Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: guncrasher on April 03, 2012, 12:55:55 AM
-
this is actually two wishes but they are related. but I wish at least one of them to be considered.
I wish there was a limit of only 1 either tiger or tiger2 that can spawn at a vh base. the number is unlimited if you spawn somewhere. if the first tiger 1 or 2 goes more than 1k from the base then another can up. it was ridiculous yesterday having several tiger 2 at one base sitting on concrete "defending".
I saw the knights attack a base and the tiger2 promply run and land his kills. when the hangar was camped the campers were killed 1 by 1 with regular tanks spawning just like it should be done. once all the attackers on base were killed then the tiger 2's promptly spawned again to "defend" while sitting in concrete.
the second wish is that you lose some perks when upping a tiger 1 or 2 and just sit on your own base. or just go within let's say 1k and then run back. I would say about 5% or 10% of of the perk value at the time you upped, of course this would be reduced based on whichever perks you get for your kills.
this would really stop the sit on the concrete that it seems lots of players do. this will make it comparable to upping a perked airplane where there's a chance you wont make it back and lose your perks. with a tank you just .ef even if damaged and get your full perks to up another again.
semp
-
I agree for once
-
The thing is that GV's cannot defend THESELVES from aircraft. They HAVE to rely on flackers, and on other aircraft. And even then, if someone spots them and decides to make a bomb run, they are helpless.
What if a small darbar suddenly apears? Sorry, but untill those arses go land, I'm not going to up more than a panther. If you want to pay me back that 5-10% of my Tiger II's perk price for landing, then I'd be fine. What if I up a Tiger II, and spend my time fighting attackers that are almost on base. Am I supposed to drive 2000yds round trip just so I can land without loosing perks?
The perk price of GV's are not affected by their vulnerability to aircraft, just as an aircraft's perk price is not affected by its vulnrability to AA fire from the ground. Aircraft have more of an impact on GV's than GV's do on aircraft.
The biggest issue is that even 150mm armor of a Tiger II doesn't give it any more protection against aircraft, while the 500mph speed of a 262 DOES make it harder for GV's to kill, simply because its harder to hit. In addition to this, aircraft can be given guaranteed protection from ground fire simply by climbing. However from the instant he spawns up, a GV is guaranteed to be under the threat of air attack untill the instant he lands.
So in addition to the GV drivers being under CONSTANT threat, you want to penalize perk tank drivers for being cautious? The only way that could even possibly work is if perk tank drivers broke even when bombed within 1000yds of the base, regardless of circumstances. They don't gain anything, and they don't lose anything.
-
The thing is that GV's cannot defend THESELVES from aircraft. They HAVE to rely on flackers, and on other aircraft. And even then, if someone spots them and decides to make a bomb run, they are helpless.
What if a small darbar suddenly apears? Sorry, but untill those arses go land, I'm not going to up more than a panther. If you want to pay me back that 5-10% of my Tiger II's perk price for landing, then I'd be fine. What if I up a Tiger II, and spend my time fighting attackers that are almost on base. Am I supposed to drive 2000yds round trip just so I can land without loosing perks?
The perk price of GV's are not affected by their vulnerability to aircraft, just as an aircraft's perk price is not affected by its vulnrability to AA fire from the ground. Aircraft have more of an impact on GV's than GV's do on aircraft.
The biggest issue is that even 150mm armor of a Tiger II doesn't give it any more protection against aircraft, while the 500mph speed of a 262 DOES make it harder for GV's to kill, simply because its harder to hit. In addition to this, aircraft can be given guaranteed protection from ground fire simply by climbing. However from the instant he spawns up, a GV is guaranteed to be under the threat of air attack untill the instant he lands.
So in addition to the GV drivers being under CONSTANT threat, you want to penalize perk tank drivers for being cautious? The only way that could even possibly work is if perk tank drivers broke even when bombed within 1000yds of the base, regardless of circumstances. They don't gain anything, and they don't lose anything.
GVs have their Icon range shorten to make it hard for the AC to spot them. If you are asking to de-perk GVs, then it will be a Tiger I and II fight all around. Come to think of it, why the hell are some GV even perked in the first place?
-
You want to penalize GVs for being smart enough to know that bombs will kill them?
-1
First reason is that a Tiger II doesnt have to move off of the concrete. A Tiger II can kill up to 7k away and probably further. In breaking a camp the Tigers are not supreme due to reload times which is why its not a good idea to use one that way. A Tiger defending a maproom almost requires a bomb but its easy enough to kill a Tiger with a Firefly or M18 or Panzer or anything else inside of 800 yards.
I have scored a kill on a Tiger II from 10k with an M4-75 by hitting it so many times the tracks fell off. It can be done.
-
GVs have their Icon range shorten to make it hard for the AC to spot them. If you are asking to de-perk GVs, then it will be a Tiger I and II fight all around. Come to think of it, why the hell are some GV even perked in the first place?
I'm not asking for that. But semp wants to even further penalize the GV'ers. And sorry, but the shortened GV icon range is a bit irrelevent to what I posted.
Is it true or false that, despite the reduced icon range, GV's are still significantly more vulnerable to aircraft than aircraft are to GV's?
Is it true or false that a the only action a Tiger II driver can do to keep from being killed by a bomb is sitting on concrete (asking for help isn't an action, its having others act on your behalf, and still doesn't give you a good chance to come through)?
Is it true or false that, despite the reduced icon range, an aircraft hell bent on killing the Tiger II would be able to do it without undue difficulty?
Is it true or false that realisticly thre is no way that the Tiger II can kill the aircraft before the aircraft drops his bombs?
GV's can't fight aircraft on anything even remotely approaching even terms, and the only thing they can do to give themsevles a good chance of survival is camping on the concrete. Yet Semp still isn't happy, he wants to force perk tank drivers to ensure that they can't reach the saftey of concrete before an aircraft drops his bombs.
Why should a perk tank be at the mercy of aircraft? Why should upping a perk tank entail more risk than upping a perk aircraft of the same price, despite the fact that GV's have less of an impact on the game, and are less unbalancing?
Challenge, I'm a bit skeptical of the 10k range engagment of a Tiger II. I'm guessing you were on a hill, firing down on him, as there is not a chance in hell you had line of sight out to 10k from ground level, at least not unless you were on a beach or something.
Also supporting my theory that you were on a hill, is that the sight picture for the M4's optical sight does not allow you to aim out to 10k. However, being on a hill increases the distance you can aim at, as you don't have to send your shell out at as great an angle to hit a target at the same distance, since your shell has more time to fly forward before it hits the ground, as you are higher up.
But even so, a Tiger II would be no more than a dot at 10k out, and I find it a bit doubtfull that you were actually achieving aimed hits or even near misses on the Tiger II, especially since your aim point moves with each shell you fire. At best, you were just lobbing a ton of shells in his general direction, and only disabled his tracks through pure dumb luck.
-
well oakranger, it just happened that I was the only aircraft anywhere around. and if you want to up a perked gv then it should also run some risk of losing some perks like it happens with airplanes. look at the b29 you can go up to 40k and you can still find caldera up there ready to shoot you down. perked tanks should also have a risk of losing some perks even if siting on it's own base. way too many people up a tiger 2 just to sit on concrete when there's a gv fight.
as for this comment you made "Why should upping a perk tank entail more risk than upping a perk aircraft of the same price," how can a tiger 2 sitting on his own base be at risk right now of losing any perks?
and oakranger perhaps you should look at the statistics for the tiger 2. it has almost a 12 to 1 kd which is not surprising. but what you may find surprising is that out of 382 times it has been killed less than 100 have been by an airplane. and even if you look at some of those airplane kills some look very suspicious as they were little more than proxies. and if you look even closer the tiger2 has almost as many kills of airplanes as it has been killed by them.
which brings it back to the same. most people that up a tiger 2 will just sit on concrete.
semp
-
Challenge, I'm a bit skeptical of the 10k range engagment of a Tiger II.
