its threat on the battlefield.
I understand. People wanting to get rid of air to ground support nearly all together is what angers me, partly because that's the true area i shine in game. Not only that but Air to ground support was HUGE in WWII. Its to my understanding aircraft were one of the hugest threats to GVs in WWII and so should they here.
Imagine, what if air to ground support never showed up or attacked any GVs in all of France prior and during DDAY. Either we would of lost or suffered more than enough casualties. :confused:
-
Massive FlaK batteries around GV spawns
[/quote
So you all want to eliminate realism in game?
Adding onto Tank Ace's idea, have flak batteries and an outpost to spawn points make it more realistic.
+1
-
My Simple solution is remove the Icons for tanks for aircraft, and make them actually spot the GV's on the ground like they did in real life. If tankers can't have Icon against other tankers, then we could make it harder for aircraft to spot GV's rather then aircraft flying in at 4k and spotting us right away.
Would mean tankers need to use cover and not drive out in the open, still you will be bombed into oblivion, just not as quick.
-
My Simple solution is remove the Icons for tanks for aircraft, and make them actually spot the GV's on the ground like they did in real life. If tankers can't have Icon against other tankers, then we could make it harder for aircraft to spot GV's rather then aircraft flying in at 4k and spotting us right away.
Would mean tankers need to use cover and not drive out in the open, still you will be bombed into oblivion, just not as quick.
Agreed. Anything to thwart the bomb****s would be a good thing.
-
These are giant loud behemoths. They did not blend in well. Behind a tree line they could hide from ground troops or other tanks, with a LOT of foliage strapped to them. However, you could hear the roar of the engines for miles and feel the vibrations in the air and on the ground for some distance.
They were not freely able to move around with aircraft overhead... EVER. They were primary targets for aircraft, and were mercilessly strafed/attacked/rocketed/bombed in all theaters.
What you ask for is pure magic cloak wizardry because you don't want to get killed. Well big whoop. I don't like it when spawn campers have me ranged the second I spawn. Should we implement magical force fields to stop rounds mid-air because I don't like that? No. Should we implement magical invisibility fields? No also.
The human eyes sees a &%!@#&^!@%#&*!@%^ load more than any representation this game can put forth. I've looked out the window of an airliner banking in a turn over a major city (Dallas, if I recall) while over 30,000 feet and I could make out individual cars on the highways, semi trucks, busses. Maybe not makes and models or even details, but I could spot them with enough clarity from 30,000.
If you want to hide get air support or don't tank under an enemy horde. That's the lesson the Germans learned in WW2, you should pick it up pretty fast.
-
From what i know german panazers had foliage on them and camo netting the confuse allied aircraft flying over head. how about when GVs use foliage and hide near or in the brush they cant be spotted at 1.5k but insted at 500 or so.
(http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/tanks-medium/pzkpfw-v-medium-tank/pzkpfw-v-panther-medium-tank-panzer-regiment-33-going-to-normandy-june-1944-01.png)
-
Here is a plan the never fails to stop bomb**** at a GV spawn and it work every single time. Take the time to go PORK THE ORDS at the offending base. They can resupply and that is find. If the are driving M-3s to resupply they ain't bombing you. bomb**** types are lazy and most likely will not resupply anything.
-
There is a difference between static hiding camo and actual combat conditions.
WW2 aircraft also hid under nets, had palm fronds draped over the top of them, hid in half-buried revetments, etc...
But that's not what they looked like when in use. Keep in mind tank crews lived with their tank. They camped, ate, lounged on this thing. When it was moving towards a target and preparing to fire its gun, it wasn't invisible.
P.S. Metal your pic is of a tank on a railroad car. They would be on these for a while and when the train was parked they needed as much camo as possible. This was not a combat condition.
-
Here is a plan the never fails to stop bomber at a GV spawn and it work every single time. Take the time to go PORK THE ORDS at the offending base. They can resupply and that is find. If the are driving M-3s to resupply they ain't bombing you. bomber types are lazy and most likely will not resupply anything.
I can still kill any tank with no ords, except maybe the tiger :D.
semp
-
Since it seems that the gv icons aren't going away, how about having all gv icons the same(something besides red or green)...let the pilot figure out who is friendly and what he wants to drop his ords on? Seems like it would be more realistic than the big red SHOOT ME sign
-
These are all selfish "me me me!!!" requests that only help YOU avoid being killed and hurt all others and the game in general.