I had no idea I was shooting at a Tiger. He had no idea I was even shooting at him except when he got hit. I did it twice to him but the second time he stayed on concrete. There was an M3 sitting right next to me popping out supplies. Just as he came up in his third Tiger I finished killing off all the hangars and a mudhen killed his last Tiger. I do this regularly. The M4-75 is the best shelling tank in the game right now. With just one resupply it can completely take down a field and all guns. The base doesnt even have to flash under the right circumstances.
My guess is you are skeptical because you dont understand how it can even happen. On the map that has the popular TT island in the middle I can sit at the NW TT vbase and kill the entire base to the south without moving off the base and without AFAC. You can be skeptical about that but I have film of doing it and witnesses so happy that I can do it that they continued to resupply me for two hours as I kept it flat.
Its not hard.
-
If the Person in the Tiger II is too focused on enemy GVs and is not focused on the enemy aircraft he can sill be bombed if he is not fast or careful enough.
What if your the only person on the Vbase defending and you have a few aircraft and some GVs trying to take the base.Your Closest and greater threat would be the GVs, so you take some of them out. Once you've got them some enemy aircraft are the greatest threat what do you do, stay there and get bombed or End Sortie and up a flack? I would get a Flack and dispatch those Aircraft. Once that's done Guess who is coming back for more in their GVs. So you grab your tiger once again. GVs all Gone aircraft are back. end sortie and re-up another flack.
If you get penalised for ending sortie on the concrete in a Tiger then this person lost some perks for defending a base.
If your the one attacking, Well then work together.Have someone play bait or get his attention while someone else goes in flanks him and shots him from behind.If you get a Good Shot on him well he has been disposed of and I doubt he would up another, but rather another tank with less armore and easier for a few enemy GVs.
-
It is all about coordination. Bomb them. When they tower, move in on the base. Shut the VHs down.
-
You will never get rid of Tank Ace and GT101 sitting on the concrete. GV'ers don't want a fight. They want a danger less "kill".
-
You will never get rid of Tank Ace and GT101 sitting on the concrete. GV'ers don't want a fight. They want a danger less "kill".
It happens, you have to coordinate airstrikes with ground vehicles, this is the only way to stop a tard upping a King Tiger and sitting on concrete and not moving.
-
You will never get rid of Tank Ace and GT101 sitting on the concrete. GV'ers don't want a fight. They want a danger less "kill".
GT101 is afraid to leave concrete because i kept killing him in his spawn camp tiger tank. :lol
I'm not asking for that. But semp wants to even further penalize the GV'ers. And sorry, but the shortened GV icon range is a bit irrelevent to what I posted.
Is it true or false that, despite the reduced icon range, GV's are still significantly more vulnerable to aircraft than aircraft are to GV's?
Is it true or false that a the only action a Tiger II driver can do to keep from being killed by a bomb is sitting on concrete (asking for help isn't an action, its having others act on your behalf, and still doesn't give you a good chance to come through)?
Is it true or false that, despite the reduced icon range, an aircraft hell bent on killing the Tiger II would be able to do it without undue difficulty?
Is it true or false that realisticly thre is no way that the Tiger II can kill the aircraft before the aircraft drops his bombs?
GV's can't fight aircraft on anything even remotely approaching even terms, and the only thing they can do to give themsevles a good chance of survival is camping on the concrete. Yet Semp still isn't happy, he wants to force perk tank drivers to ensure that they can't reach the saftey of concrete before an aircraft drops his bombs.
Why should a perk tank be at the mercy of aircraft? Why should upping a perk tank entail more risk than upping a perk aircraft of the same price, despite the fact that GV's have less of an impact on the game, and are less unbalancing?
Challenge, I'm a bit skeptical of the 10k range engagment of a Tiger II. I'm guessing you were on a hill, firing down on him, as there is not a chance in hell you had line of sight out to 10k from ground level, at least not unless you were on a beach or something.
Also supporting my theory that you were on a hill, is that the sight picture for the M4's optical sight does not allow you to aim out to 10k. However, being on a hill increases the distance you can aim at, as you don't have to send your shell out at as great an angle to hit a target at the same distance, since your shell has more time to fly forward before it hits the ground, as you are higher up.
But even so, a Tiger II would be no more than a dot at 10k out, and I find it a bit doubtfull that you were actually achieving aimed hits or even near misses on the Tiger II, especially since your aim point moves with each shell you fire. At best, you were just lobbing a ton of shells in his general direction, and only disabled his tracks through pure dumb luck.
About the only thing that can be done are: 1) get rid of ords, 2) un-perked the GVs, or 3) have GVs fights separate from the rest of the MA.
-
On Sunday I picked a fight at a Vbase with an M-18. Being on the Grinder map, which btw is awesome for GV fights beacuse it is such a pain for AC to get involoved, a good GV fight eventually started, with pretty balanced numbers and vehicles. M18s and M4s vs M4s and T34s. Then one score potato ups a tiger II and the fight ends.
Why?
On the attacker side, no one is blowing 100 tank perks for a one way trip. I hit this tiger II at D<400 with 76mm AP from the side and caught solid splashes, three times. Said score potato did not see me, although I could see him looking. I was killed by another guy, again, M18 and parked long enough to fire three time (bit too long lol).
Answer:
1/2 to 1/4 the perks to the attacker on all GVs. It would encourage offensive heavy tank use. So what if all fights turn into Tiger II v Tiger II, at least there would be balanced fights. If you have guys like C nailing dudes at 7k, what hope do thee attackers have other than to ruin the GV fight by grabbing an A20 or some cupcake move like that?
Another one would be to change the way perks are awarded with GV, say a X2 multiplier if you spawn out of the Vbase, not on it.
The tank exists and it is a game changer. The only real effective way to get rid of it is to bomb it or make the driver tower from fear of bombing. The solution is to enable its use as an assault tank through reducing the offensive cost of its use, and enabling the user to reap more perks, again to offset its cost, by doubling the reward for being offensively minded.
-
Is it true or false that, despite the reduced icon range, GV's are still significantly more vulnerable to aircraft than aircraft are to GV's?
Depends on the two in question, but generally false. The Wirbelwind, a GV, can kill an aircraft before the aircraft even knows it is there. I have had it happen to me since the icons were shortened and I don't exactly play a lot.
I would be very curious what the K/D ratio of the perk tanks and Wirbelwinds would be without the effect of the concrete sitters. Right now the Tiger II has, by far, the highest K/D ratio of any unit.
-
Depends on the two in question, but generally false. The Wirbelwind, a GV, can kill an aircraft before the aircraft even knows it is there. I have had it happen to me since the icons were shortened and I don't exactly play a lot.
I would be very curious what the K/D ratio of the perk tanks and Wirbelwinds would be without the effect of the concrete sitters. Right now the Tiger II has, by far, the highest K/D ratio of any unit.
I run into the problem too. Just do not know what you are attacking until you get the icon, it fires it primary weapon and/or eyes on the ground tells me. I die more times from WW than all the other GV put togeather that killed me.
-
Depends on the two in question, but generally false. The Wirbelwind, a GV, can kill an aircraft before the aircraft even knows it is there. I have had it happen to me since the icons were shortened and I don't exactly play a lot.
I would be very curious what the K/D ratio of the perk tanks and Wirbelwinds would be without the effect of the concrete sitters. Right now the Tiger II has, by far, the highest K/D ratio of any unit.
We're talking GV's as a group, not specific units. A wirby can only provide even semi-reliable defense out to about D1000, and even then I personally never had any problems getting through. Hell, I've gotten 8 kills in a Ju-88 by dive bombing from high alt to avoid flackers. Granted I salvoed off 10 50kg bombs from each aircraft, but I still put all 10 of those bombs within 50yds of my target. One kill with one salvo of 10, 3 with another, and then 2 kills with a 500kg, a miss, 1kill and 1kill for a total of eight.
While I admit this was before the GV icon range changes, I still didn't need the icons to identify targets. I knew which side of the line the friendlies would be on, and there was a clearly defined line between the two. Even if there weren't, I would have simply dropped on targets further behind the line.
People imagine that you need to have that big flourecent icon above an enemy's head in order to kill it. In a tank, I could generally have picked out who was friendly and who was enemy even without the icon; you can tell by their movment, their actions, their possition, and their direction of fire.
Oak and semp, you're still ignoring what I'm saying. Upping a perk tank already entails more risk than upping a perk fighter of the same price. Concrete sitting is just the GV version of the pick and run, or ack hugging tactic. Quite litterally, you're proposing the equivelant of penalizing aircraft for not furballing.
And in addition, removing the ability to concrete sit for perk tanks will have unintended consequences, ones that even hard core anti-GV'ers like Krusty or High-Tone wouldn't want to happen.
Let me put it this way; I have 6 years of expierence with Aces High, and in those 6 years, I've had a lot of play time doing all the jobs, even bomb****ing, though I'm not real proud to say it. When I say GV'ers have it rough, I'm not just speaking from the GV'ing perspective, I'm speaking from the bomb**** perspective as well.
How many of you are speaking from not only the same depth of expiereince? Not more than a few unless I miss my guess.
-
I agree.
And if they're not going to leave the concrete maybe we need a fuel supply and reliability model for them.
It's a lot like seeing a 262 strafe troops running towards a maproom.
-
Depends on the two in question, but generally false. The Wirbelwind, a GV, can kill an aircraft before the aircraft even knows it is there. I have had it happen to me since the icons were shortened and I don't exactly play a lot.
I would be very curious what the K/D ratio of the perk tanks and Wirbelwinds would be without the effect of the concrete sitters. Right now the Tiger II has, by far, the highest K/D ratio of any unit.
Good reason too, The Tiger 2 never leaves Concrete so its protected in the event it gets bombed people tower out. Same people get their butts handed to them in a fair GV engagement.
I've seen more Tiger 2s pop up and sit on concrete lately, only one or two ever spawn to attack (one tiger 2 kill legit in the past 3-4 months) - People get more crafty with Panthers then Tigers period.
Sad thing is I have no clue what people are going to do with 50000 perks, everyones reason is "zomg I dont want to lose perks" this is why they never attack with a perk tank.
In Retrospect, most of the timid players will do this and not change, you can't do much against someone who camps concrete with a Tiger, however you will rarely EVER see them if someone has bombs.
For example V135 - king of the spawn camping spots, best thing to do is bring bombs, kill the hangers and the tigers disappear. Unfortunately you can't
For the 5 players I know camp the concrete, most don't play so timidly which I am glad. The few that do this really just go show their lack of sportsmanship and having fun.
-
Tank-Ace,
I wasn't hunting GVs. I was flying along at low altitude looking for enemy aircraft. I never got within icon range of the stupid Wirbelwind.
I am sorry that you think that GVs should be immune to aircraft while being able to destroy any aircraft at will, but things just are not as lopsided as you make them out to be. Whenever the GV fans outlandish claims of the effect aircraft have on them is examined, the claims are shown to be wild exagerations.
-
I am sorry that you think that GVs should be immune to aircraft while being able to destroy any aircraft at will, but things just are not as lopsided as you make them out to be. Whenever the GV fans outlandish claims of the effect aircraft have on them is examined, the claims are shown to be wild exagerations.
Bombing gets annoying, but if you whine about being bombed you seriously suck in a GV. Of the thousands of kills I get a tour, I get bombed less then 25 times.
Ill take those numbers all day long.
-
I would like to have a limit on how many Tiger I's and Tiger II's can spawn at a given time for a different reason.
The Tiger I and Tiger II were limited production tanks. There were only 492 King Tigers and 1,347 Tiger I's ever built. Allied bombing
and scarcity of materials made it difficult for the Germans to produce those tanks. They also suffered from engine and
transmission problems that made them very unreliable. Many of them were abandoned when they broke down because under certain
conditions they were unserviceable and because they were not manufactured in the way the T-34 and M-4 were produced.
It would make more sense to limit how many can spawn because of their historical numbers in WWII.
I don't want to see the perk system changed because we currently see every single type of GV being used
in the Late War Arena. The GV play in AH would really change if everyone was driving the best perked
tank available. I don't see a problem with The High Value Perked Tanks staying on the pavement. One or two bombs and
the player just lost 100 to 140 perks (Tiger II).......poof.... LOL. If his engine is running he won't hear the bombs coming down and
won't tower out in time.
I have never had any trouble killing Tiger I's, but the Tiger II does take more effort. I usually kill them with a T-34/85
and they die with the HVAP shells at close range. I have seen lots of players take them
out with the M-18 as well. A well placed shot can take them out with one or two rounds. All their armor is concentrated in the
front so you have to get to their flank or get behind them. M-18's and T-34's are fast and are well suited for taking them out.
Both tanks (M-18 and T-34/85) are a bargain at only 1 perk point. :D
Good Hunting,
Mano
:salute
-
Hangar campers crying about people actually defending their base? Unpossible!
-
More like perk fliers complaining about GVs being in the game even. So lets carry this through and say that perk fighters and bombers can launch one at a time until the last one to spawn is 10k from the field.
Limiting users in that way will only make users mad. Think about it. How come I can see a 262 leaving but I cant have one? I have perks too!
Bad idea.
-
Hangar campers crying about people actually defending their base? Unpossible!
+1 for using 'unpossible'
-
More like perk fliers complaining about GVs being in the game even. So lets carry this through and say that perk fighters and bombers can launch one at a time until the last one to spawn is 10k from the field.
Limiting users in that way will only make users mad. Think about it. How come I can see a 262 leaving but I cant have one? I have perks too!
Bad idea.
been playing for 6 years and only 3 times i have seen more than 1 262's up at the same time. and I can tell you that only twice I have seen more than 1 set of b29's up. when you up a plane you always run the risk of losing perks. either to enemy action or to dumb luck crashing on takeoff/landing and getting a ditch.
uping a tiger2 and sitting on concrete has basically zero risk of losing perks. even from bombs as you can hear them falling for several seconds before impact. hell you can even see if they are coming if the plane is low enough. and just by looking at the stats for this month you can easily deduct that most tanks are either on concrete or close enough to make it back if there's a chance of losing precious perks.
all I am saying is if you want to up a tiger2 you should be have some risk involved in losing some perks just like it happens with airplanes. and they way i see it most people just dont want to take a risk but get the benefits of it by sitting on concrete.
look at the statistics here and you can easily tell who sits on concrete as nobody can be that lucky getting so many kills with so few deaths.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/newscores/killsbyp.php?sortby=0&selectTour=LWTour146&pindex=117
semp
-
been playing for 6 years and only 3 times i have seen more than 1 262's up at the same time. and I can tell you that only twice I have seen more than 1 set of b29's up. when you up a plane you always run the risk of losing perks. either to enemy action or to dumb luck crashing on takeoff/landing and getting a ditch.
uping a tiger2 and sitting on concrete has basically zero risk of losing perks. even from bombs as you can hear them falling for several seconds before impact. hell you can even see if they are coming if the plane is low enough. and just by looking at the stats for this month you can easily deduct that most tanks are either on concrete or close enough to make it back if there's a chance of losing precious perks.
all I am saying is if you want to up a tiger2 you should be have some risk involved in losing some perks just like it happens with airplanes. and they way i see it most people just dont want to take a risk but get the benefits of it by sitting on concrete.
look at the statistics here and you can easily tell who sits on concrete as nobody can be that lucky getting so many kills with so few deaths.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/newscores/killsbyp.php?sortby=0&selectTour=LWTour146&pindex=117
semp
How many many of them spawn camp? I can name a few on that list that does.