-
I can still kill any tank with no ords, except maybe the tiger :D.
semp
B-25H, it's a tank with wings :devil
-
I understand. People wanting to get rid of air to ground support nearly all together is what angers me, partly because that's the true area i shine in game. Not only that but Air to ground support was HUGE in WWII. Its to my understanding aircraft were one of the hugest threats to GVs in WWII and so should they here.
Imagine, what if air to ground support never showed up or attacked any GVs in all of France prior and during DDAY. Either we would of lost or suffered more than enough casualties. :confused:
Your post still has literally no bearing on anything else posted in here. Nobody, until you went on this rant, suggested anything that would have any effect on the ground support effort in AH. The only suggestions were to lessen or remove the perk loss when a perk tank is destroyed by an aircraft and to have a place to 'successfully land' GVs so that attacking forces can use perk tanks without essentially throwing them away.
-
Alright so heres the deal:
1) it is much more difficult to shoot down a smart attacker from a tank than it is to aim a bomb. IMMESURABLY more difficult to do it before he drops.
2) tanks really don't have the ABILITY to shoot back at high angles. Tts not like its just difficult, the capability if physicly absent.
3) tanks are require OTHERS to protect themselves from aerial threats (ie, wirbs). If someone looses a 262, its because he 'effed up, not because someone else dropped the ball, the 262 pilot did. Thats the big difference, if you say "up a flack", it still doesn't bring back your lost panther.
4) NOTHING can stop a pilot whos willing to die to take you with him. Not even the 5" CV guns. If murderous puffy ack can't stop an attacker, then how can you even belive, yet alone expect, that a few 20mm's will be enough to stop him?
5) GV's are far too visible. 600yds would be a generous icon distance for not only spotting a GV but identifying whos side its on AND what type it is when he is under cover. I'm serious in this: anyone with a light aircrat, please have a friend hide an unknown type of vehicle in some bushes somewhere. Fly around in your cesna and see how long it takes you to spot it from a mile away (the current distance GV icons are visible at is 1999yds). Then tell me if you can identify the make and model.
6) Realism is left intact. The tank still dies if you bomb it, you still get your perks, you still get the kill. The penalty on the GV'er for being unlucky is just reduced, that ALL that happens.
7) Krusty, see items number 2 and 3, and you'll see how your post is complete BS.
-
It would be nice if trees hid GV icons. As a former tanker I can tell you that, when faced with the threat of air attack, or ground detection, tanks move from concealment or cover to concealment or cover just like a grunt would. If possible, all the way to the assault point. You might be surprised how easy it is for a skilled crew to keep the brute hidden. I've seen entire companies execute scatter drills and break into the woods on a road march and go undetected many times.GV's are sitting ducks for bombs in here but not so in real life. Can't bomb what you can't see. Been there, done that.
-
600 yards is WAY too short. A Wirblewind will tear an aircraft apart before you know it is there. Do you want Tempest fliers to start a valid demand that perk aircraft losses to GVs shouldn't cause the loss of the perk points? You're making a good effort at it.
In addition, that would affect all vehicles, not just the ones hidden in trees.
As to the comment about losing the Panther still, the suggestion is not to get a flak tank or fighter after losing the Panther, it is to bring friends in these things to cover the tank advance. Tanks without air support should face a serious threat of annihilation.
"If it is silver it is American, if it is green it is British, if it is invisible it is ours."
-
Karnak, a low flying P-51 zooming by at 350mph would be killed by that wirb simply because he was unaware of it, regardless of how close he was. The system we have now is basicly a modern IFF, and monsterously unfair to tanks. A camo painted tank underneath a thick stand of trees will be COMPLETLY invisible from the air, even to a helicopter right above it.
Yes, it will be too short out in the open, but it will also be too far when under cover. It will make aircraft pay attention to what they're doing rather than just using the IFF, and thats fair. I'd be fine with an 800yd icon, which would be visible at 999yds. But a 1.5k icon is visible at 1999yds, which is just too much.
-
Tank Ace, it is you who are full of the BS as you say.
See items 2 and 3? Well item 2 is nonsense.... Tanks shouldn't even be able to fire at planes with main guns. You use your pintle, but even then that's not its purpose. Your purpose is to engage ground forces. You want to shoot down planes up a wirb, M16, Osty. This is like crying "My Me262 doesn't carry the bombload of a B-17! You HAVE to lower hangar hardness so I can get the same job done!!"
It's ludicrous.
Point 3? Worse nonsense... Somebody loses a 262 it's their own fault? But in a tank it's somebody else's fault? Oh yeah? I Was in a 262 coming out of a dive near the ground from a furball, doing 500mph at about 1000 feet. A wirble literally off my 3 oclock hoses the air and rips my wing off. The point? Well simply put the point is this: There's fault and then there's blame. Sometimes they lie both squarely on you. You up a Tiger in the middle of a spawn camp and take 20 hits before you get turreted.... The FAULT is your own, but the blame is the guy that shot your turret out. You don't want to get bombed, you don't like losing perks. The FAULT is your own because you're doing something stupid in the face of obvious warning signs. You're the kind that would blame the fighter behind you for shooting you down because you ignored him to focus on chasing the fighter in front of you. This is one of those instances where you're setting yourself up them blaming others for the outcome.
This is beyond ludicrous. It's plaid!
(http://www.ladyofthecake.com/mel/space/images/plaid2.jpg)
-
Krusty, maybe you should try the decaf latte. I'm just sayin'... :confused:
-
I dunno about anyone else but 90% of the time I find tanks by them giving themselves away by firing.
less common, if they are moving, kill engine and listen (gamey, yes), or visually detect the motion.
If they are sitting still I usually dont find them because I dont fly around on the deck looking. By the time you see the 1.5k icon you can easily be dead from an ostwind. if they just wanna sit in the wilderness making a base flash, they can knock themselves out.
get rid of the icons, I dont care really, but it aint gonna make a big difference to someone like me. soon as you fire or move you can be found quite easily.
-
Tank-Ace,
You already have to pay attention. The Spit, for example, has a blind spot of 2.5 miles under its nose when it is at 1000ft. Yes, some aircraft are better than that, but not all.
Where are you getting that a 1500 yard icon is visible at 1999 yards? It doesn't even work that way for aircraft. At 1999 yards an aircraft icon reads 2.0 and at 1750 it changes to 1.5. If icons are set to not be visible until 3k, a common setting in the AvA before the fanatics took over, it didn't say 3.0 at 3250 yards, it only said 3.0 from 3000 down to 2751
-
Following that reasoning, lancasters were never used to precision bomb (assassinate really) individual tanks, so theres a big hole in your argument right there.
As to the main gun, its physicly possible, so its in the game. show my ANY evidence that it PHYSICLY can't be done, then fine.
Krusty, if you loose a 262, it IS your fault. but if someone bombs your tank, you PHYSICLY CAN'T PREVENT OR AVOID THAT. Right there, THATS the difference. You don't have to rely on others to protect you in your 262 like you do in a tank.
This is like crying "My Me262 doesn't carry the bombload of a B-17! You HAVE to lower hangar hardness so I can get the same job done!!"
Apples and oranges. The hanger isn't trying to engage your 262 now is it :rolleyes:?
If you up a tiger in a spawn camp, thats your FAULT. If you up a tiger and die to bombs because the wirblewind (which you seem to thing is going to stop an attacker) missed the shot, then isn't that HIS fault? You checked first, you made sure you had some flacks on hand, you did all that people in this thread have suggested, so its not your fault.
And beyond that, if you do everything that was suggested as a counter to bombs in this thread, and you STILL die to a bomb (very common occurance), then doesn't that mean the people saying "up a flack, bring air support, ARGG!!!!! :joystick:" were wrong, and that their purposed solutions don't really work?
-
Kvuo, good for you. You're one of the few people that rely on skill instead of the IFF. Most don't though.
And Karnak, I got that from lusche, blame him for miss informing me. Thanks for the correction.
Karnak, thats relevant only if they keep flying in a strait line, and make no attempt to compensate for that blindspot whatsoever.
And 800yd icon would be visible at 900 yds, thats a fair distance IMO. We're not going to reach the perect balance unless HTC changes the icon system.
Another fix would be to identify the tank only once the detaliled icon is displayed. Keep it at just a generic "GV" untill D800 or so when the type of GV is diplayed.