-
How many many of them spawn camp? I can name a few on that list that does.
more than a few and from a safe place. where they can run back to base at the smallest chance of losing their perks. the point of the wish is to make it equal to upping a perked plane in the game. you can always lose it. but upping a tiger2 and sitting at your own base basically involves no risk.
look the score of some of the truly great tankers in the game. and they dont really sit at their own base. they may camp as hell but they have hundreds of deaths also and not from tiger 2's.
semp
-
Tank-Ace,
I wasn't hunting GVs. I was flying along at low altitude looking for enemy aircraft. I never got within icon range of the stupid Wirbelwind.
I am sorry that you think that GVs should be immune to aircraft while being able to destroy any aircraft at will, but things just are not as lopsided as you make them out to be. Whenever the GV fans outlandish claims of the effect aircraft have on them is examined, the claims are shown to be wild exagerations.
Again, I've never said anything even remotely close to this. You're trying to portray me as this fanatical tank fan, who thinks its only fair if I have a field day, and thats not at all what I'm about.
Theres a world of difference between being being allowed to sit on concrete, and destroying aircraft with impunity. If you want to say that WIRBS have to go, say, 1000yds from base before landing, else they get no perks, I would be fine with that. Why? Because wirblewinds can actually defend themselves from aircraft, which is something the Tiger I and II cannot do.
You have yet to say how its fair to REQUIRE the two highest value targets to go far off base regardless of situation, or else lose perk points. Again, its the EXACT EQUIVELANT of REQUIRING 262's an 163's to go out and furball (and by this, I mean actually get in there and mix it up).
Sorry, but if theres even 1 bomb-carrying aircraft overhead, then the requirment to go off-base is monsterously unfair. What you're asking is for the Tiger II to drive out to where a death is almost guaranteed.
I don't care if HTC doesn't like personal attacks, but right now, you're all being a pack of bloody idiots! You're looking at the solution to one problem in isolation, and then trying to apply it to EVERY situation.
-
Again, I've never said anything even remotely close to this. You're trying to portray me as this fanatical tank fan, who thinks its only fair if I have a field day, and thats not at all what I'm about.
Theres a world of difference between being being allowed to sit on concrete, and destroying aircraft with impunity. If you want to say that WIRBS have to go, say, 1000yds from base before landing, else they get no perks, I would be fine with that. Why? Because wirblewinds can actually defend themselves from aircraft, which is something the Tiger I and II cannot do.
You have yet to say how its fair to REQUIRE the two highest value targets to go far off base regardless of situation, or else lose perk points. Again, its the EXACT EQUIVELANT of REQUIRING 262's an 163's to go out and furball (and by this, I mean actually get in there and mix it up).
Sorry, but if theres even 1 bomb-carrying aircraft overhead, then the requirment to go off-base is monsterously unfair. What you're asking is for the Tiger II to drive out to where a death is almost guaranteed.
I don't care if HTC doesn't like personal attacks, but right now, you're all being a pack of bloody idiots! You're looking at the solution to one problem in isolation, and then trying to apply it to EVERY situation.
Cool down, Tank-ace. Now here is a question for you. What is the % of bombs killing an GV? There are times that i will used all three bombs on one tank and still do not kill it. And i am sure i am not the only one.
-
Again, I've never said anything even remotely close to this. You're trying to portray me as this fanatical tank fan, who thinks its only fair if I have a field day, and thats not at all what I'm about.
Theres a world of difference between being being allowed to sit on concrete, and destroying aircraft with impunity. If you want to say that WIRBS have to go, say, 1000yds from base before landing, else they get no perks, I would be fine with that. Why? Because wirblewinds can actually defend themselves from aircraft, which is something the Tiger I and II cannot do.
You have yet to say how its fair to REQUIRE the two highest value targets to go far off base regardless of situation, or else lose perk points. Again, its the EXACT EQUIVELANT of REQUIRING 262's an 163's to go out and furball (and by this, I mean actually get in there and mix it up).
Sorry, but if theres even 1 bomb-carrying aircraft overhead, then the requirment to go off-base is monsterously unfair. What you're asking is for the Tiger II to drive out to where a death is almost guaranteed.
I don't care if HTC doesn't like personal attacks, but right now, you're all being a pack of bloody idiots! You're looking at the solution to one problem in isolation, and then trying to apply it to EVERY situation.
well if you think about it the 262 and 163 must put themselves in situations where they can lose all the perks when attacking aircraft. it's not like they can just type .ef and be out of danger if it takes some damage like the tiger2 sitting on concrete has.
and nobody is asking for a tiger2 to go out where a death is almost guaranteed. but we are asking that if they want to get kills to have some risk involved instead of just sitting in concrete on the base. imagine the advantage a 262 or a 163 would have if it could shoot at any plane from 3 or 4k out and get kills? even a b29 with a zillion defensive guns and ammo runs the risk of getting shot down and it is perked similar to the tiger2 and even more when you take 3.
now nobody is asking for the tiger 2 to lose all perks by sitting on concrete but if it doesnt spawn somewhere then it should have some risk or losing perks even if it is 5 just for sitting on concrete when it can end at the slightest sign of danger. which is something a perked airplane cannot do unless it wants to get kills.
semp
-
I love my Tiger IIs, Tiger Is and they are both very dangerous but there true potential only comes out if you use them right and camping doesn't get you very far. As anyone who has played an FPS in the past knows, when you camp you become a target. now that being said i don't agree that camping on concrete just so you can tower out to save you perks from a lucky bomb isn't all that realistic and kinda leaves a funny taste in your mouth.
Now i don't think a perk penalty is the way to go because it would potentially hurt defenders. Maybe the way to go would be to impose a short timer between when you hit end sortie and when you get to the tower, maybe 5, 10 or even 15 seconds. that way tanks cant just tower out when they hear bombs dropping
(Edit: this would only apply to GVs)
-
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Smileys/de_acampada.gif)
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Smileys/popcorn.gif)
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl :aok
-
Sorry, but if theres even 1 bomb-carrying aircraft overhead, then the requirment to go off-base is monsterously unfair. What you're asking is for the Tiger II to drive out to where a death is almost guaranteed.
I don't care if HTC doesn't like personal attacks, but right now, you're all being a pack of bloody idiots! You're looking at the solution to one problem in isolation, and then trying to apply it to EVERY situation.
You don't even play the game let alone played when the Tiger 2 came out, you haven't faced a Tiger 2 sitting on concrete blasting tanks 3k away and lands when you ping them once or twice or when someone drops a bomb bails.
Again where is the experience in dealing with it? you don't have any. On a certain map like V41 (next to A40) is a Vehicle base where ground vehicles spawn from the Port P39 - while back I upped a Tiger 2 and without having to leave concrete
I was able to blast tanks at 4k away, they had to drive around the ocean and had VERY few cover spots to hide out.
I rarely take up a Tiger 2 because Its not only timid to do this, but if you look at certain players its evident they exploit this more often then none.
-
The thing is that GV's cannot defend THESELVES from aircraft. They HAVE to rely on flackers, and on other aircraft. And even then, if someone spots them and decides to make a bomb run, they are helpless.
What if a small darbar suddenly apears? Sorry, but untill those arses go land, I'm not going to up more than a panther. If you want to pay me back that 5-10% of my Tiger II's perk price for landing, then I'd be fine. What if I up a Tiger II, and spend my time fighting attackers that are almost on base. Am I supposed to drive 2000yds round trip just so I can land without loosing perks?
The perk price of GV's are not affected by their vulnerability to aircraft, just as an aircraft's perk price is not affected by its vulnrability to AA fire from the ground. Aircraft have more of an impact on GV's than GV's do on aircraft.
The biggest issue is that even 150mm armor of a Tiger II doesn't give it any more protection against aircraft, while the 500mph speed of a 262 DOES make it harder for GV's to kill, simply because its harder to hit. In addition to this, aircraft can be given guaranteed protection from ground fire simply by climbing. However from the instant he spawns up, a GV is guaranteed to be under the threat of air attack untill the instant he lands.
So in addition to the GV drivers being under CONSTANT threat, you want to penalize perk tank drivers for being cautious? The only way that could even possibly work is if perk tank drivers broke even when bombed within 1000yds of the base, regardless of circumstances. They don't gain anything, and they don't lose anything.
well said.
-
What about having a perk cost regardless of landing successfully or not?
That would cool the "squatters" (Tiger II concrete magnets) a bit. It would change the dynamics quite a bit if the cost of SPAWNING of King Tiger was 40, regardless of getting kills or being killed. Same goes for a perk cost of 12 in a Tiger, and 8 in a Panther. I'd keep the same scores for the T34/85, M4/76, and M18.
-
What about having a perk cost regardless of landing successfully or not?
That would cool the "squatters" (Tiger II concrete magnets) a bit. It would change the dynamics quite a bit if the cost of SPAWNING of King Tiger was 40, regardless of getting kills or being killed. Same goes for a perk cost of 12 in a Tiger, and 8 in a Panther. I'd keep the same scores for the T34/85, M4/76, and M18.
http://www.crackcocainerecovery.com/ (http://www.crackcocainerecovery.com/)
-
Again, I've never said anything even remotely close to this. You're trying to portray me as this fanatical tank fan, who thinks its only fair if I have a field day, and thats not at all what I'm about.
You are fanatical about it. Your claim that if there is any aircraft carrying a single bomb the Tiger II is as good as dead if it leaves the concrete is at least as absurd as my claim that you want GVs to be able to kill aircraft at will. My claim that you want GVs to be immune to aircraft is certainly not far off the mark.
-
This can be extended to aircraft vs. vehicles too.
First - Nobody attempts to bomb a GV just sitting on the pavement, motionless (like the ideal sitting duck it is) in this game, twice.
Second - Nobody will try strafing a single or even a gaggle of whirbles sitting on the pavement defending the base. - And the really SAD part about this one is - IT'S NOT that a single or couple enemy aircraft don't mind hedging the bet against any risk of being shot down when attmepting to outwit and knock out a flaker's teeth, it's that they don't like doing it when in less than 10-seconds after investing their effort, *insert loud toilet flush*.
I understand a range-check can be exploited/abused, but could we add something like the the current damage/kill-tracking variable introduced with aircraft not that long ago, in addition to a range check. Where if someone lands on pavement within a short distance of their opponent (range-check), and combat damage has been inflicted upon them (similar to how double-fatal HOs work in the air, if no gun damage was caused and you then travel beyond the minimum range then no kill is awarded), then the single player that inflicted the most damage get the kills (and those with less but contributing damage get an assist).
This would still allow those GVs wanting to successfuly land before getting litteraly "tagged" by something they had no intention of dealing with, while penalising those GVs just sitting on the pavement waiting to land the second things turn from an ideal "target rich environment" to "I am the target for the environment". And of cource, the GVs looking to instantly repair or rearm, because we all know the whopping 10-seconds to up an M3 and kick out supplys (once again, only in comparison to an attacking AC who paitently waited and watched for an ideal opportunity to strike) is a game-play killing inconvenience.
-
You don't even play the game let alone played when the Tiger 2 came out, you haven't faced a Tiger 2 sitting on concrete blasting tanks 3k away and lands when you ping them once or twice or when someone drops a bomb bails.
Again where is the experience in dealing with it? you don't have any. On a certain map like V41 (next to A40) is a Vehicle base where ground vehicles spawn from the Port P39 - while back I upped a Tiger 2 and without having to leave concrete
I was able to blast tanks at 4k away, they had to drive around the ocean and had VERY few cover spots to hide out.
I rarely take up a Tiger 2 because Its not only timid to do this, but if you look at certain players its evident they exploit this more often then none.
I have kills in the Tiger II dummy. You just assume that because I don't currently have an account, that I wasn't in for the Tiger II. Granted I haven't played the M18, the Panzer IV F, or the new P-40's, but I was in for the Tiger II.
When I (correctly) accused Krusty of having almost no recent expierience with GV's, I went back and checked his scores. I checked each month, and all tours for most months, to make sure I was right. But the point is that I checked, and that I was right. If you want to say I have no grounds to talk on th M18, then go for it. I would agree with you, since I haven't played it. If you want to say I have no grounds to talk on the Panzer IV F, well maybe. Its still a panzer, and probably still plays in the same basic style as the Panzer IV H.
But no, you're too damn lazy to go check and see if I played in the tour when the Tiger II was released. You know the month, you don't even have to check ALL the months, just one. And theres only one arena where I could have played the Tiger II. Thats not just laziness, thats stupidity.
Oh, and BTW, when I took out a Tiger II during that tour, not once was I on the concrete. I was out brawling with it, and using it to smash in their flanks.
You are fanatical about it. Your claim that if there is any aircraft carrying a single bomb the Tiger II is as good as dead if it leaves the concrete is at least as absurd as my claim that you want GVs to be able to kill aircraft at will. My claim that you want GVs to be immune to aircraft is certainly not far off the mark.
Never once did I say that a single plane with a bomb is certian death for the Tiger II, you're putting words in my mouth. I said that planes are more dangerous to GV's than GV's are to planes, which is true. The two aren't even close. Granted the wirbys have high kill numbers, but from what I observed when playing, it was mostly because people were flying stupid, not because Wirblewinds were some great scourge on aircraft.
I actually feel the reduced icon range would be enough (and from what I've heard, it has been). But when idiots start going on about how we need to be harsher on GV's, thats when I get steamed. And yet with NO evidence to support your claim, you go and accuse me of wanting imunity to aircraft. I'm actually a bit supprised, normally you're more intellegent than that.
Babalonian, the issue is that it penalizes everyone unfairly whenever the VH is down. And its not at all uncommon for VH's to be down when under attack; if anything its the norm.
-
Tank-ace, i am lost. What is it that you want or trying to do here?
-
Really, I'm just defending the GV'ers right now. I guess what I'm trying to do is baby sit you lot and make sure you don't go and screw up the GV system.
-
for those who are thinking about defenseless gv's being bombed to death all day long. should go back and look at the stats. majority of deaths are from other gv's. and if you start deducting kills that you know are proxies (fi-156 has over 200 kills on tanks including 2 tiger and 6 panthers oh and a 262 kill too) then you will start thinking different. and perhaps you should also notice that tanks have a lot of kills on planes and those dont include the werbie or m16 types.
but when you look at the stats of those are are true gv'ers you will notice that most hardly use tiger to get the hundreds of kills that some people get with tiger 2 by sitting safely at a base.
semp
-
Planes have a relativly small percentage of GV kills because of concrete sitting, and because tanks can kill eachother faster.