-
Modern tankers train to hit choppers with the main gun routinely. No big deal if they fly lower than the gun will elevate. It would have been more difficult with a WWII tank on a crossing shot, but against an incoming aircraft,
flying lower than max elevation, the ballistic solution is really pretty simple.
-
Modern tankers train to hit choppers with the main gun routinely. No big deal if they fly lower than the gun will elevate. It would have been more difficult with a WWII tank on a crossing shot, but against an incoming aircraft,
flying lower than max elevation, the ballistic solution is really pretty simple.
There's a reason I sit on hills when tanking, if I back down them I can elevate my barrel to hit a dive bomber, true I don't hit often but I can vouch a few were not to happy to be in a 75 degree dive and I still plink them at 1.5k
-
There is a difference between static hiding camo and actual combat conditions.
WW2 aircraft also hid under nets, had palm fronds draped over the top of them, hid in half-buried revetments, etc...
But that's not what they looked like when in use. Keep in mind tank crews lived with their tank. They camped, ate, lounged on this thing. When it was moving towards a target and preparing to fire its gun, it wasn't invisible.
P.S. Metal your pic is of a tank on a railroad car. They would be on these for a while and when the train was parked they needed as much camo as possible. This was not a combat condition.
but in normandy the y still covered their tanks with camo. you see it in films from ww2. they would use the stuff even in the bocage they covered their tanks AT guns everything with foliage. so it could in AH2 be used. and i agree that they need to remove the icon from aircraft view.
-
My Simple solution is remove the Icons for tanks for aircraft, and make them actually spot the GV's on the ground like they did in real life. If tankers can't have Icon against other tankers, then we could make it harder for aircraft to spot GV's rather then aircraft flying in at 4k and spotting us right away.
Would mean tankers need to use cover and not drive out in the open, still you will be bombed into oblivion, just not as quick.
I like this idea, I believe it would solve the problem. If you find it too radical, 500 yard icon would be my second choice. I agree with perk removal in GV kill by AC and vice-versa. About the safe landing spot, I don't think it is a prioritary thing... Just my 2 cents.
Cheers,
-
Perk aircraft that fly too close will get hit with a .50, why should he not loose his perks? HE can avoid us, we can't avoid him.
-
I'm with the OP, reducing the perk loss to being killed by aircraft would be a great idea. Doesn't effect the aircrafts game one bit, still gets the kill and perkies so no difference there. The only difference is the perk tanker isn't as ticked for loosing all his perkies to an aircraft he had very little defence against. Of course you can get the gray area of, your tank was damaged by a GV and then bombed :headscratch:.
:salute
BigRat
-
Your post still has literally no bearing on anything else posted in here. Nobody, until you went on this rant, suggested anything that would have any effect on the ground support effort in AH. The only suggestions were to lessen or remove the perk loss when a perk tank is destroyed by an aircraft and to have a place to 'successfully land' GVs so that attacking forces can use perk tanks without essentially throwing them away.
Let me say just this then, I'm all for having a forward outpost with two towed AA batteries there since emplacements would look cheesy since there so close to base and its supposed to look like a forward gv advancing outpost.. I hate when people look for "i want a invincible tank from air" solutions. and may be i mistaken this as such.
-
Personally i think The perks awarded to the pilot who gets the bomber-kill on the GV should be reduced.
When they realize they could make more perkies per kill in a gv vs gv instead of bomb vs gv they may shy away from using aircraft in favor for the higher perk-earnage choice.
:salute
I like this idea +2.
IRL the saying goes "the best way to kill a tank is with another tank" Would rather see it this way in game as well
-
Modern tankers train to hit choppers with the main gun routinely. No big deal if they fly lower than the gun will elevate. It would have been more difficult with a WWII tank on a crossing shot, but against an incoming aircraft,
flying lower than max elevation, the ballistic solution is really pretty simple.
I may be wrong. but I think modern tankers have slightly different equipment and technologies to aid them then they had in WWII.
If it were anywhere even remotely as easy to shoot down an AC in WWII as it is in game. There would be a ton more instances of it happening in WWII
-
Tank-Ace,
I wasn't aware that the Wirbelwind and Ostwind were armed with .50 cals.
As to the bombs, hitting a tank with a fighter bomber is by no means a precision task and most people do it badly. Tanks are also pretty resistant to bombs.
The Lancaster whine is just that, a whine. Lancasters accounted for 0.6% of vehicle deaths in 2010 according to Lusche's charts. No, it isn't realistic, but having literally any fighter cover will render you immune to Lancasters.
Let me say just this then, I'm all for having a forward outpost with two towed AA batteries there since emplacements would look cheesy since there so close to base and its supposed to look like a forward gv advancing outpost.. I hate when people look for "i want a invincible tank from air" solutions. and may be i mistaken this as such.
I agree and you'll notice me arguing against Tank-Ace on that count in this same thread. However, I do think it is a problem that using a perk tank off of the concrete, particularly on offense, is tantamount to throwing the perks away. This isn't to say that the tanks should be anymore resistant to damage from the air, just the perk points should be shielded a bit. A hard "absolutely not" to any suggestion that tanks should be immune to attack from the air.
-
Most people give wirbs and osties a fair space buffer. Thats not to say the presence of flacks will stop them, not a chance if they're decided to die in exchange for screwing you out of your perks. But most people keep a healty distance in case of golden BB's.
Since the comment my post was in response to was about not loosing perks if you die in a perked plane. Most sane people will give a larger buffer to flacks then they do normaly if they're in a perk plane. That means the perk plane is shot down through stupidity or flying by a tank that hits him with the pintle most likely.
The only reason this should even be considered is that tanks don't have the ability to avoid aircraft, but the inverse isn't true.
-
Tank-Ace,
You are suggesting taking the icons away, thus taking away the ability to give them a greater berth. How are you not understanding the consequences of your request?
-
You can identify a tank by sight at 1k out, which means you can avoid it if its actually a flacker. Its the would-be bomb****'s fault if he doesn't bother to look before he leaps.
And Karnak, how about you propose an alternative instead of just "nope, wouldn't be good".
-
You can't avoid something you don't see.
What I proposed was having the spawn points also be valid "landed safe" points for GVs. The OP's idea of perk tanks not costing perks when killed by aircraft, or maybe costing 10% of their stated cost, was also a good idea.
I do not advocate anything that stops tanks from being bombed other than the players in tanks getting some fighter cover to come feast on the strike aircraft. I specifically oppose anything that would make GVs fight a separate war from the airplanes.
-
What about tanks beeing seen from over a mile away while under cover? Gotta be some kind of balance. I'd even be fine with the current icon range but a generic "GV" icon untill you get closer.
What size would the spawns be? And aside from that, we would people towering out when they took their first hit. No offense but that idea could easily do more to kill GV'ing than help it.
-
Perhaps HTC could devise a way to determine if a tank was in cover and GV icons could be reduced to, say, 500 yards in cover.
If you sit on the spawn point you aren't going to be doing a very good job of attacking. The idea is to give GVs a place to fall back to that isn't 25 miles away. If they want to sit on the spawn point, how is that different than the guys who sit on concrete now?
-
With regards to the icon ranges, when the icon says "1.5k", it is sayin that the distance to that icon is 1500 to 1999 yards.
When the icon reads 600, it means the target is somewhere between 600 and 799 yards.
Icon reads 200 yards, it means the target is between 200 and 399 yards.
When the icon reads 400, it means the target is between 400 and 599 yards.
Etc Etc.
The icon distance simply means "between" what it says and the next higher measurement available to the icon.
By reducing the GV icon range available for aircraft, two things would occur: First, the aircraft would have to actually scout for enemy gv's. No more simply flying though an area and getting scoping out an path 4000 yards (approximately) wide for gv icons. The aircraft would have to actually actively scout for enemy gv's. Second, it would make pilots think twice about just meandering about if it meant getting shot down or at minimum losing parts of their aircraft. It would make pilots think twice about floating around at 200 TAS at low levels. It would lend to the realism side of things, in my opinion. It would force pilots to involve themselves more in not just killing that gv, but also finding it and repescting its firepower be it .30/.50 MG or 20mm/37mm AA fire.
-
First of all, unless there's air cover the guys dropping bombs on tanks, including me, aren't "earning" their kills. They are only looking for easy kills to get their name in lights and slaps on the back from their friends and countrymen.
There are arguments both for and against icons.