Thats like saying that fewer people (by percentage) in Afrika die of cancer than compared to people in the US. Yeah, at initial glance, it might apear as if fewer Afrikans have cancer, but whats really going on is that fewer people in Afrika live long enough to be slowly killed by cancer, and are killed by a multitude of other issues.
-
Planes have a relatively small percentage of GV kills because of concrete sitting, and because tanks can kill each other faster.
That is like saying that fewer people (by percentage) in Africa die of cancer than compared to people in the US. Yeah, at initial glance, it might apear as if fewer Africans have cancer, but whats really going on is that fewer people in Africa live long enough to be slowly killed by cancer, and are killed by a multitude of other issues.
how can I argue with that logic tank-ace. I couldn't really think of anything to contradict your argument so i just corrected some of your spelling errors. I was gonna say that it is the dumbest comparison ever but somebody will probably bring up one of mine too.
you do know that Africa is a continent and not a country right?
semp
-
Well, I don't really give a damn about spelling errors, seeing as it was about 10:30 PM where I live when I posted.
And I'm perfectly aware of the fact that Afrika is a continent, but that doesn't make the comparison wrong. While not the best one ever posted (probably due to the fact that it was 10:30 after a long day), it still accurately illustrates whats going on with the numbers for aircraft kills of GV's.
-
As I said, I'd love to see what GV numbers would be if there was no option to sit on the concrete. Easiest method I can think of would be to require the GV to be in the hangar in order to 'Land Successfully'. Perk costs could be adjusted as needed once actual survival rates were identified.
-
That wouldn't work either, Karnak. GV's don't have even a fraction of the aircraft's ability to go land at another base if theirs is captured. If you remove their ability to land anywhere as long as theres no enemys within 6k, you're being a bit unfair to the GV'ers.
The ground war wasn't a war of bases and strong points like AH depicts it. As long as troops weren't behind enemy lines, and they were still operating as part of a cohesive unit, they would still recieve supplys. Do you think that Panzer units stopped getting gasoline shipped to them as soon as they got pushed out of a town?
That being so, GV's shouldn't require a base to land safely at all. They're nessecary for gameplay purposes, but we shouldn't by trying to further restrict GV's.
Personally, I think a delay between when you hit the end sortie button and when you actually land would be best. To keep it fair (to say nothing of realistic), it should also be applyed to aircraft as well; your plane stayed on the runway even after you hopped out of the cocpit.
-
That wouldn't work either, Karnak. GV's don't have even a fraction of the aircraft's ability to go land at another base if theirs is captured. If you remove their ability to land anywhere as long as theres no enemys within 6k, you're being a bit unfair to the GV'ers.
The ground war wasn't a war of bases and strong points like AH depicts it. As long as troops weren't behind enemy lines, and they were still operating as part of a cohesive unit, they would still recieve supplys. Do you think that Panzer units stopped getting gasoline shipped to them as soon as they got pushed out of a town?
That being so, GV's shouldn't require a base to land safely at all. They're nessecary for gameplay purposes, but we shouldn't by trying to further restrict GV's.
Personally, I think a delay between when you hit the end sortie button and when you actually land would be best. To keep it fair (to say nothing of realistic), it should also be applyed to aircraft as well; your plane stayed on the runway even after you hopped out of the cocpit.
I never said anything about removing the 6k clear landing. Only the concrete sitting.
-
That wouldn't work either, Karnak. GV's don't have even a fraction of the aircraft's ability to go land at another base if theirs is captured. If you remove their ability to land anywhere as long as theres no enemys within 6k, you're being a bit unfair to the GV'ers.
The ground war wasn't a war of bases and strong points like AH depicts it. As long as troops weren't behind enemy lines, and they were still operating as part of a cohesive unit, they would still recieve supplys. Do you think that Panzer units stopped getting gasoline shipped to them as soon as they got pushed out of a town?
That being so, GV's shouldn't require a base to land safely at all. They're nessecary for gameplay purposes, but we shouldn't by trying to further restrict GV's.
Personally, I think a delay between when you hit the end sortie button and when you actually land would be best. To keep it fair (to say nothing of realistic), it should also be applyed to aircraft as well; your plane stayed on the runway even after you hopped out of the cocpit.
yup nobody is talking about spawning. all we are talking is about tigers 2 who sit on concrete on their base or perhaps just a few yards in front racking up kills. 90% of the kills done by tigers2 are in this manner. there's no risk involved in that. I say if you dont spawn then you should pay a few perks for the priviledge or getting easy kills from the safety of your own base. nobody is talking about the other tanks.
semp
-
My idea was sublime. All others suck. That is all.
-
So, you would make landing on concrete (but not inside of hangers) give tanks a ditch? Or would it just be the Tiger II.
Perhaps theres something I'm missing, but wouldn't it just be easier to remove the concrete, so theres no safe place to land outside of the hangers (and perhaps on ammo bunkers, I've never tested it) as long as enemies are present, as opposed to making concrete just instantly give a tank a ditch?
-
this is actually two wishes but they are related. but I wish at least one of them to be considered.
I wish there was a limit of only 1 either tiger or tiger2 that can spawn at a vh base. the number is unlimited if you spawn somewhere. if the first tiger 1 or 2 goes more than 1k from the base then another can up. it was ridiculous yesterday having several tiger 2 at one base sitting on concrete "defending".
I saw the knights attack a base and the tiger2 promply run and land his kills. when the hangar was camped the campers were killed 1 by 1 with regular tanks spawning just like it should be done. once all the attackers on base were killed then the tiger 2's promptly spawned again to "defend" while sitting in concrete.
the second wish is that you lose some perks when upping a tiger 1 or 2 and just sit on your own base. or just go within let's say 1k and then run back. I would say about 5% or 10% of of the perk value at the time you upped, of course this would be reduced based on whichever perks you get for your kills.
this would really stop the sit on the concrete that it seems lots of players do. this will make it comparable to upping a perked airplane where there's a chance you wont make it back and lose your perks. with a tank you just .ef even if damaged and get your full perks to up another again.
semp
First if your going to attack a base what you might find useful is a few aircraft loaded with 2 1k bombs and a rack of rockets not only that add some strategy to an attack use common sense if they are sitting there front on facing you flank them dont even waste your time trying to kill them front on, you say that they become a problem if thats what you think then I would mention the panther in this post, it works with any tank not just the tiger. The fact of the matter is they pay for the tank knowing if they die they will lose the perks they paid for it and it would do no good but simply discourage high perk tanks from being upped, think about if you shaved a 10% off each tank and deducted that from their perks that could go up to 10/20 perks just for upping it then the original amount for if they get killed all it does is add 10% onto the perk cost really, it would come out better just raising the perk price by a 5% markup maybe even more.
Not to mention the Tiger's and Panthers were not offensive tanks they were best when on the DEFENSIVE thats what they were partly for the Tiger II was for just that purpose to defend Germany against the allied invaders if they could find a way to beat it im more than sure we can too.
-
First if your going to attack a base what you might find useful is a few aircraft loaded with 2 1k bombs and a rack of rockets not only that add some strategy to an attack use common sense if they are sitting there front on facing you flank them dont even waste your time trying to kill them front on, you say that they become a problem if thats what you think then I would mention the panther in this post, it works with any tank not just the tiger. The fact of the matter is they pay for the tank knowing if they die they will lose the perks they paid for it and it would do no good but simply discourage high perk tanks from being upped, think about if you shaved a 10% off each tank and deducted that from their perks that could go up to 10/20 perks just for upping it then the original amount for if they get killed all it does is add 10% onto the perk cost really, it would come out better just raising the perk price by a 5% markup maybe even more.