What I don't like is that a GV sitting under a thick grove of trees should never be able to be spotted from the air but the icon forces loss of cover as it hovers above or beyond tree level. Even in buildings the icon is often visible. Maybe HT could code something that looses the icon if a GV is sitting under or at a certain distance from any game object. At least that way GV's would have the opportunity to use cover but would still be fully visible in the open as a flak would most likely prefer to be.
-
With regards to the icon ranges, when the icon says "1.5k", it is sayin that the distance to that icon is 1500 to 1999 yards.
This is misleading.
Yes, that is what it means when you have a 3k or 6k icon range, but not what it means when you have a 1.5k icon range. If you have a 1.5k icon range there should be no icon at 1501 yards.
Now, the GV icon range may be 2000 yards, or 1750 yards, but if it is 1500 yards you will not get an icon on GVs further than that, even if the icon would show up as 1.5, if they had one.
I will point out that attacking tanks is somewhat difficult as it is as just having enough altitude to do an effective bomb run in a Mossie VI puts the tanks out of icon range at times and it is easy to lose the intended target in the clutter while lining up on final. The ease with with GVs are destroyed by bombs is overstated, probably because it is frustrating from the tanker's perspective due to their inability to respond in kind to the attack. It is much easier to remember the attacks that were successful and irritated you due to the loss of perks or position rather than the more common attacks that made a hole in the dirt in your general proximity.
-
we might have to change bomb**** to bomb A-hole
-
This is misleading.
Yes, that is what it means when you have a 3k or 6k icon range, but not what it means when you have a 1.5k icon range. If you have a 1.5k icon range there should be no icon at 1501 yards.
Now, the GV icon range may be 2000 yards, or 1750 yards, but if it is 1500 yards you will not get an icon on GVs further than that, even if the icon would show up as 1.5, if they had one.
You are right. I realized my error after I close my laptop for the night and was thinking about the issue. When an icon range says 1.5k, it is showing 1500 yards and CLOSER, meaning somewhere between 1500 yards and 1000 yards.
-
I would be fine with the icon removed when under cover (although many will argue what defines 'cover', like the bridges for exaple, are they cover?), and full icon when out in the open (and preferably moving or shooting. The tanks are painted in camo you know).
But what I really want is for HTC to stop giving the aircraft instant identification of their targets. Just give us a generic "GV" icon untill 1000yds for flackers, halftracks, and the LVT's, and 800yds for tanks. The flyboys should have to come within easy wirble range to differentiate between a panzer and a Tiger (both are simmilar, and even with a tank's optical sight, it can be difficult to tell what a target is).
-
-4 nope! My best way to kill a tiger. :rofl
-
I love bombing GVs in my P-47. :devil
-
-100,000,000 :furious So you all want to eliminate realism in game? Ground support and air support go hand and hand as they did in real life. so why take away from that? ITS YOUR RISK FOR NOT HAVING FIGHTER CAP OR AA COVER I got SHOT DOWN, by a t34 from 2.5 k away just today by LTGOAT, i think your fine. However, beefcakes idea is honorable due to the fact that aircraft still get there kills yet Gvers don't lose as much.
a got a a20 from 2.5k that day too i was in a panther though. even still they are a dime a fifty.
-
Personally i think The perks awarded to the pilot who gets the bomber-kill on the GV should be reduced.
When they realize they could make more perkies per kill in a gv vs gv instead of bomb vs gv they may shy away from using aircraft in favor for the higher perk-earnage choice.
:salute
lol uh I just like bombin tanks in support of my good guys on the ground perks never come into that equation.
-
I love bombing GVs in my P-47. :devil
or a D-Hog, or a 110, or a ........ :furious :neener:
-
I agree that GV icons are tooo prominent under various conditions.........
IMO gv's hid in trees should not have their icon pop out for air borne stuff to see..........
Stationary GV's should be harder to spot than moving GV's............
I disagree that GV's should be some how free from penalty of air attack........ GV's were the subject of air attac, infact the primary role of airborne strategy on the Eastern front was tactical front line attrition of the opposing enemies field placed armour and armoured infrastructure.
I agree with doing something with the spawn system (and spawn camping)............ I favour spawn roads which may or may not be camped (ambushed) at some point/s but the player can choose where upon the road he may spawn and so choose the level of risk taken when spawning further or closer to an enemy field. I am sure there are other options than warping a GV to a specific space on the map which is roughly known to all.