Not to mention the Tiger's and Panthers were not offensive tanks they were best when on the DEFENSIVE thats what they were partly for the Tiger II was for just that purpose to defend Germany against the allied invaders if they could find a way to beat it im more than sure we can too.
no look at the stats again most tiger2 will sit on their own base on concrete where there's basically no risk of losing perks as they can .ef at the slightest damage.
semp
-
I rareley see it now, used too it was everywhere but like I said they are defending a base thats just what the germans did with them sat in one spot and picked enemy's off as they moved up to engage and guess what, most of them were knocked out by artillery or 1 well placed egg, and you cant bs me and say its that hard to get a bomb**** to come bomb a KT most of them would eat shet for the opportunity to do so, especcially as much as I get bombed but then that may just be my suckazz luck.
-
Fellahs, this is a chicken and egg argument.
Tanks are by design offensive weapons. HTC must incentivize their use as such, bottom line. Discussing concrete, bombs, etc is irrelevant if the attacking force will not commit forces of equal capability. US doctrine dictates that the defended carries a 3 to 1 advantage over the defender. If that person is in a Tiger II facing M4s then those odds are extended.
Discuss.
-
Fellahs, this is a chicken and egg argument.
Tanks are by design offensive weapons. HTC must incentivize their use as such, bottom line. Discussing concrete, bombs, etc is irrelevant if the attacking force will not commit forces of equal capability. US doctrine dictates that the defended carries a 3 to 1 advantage over the defender. If that person is in a Tiger II facing M4s then those odds are extended.
Ridiculous. Tanks in this game are targets. Nothing more. We have an entirely new mode of "combat pilots" in this game that specialize in nothing more than bombing vehicles. Sitting on concrete is the solution to losing perks to dweebs. Simple.
This entire thread is nothing more than a whine about "defeated mudhens" (you call them bomb****s). If you want to kill a Tiger or Tiger II get behind him with an M18 Hellcat and pop him inside of 1.4k. Boom!
Whine defeated.
-
To return to the OPs proposal..
To restrict the availability of any vehicle/aircraft by how many are already in use by other players is a VERY bad idea, and opens the doors for abuse by all sorts of creative means.
-
HTC will never make any changes to prevent these, and other, cowardly tactics, simply because the majority of the AH playerbase relies on them and would stop playing and paying if they were forced to man up
-
Ridiculous. Tanks in this game are targets. Nothing more. We have an entirely new mode of "combat pilots" in this game that specialize in nothing more than bombing vehicles. Sitting on concrete is the solution to losing perks to dweebs. Simple.
This entire thread is nothing more than a whine about "defeated mudhens" (you call them bomb****s). If you want to kill a Tiger or Tiger II get behind him with an M18 Hellcat and pop him inside of 1.4k. Boom!
Whine defeated.
I sort of agree with this. The pilots who specialize in bombing the tanks can easily cost tankers a lot of perks at no risk to themselves. How many perked planes are doing the bombing? And unless the plane does something foolish(flying low and straight at the tank when his gun will bear is kinda like flying straight up a gunned buff's 6),he gets to land a kill. Some pilots here are lacking in ACM skills and bombing someone who can't really shoot back or maneuver is an easy way to get your name in lights. I can't fly, but it's no big trick to bomb a tank.
In the B-29 example brought up earlier, the 29 has a fair chance of shooting the attacking plane down. Not so for the tank. He is pretty much screwed if the guy wants to bomb him...
I think camping a spawn is bs. Campers should expect to get bombed.
Concrete sitting is bs too....Maybe get rid of the tiger 2? Seems they aren't used much in attacking, but again, the guy who ups a tiger away from a base usually loses those perks.
You have a panzer, m4, t-34, panther, and a tiger sitting in a row. Which one are the bombers going to go for first?
-
I agree with Chalenge on this one.
How about this: Anyone who thinks this is a good idea, or that even limiting GV's in any way shape or form is a good idea, hop in a tank for a full tour, and drive as if your own proposals were already implemented.
If you think GV's shouldn't be able to land on concrete, drive into the hanger before you land.
If you think GV's should be forced to play a certian way, you play as if any and all restrictions you suggest were in place.
Up Tiger I's, Panther's, and Tiger II's in addition to the M4's and Panzers.
Come back at the end of the month, and tell us if you still think its a good idea. If you don't do it, well then even you clearly don't think actually helpful.
-
I agree with Chalenge on this one.
How about this: Anyone who thinks this is a good idea, or that even limiting GV's in any way shape or form is a good idea, hop in a tank for a full tour, and drive as if your own proposals were already implemented.
No. I don't like GVs and I didn't subscribe to play with them. I intensely dislike the fact that Wirbelwinds are nigh impossible to kill, safe zone creaters for cowards. I am still ticked that Wirbelwinds are now able to kill me before I can even see them.
I don't bomb GVs, but GVs have a major negative impact on my enjoyment of the game.
-
Then don't go around proposing we put restrictions and limitations on GV's Karnak.
Really, its quite simple logic: You don't play GV's, which means you have little to no expieience on how things are from a tanker's perspective. Therefore, you are unqualified to suggest solutions that are fair to both sides, as you are simply ignorant of what works for the GV'ers.
I intensly dislike the fact that bombing is nigh impossible to defend against, easy kills for the skill-les.
I am ticked that aircraft are still able to kill me when I am PHYSICLY PREVENTED FROM RETALIATING.
I don't up wirbs, but bomb tards have a strong negative impact on my enjoyment of the game.
Karnak, we'll gladly agree to limitations on wirblewinds if you can solve the bombdweeb problem for us. Hell, we'll ask for killshooter to be disabled and start hunting our own wirbs if you can do that. But don't expect us to help solve your own personal problems, if you're unwilling to help us solve ours.
-
Edit:keep your mouth shut Zoney, be nice.
-
Karnak, we'll gladly agree to limitations on wirblewinds if you can solve the bombdweeb problem for us. Hell, we'll ask for killshooter to be disabled and start hunting our own wirbs if you can do that. But don't expect us to help solve your own personal problems, if you're unwilling to help us solve ours.
The stats say you don't have a problem other that wildly exaggerated claims of the kills of tanks by aircraft in the game. Aircraft already have only a marginal effect on the tank game.
-
By pure kills, yes. But even Davidwales knows that impact goes beyond simple kills.
Do aircraft make GV'ers more cautious by threat of attack? Yes
Do aircraft make perk GV's hang back, or not up, by threat of attack? BIG yes
Do aircraft report location of GV's to other GV'ers? Yes
Do aircraft destroy GV hangers, and guns? Yes
Do aircraft help inhibit offensive action with GV's, through threat of attack, and actual attack? Yes
Do aircraft help a GV offensive by killing the few braver perk GV'ers that venture off concrete? Yes
Do all those have an effect on the GV game? Yes.
Karnak, either you're making a very poor attempt at misdirection here, or you are entirely ignorant of what the game is like for a GV'er. I suspect its a combination of the two.
Aircraft should only die to non-AA vehicles when being shelled on take-off or landing, or when they are being not just dumb, but suicidally stupid. A-20's can avoid deaths to tanks by not trying to fly down their gun barrels. Tanks cannot do anything avoid deaths to A-20's without sitting on concrete or not upping.
You can either solve our bombdweeb problem for us, or solve the larger problem of tanks being unable to defefend themselves before piping in with your uninformed opinion. Untill then, you would do well to remember that your opinion IS uninformed, and that you are speaking from a possition of VERY little expirence.
-
The stats say you don't have a problem other that wildly exaggerated claims of the kills of tanks by aircraft in the game. Aircraft already have only a marginal effect on the tank game.