-
If a tank is moving, or in the open, then its usually an easy target for aircraft. If the tanker whinges because planes can easily take him out - well I'm afraid that's close to what happened in RL. The Germans paid dearly for losing air superiority.
However, a GV close to (or under) trees that has also been stopped for a while could be camouflaged and be very difficult to spot.
I suggest therefore that a stopped vehicle can 'Camouflage' itself (press a button) and for a few seconds it can't fire or move. At the end of that period it's 'Camouflaged' and much more difficult to spot. As soon as the vehicle moves though, the 'Camouflage' is removed and it's visible from a distance again.
I reckon this could work great with digging in Stugs for ambush (when we get them) and hiding M3s and Jeeps (for spotting, maybe) and such.
-
When you up your perk tank, have a friend, or two, up Whirbles.
FIXED
-
When you up your perk tank, have a friend, or two, up Whirbles.
FIXED
For someone who doesn't tank, I have no idea why you are here.
LLogann
Kills In
M4A3(75) 0
M4A3(76)W 0
Panzer IV H 0
Panther G 0
T-34/76 0
T-34/85 0
Tiger 0
Wirbelwind 15
I can see why you don't have a clue what the rest of us are talking about.
-
I suggest therefore that a stopped vehicle can 'Camouflage' itself (press a button) and for a few seconds it can't fire or move. At the end of that period it's 'Camouflaged' and much more difficult to spot. As soon as the vehicle moves though, the 'Camouflage' is removed and it's visible from a distance again.
I like this idea but the model would still be visible, just with no icon while camouflage is up and also make it take some time to put the camo up like a "loading" thing instead of instant. and when i say model visible there could even be a model for each camo and skins.
Im not a tanker but i like hunting them with the hurri D and i agree with this idea, would make gameplay even more interesting.
EDIT: but back to the main topic here... NOT losing perks to aircraft kills... yea... no. makes no sense to me the same way i can get killed by any plane and gv, if I up a perk ride i have the risk of losing it and that makes the game more dinamic other then upping the superior rides all the time
-
Perhaps add foliage to your turret and hull to break up the outline? I often get momentarily scared by the wheel-barrows sitting by the farms at a distance. Namely because their strait lines are reminicent of the hull of a tank. GV'ers should be looking for strait lines of a tank turret or hull that nature (even HTC's monocromatic version) doesn't produce a lot of.
Moving GV icon: 1.5K
Stopped GV icon: 800yds
hidden GV: no icon
-
Moving GV icon: 1.5K
Stopped GV icon: 800yds
hidden GV: no icon
Seems ok to me if you consider the model is always visible. not bad. remember that to be hidden the gv cant shoot or any other action
-
The turret would have to be able to move or it would defeat the entire purpose of upping a tank. But agreed, if you fire, or do anything dumb, then you're icon becomes visible to the point of a stopped GV (aircraft only know where you are when you shoot, they still don't see the actual tank).
-
hmm in that case if you used the camo and shot, your icon pops up and stays even with the 800yrds limitation but you wont be able to be icon free anymore unless you hide somewhere else. bexause i can see abuse if you stay with no icon and shooting from time to time.
-
Agreed. Or maybe have the icon apear after 2 rounds fired, since (unless you're already looking for it) theres a decent chance you won't see the first. Would encourage more realistic tactics, and better fights IMO.
-
yeah seems really cool and in my opinion could only bring benefits to the game except for one thing. the low resolution PC's, yes i mean the dinossaurs
-
can i ask if things have changed since? i used to have to fly close to 4k alt to just barely see gvs on ground... is that not good enough??...i really think the gv model is fine as it is...not that i gv much anyway... you do know you can hide in barns as well rite?and you dun show up as a red? thats why hitech left many barns close to town... it works already... . but if you wanna change soemthing... change and refine the collision model...
-
No, barns don't hide your icon. You can still see it peeking out around the edges IIRC. I haven't flown spotter in an area with many barns for a while.
Anway, depending on your graphics settings, you'll sometimes get the long-range dots on the ground. You can kind-of see them scooting around on the ground, but you actually have to watch them.
-
being an avid tanker i say no!
-
You're angry because I'm good with a Stuka strapped to a 4000 lbs cucumber.
-
No, barns don't hide your icon. You can still see it peeking out around the edges IIRC. I haven't flown spotter in an area with many barns for a while.
Anway, depending on your graphics settings, you'll sometimes get the long-range dots on the ground. You can kind-of see them scooting around on the ground, but you actually have to watch them.
i would like to beg your pardon... i have hidden in barns at least 3 times today... and that stopped the planes shooting at me at will.... and when i switched the engine off.. i can hear the plane searching for me... i died cos i left the barn too early, or cos there wasn't any aircover. Of cos usage of barns takes some intelligence as well.. not just simply driving st8 into a barn in plain view...
-
i would like to beg your pardon... i have hidden in barns at least 3 times today... and that stopped the planes shooting at me at will.... and when i switched the engine off.. i can hear the plane searching for me... i died cos i left the barn too early, or cos there wasn't any aircover. Of cos usage of barns takes some intelligence as well.. not just simply driving st8 into a barn in plain view...
I can still get you
-
I can still get you
yea.. get me some BEEERRRR why don't ya!!! :rofl
-
being an avid tanker i say no!
I agree in a sense that, I enjoy shooting down complete new guys in a M4(75) which is one way I build my perks up.
-
No, barns don't hide your icon. You can still see it peeking out around the edges IIRC. I haven't flown spotter in an area with many barns for a while.
Anway, depending on your graphics settings, you'll sometimes get the long-range dots on the ground. You can kind-of see them scooting around on the ground, but you actually have to watch them.
Barns, and trees, are LOS. If you cannot see the icon through the door or windows it will not show. You can get in trees thick enough to hide your icon but you really can't see out either.
wrongway
-
I had an SDK parked near a town inside a thick grove of trees for some 20+ minutes once. The effort to drop the town failed to materialize (they were pushed back) but I had 4 planes buzzing around looking for me, trying to attack me. They had quite a hard time and 2 augered giving me kills.
Claiming they are still visible is one-sided myopia only the perspective that can't say one way or another: The tanker's perspective.
As one that has defended bases against rolling hordes of GVs, I can say for sure they lose icons quite easily in trees and are QUITE well covered against bombs guns and rockets with even modest foliage. Most tanks require a direct hit with a 1000 bomb down the gunner's hatch to do any damge, anyways.
Wishing for things that coddle GVs is foolish and clearly selfish. If you want it to be more realistic how about removing all spawn points? Make them drive. How about increasing fuel burn like planes? To make it worth taking supplies? How about modeling actual terrain instead of this perfectly flat full-traction world we have? In the real world going cross-country isn't that fast nor is it smooth and easy. You can't fire the gun while rolling either. Well, you can but you can't hold an aim on anything so it would be a random direction you fired into.
So, please... stop trying to give fake arcade powerup type wishes to GVs. Especially when they don't need it!
-
I had an SDK parked near a town inside a thick grove of trees for some 20+ minutes once. The effort to drop the town failed to materialize (they were pushed back) but I had 4 planes buzzing around looking for me, trying to attack me. They had quite a hard time and 2 augered giving me kills.
Claiming they are still visible is one-sided myopia only the perspective that can't say one way or another: The tanker's perspective.
Interesting that they augered trying to attack you but couldn't see you
As one that has defended bases against rolling hordes of GVs, I can say for sure they lose icons quite easily in trees and are QUITE well covered against bombs guns and rockets with even modest foliage. Most tanks require a direct hit with a 1000 bomb down the gunner's hatch to do any damge, anyways.
So aircraft don't need icons to see gv's? Didn't realize that they were that hard to kill...pretty sure I have been killed by planes that don't have a 1k bomb as a loadoutWishing for things that coddle GVs is foolish and clearly selfish. If you want it to be more realistic how about removing all spawn points? Make them drive. How about increasing fuel burn like planes? To make it worth taking supplies? How about modeling actual terrain instead of this perfectly flat full-traction world we have? In the real world going cross-country isn't that fast nor is it smooth and easy. You can't fire the gun while rolling either. Well, you can but you can't hold an aim on anything so it would be a random direction you fired into.
Yeah, make 'em drive a couple of hours before they get bombed..That sounds like a lot of fun. How about making the plane's sorties last hours too. And you only get 1 death...well..if you want realism. Oh yeah, how about having the bombs and aaa kill friendlies too...no more ack runners.