I would submit that the reason aircraft kill fewer vehicles than vehicles do is the symmetrical concept that aircraft kill more aircraft than vehicles do. It only makes sense why both are true. An aircraft must usually fly a distance to get to the vbases unless vehicles are attacking an airbase. You will probably also discover that tigers attacking airbases are relatively rare. The reason is... few people are stupid enough to take a tiger into a situation that is hopeless for a vehicle.
A tiger is best in a defensive posture. The main reason for this is agility and speed - neither of which the tiger has. Unless you accept that you cannot understand why a tiger would prefer to remain on concrete. A tiger is also better as long as it is moving and not in a fixed position. An aircraft in the area would usually force a tiger to move to concrete. Once it is on concrete the way to kill it is to surround it with multiple vehicles or force it to tower with a bomb.
I suspect what set this entire wish off was someone wanted to capture a field but couldnt because of all the tigers present - or perhaps a single tiger. So obviously its a situation of poor planning in that case. Either the base was never closed or not enough mudhens came along to force the tigers to tower. Personally I love to put a tiger on concrete and allow mudhens to waste their eggs trying to kill me. A20s are famous for using everything they have hoping one bomb will be the lucky one. Okay you drop four to eight bombs and I decide you win and tower. Oh - so sad you left the hangars up and now I have a fresh tiger.
Plan better next time.
-
Chalenge, despite the arrogance embedded in your comments (I am only 5'10" after all) I will respond. The key error in your logic is "In Aces High". Any paradigm associated with this statment has not been tested with different rules/views.
Here is why. It is very easy to say that "Tanks are just Targets", because indeed that is what they become because their are systems that are typically used a manner in which they were not design (take the lanc stuka). If you take the airplane out of the question, for the sake of argument and just stick to tanks, how would they be used?
Yes, the Tigers would play critical roles in base defense. To counter them you would need much higher numbers of lesser tanks, or equal tanks which have been projected via spawn to the battle. Since we know the defender holds all the "gaming cards" quick resupply, quick towering, etc... then how can the gaming creators incentivize the use of tanks in an offensive role? That is the question.
Since the discussion is to "limit the tigers", my comments are directed to "why." Should there be fleets of Tigers on the field a la C-Hog, no. But, there should be a reduced cost because of the greater risk on spawning an advanced system into the fight.
On the my idea is sublime, I was being very sarcastic because this argument is not innovative at all. Nasaying is typical BBs. Come up with an original idea instead of just shooting everyones ideas down, that is a bit more chalenge ing.
-
The stats say you don't have a problem other that wildly exaggerated claims of the kills of tanks by aircraft in the game. Aircraft already have only a marginal effect on the tank game.
Anyone who claims bombs overly kill tanks is simply over exaggerating the truth, I can pull up a few tours where I landed over 3,000 kills in GV's I doubt I got even got bombed 50 times tops.
As for Wirbels, I enjoy the range reduction on GV views, it stops people from diving 6k out onto a tank which improves survivability some what but nothing special, if someones going to bomb you - you are going to get bombed regardless.
I keep a harddeck of 3k when flying anywhere around an enemy base because a few times I had my 262 smoked by the invisible wirbs.
-
If you don't want GV's to land on concrete, then planes shouldn't be able to either. If GVs have to land in a hanger, planes do also. Just how it should go.
-
People keep posting that planes don't kill many gv's........ Haven't figured it up lately, but
zippo
LW 135 460 deaths in gv's all types
114 of these were to aircraft all types(11 of these were to Lancs, B-17's, B-24's)
So, if my numbers are right, 24.78% of the time I upped a gv, a plane killed me.
1 time in 4.
That made a major negative impact on my enjoyment of this game. I don't think it's nearly as bad since the icon range change.
How many times has a gv shot down your low flying plane?
-
If you don't want GV's to land on concrete, then planes shouldn't be able to either. If GVs have to land in a hanger, planes do also. Just how it should go.
No. GVs are vastly easier to drive to a particular spot on the ground that airplanes are. Airplanes also don't sit on the runway killing the enemy and then tower out the moment their precious little skin is threatened. The GV players are getting totally out of hand in their demands to be coddled.
Having problems with airplanes? Yeah, so did the VVS in 1941 and 1942 as did the Werhmacht and Imperial Japanese Army in 1943, 1944 and 1945. Do what they couldn't and get some fighter cover. If I see friendly GVs under air attack I happily give them some cover as I like shooting at airplanes. Combined arms is the answer, not making aircraft unable to interact with GVs.
-
No. GVs are vastly easier to drive to a particular spot on the ground that airplanes are. Airplanes also don't sit on the runway killing the enemy and then tower out the moment their precious little skin is threatened. The GV players are getting totally out of hand in their demands to be coddled.
Having problems with airplanes? Yeah, so did the VVS in 1941 and 1942 as did the Werhmacht and Imperial Japanese Army in 1943, 1944 and 1945. Do what they couldn't and get some fighter cover. If I see friendly GVs under air attack I happily give them some cover as I like shooting at airplanes. Combined arms is the answer, not making aircraft unable to interact with GVs.
By interact you mean provide a target to bomb but don't shoot at the planes? It's a GAME...In the real world, people were ASSIGNED to anti-aircraft units, and assigned to fly air cover. Since this is a game, people pretty much play the way they want to. Most would rather take a tank to a tank fight instead of a lightly armored wirble. BTW, they are pretty easy to kill.
-
By interact you mean provide a target to bomb but don't shoot at the planes?
Or shoot down the aircraft. Stop acting like it is a one way street as it most assuredly is not.
-
Karnak, you consistantly ignore the fact that if a plane dies to a non AA vehicle, THEN ITS HIS FAULT. He was flying stupid, and died because he f****d up. If you make low-angle strafing runs AT THE FRONT OF A TANK, then its your own fault when a 75mm round come crashing through your cannopy.
Fact is that aircraft should only die to tanks IF THEY ARE BEING DUMB, or if they have neglected base defense to the point that they are coming under shell fire on take off or laning.
In either case, it is directly the aircraft's fault that he is coming under shell fire. Either he made an incredibly poor tactical choice, or he was slow to respond to warning.
However, the GV can do EVERYTHING perfect, and still die to bombs. In many cases, its entirely out of the GV's hands if he lives, or dies to that A-20. He can only directly affect his chances by possitioning himself in a possition that is difficult to bomb (eg, in the corner formed by 2 cliffs), an if that doesn't work, he has to pray that the A-20 is a poor aim.
This means that the GV has to chances to LIVE, only one of which is under his control, compared to the aircraft, which has only to chances to DIE, both of which are under his control.
No matter how you try and twist it, there is simply no way to justify penalizing the GV's, when aircraft alreay have a larger impact on them, than they do on GV's.
And challenge brings up an exellent point: given how things work in AH, its only natural that GV's kill more GV's than aircraft do. Just as aircraft kill more aircraft than GV's do.
But still, you say wirblewinds are a problem, despite the fact that don't count for even close to the majority of aircraft kills. And despite the fact that aircraft kill a proportional number of GV's, you say that what I'm really after is invulnerability to bombs when I say bombdweebs are a problem.
A double standard there, Mr. Karnak? Where has your integrity gone, you used to be so much fun to debate with.
-
I missed the memo that claims life is fair. If you GV in a hostile environment, you have to expect resistence. I realize it is frustrating
to drive a long distance only to die, but it's not like you can't just up another one somewhere else.
-
Or shoot down the aircraft. Stop acting like it is a one way street as it most assuredly is not.
How many times have you seen someone up a tiger or other tank to go hunting planes?
-
On the my idea is sublime, I was being very sarcastic because this argument is not innovative at all. Nasaying is typical BBs. Come up with an original idea instead of just shooting everyones ideas down, that is a bit more chalenge ing.
Seems the primary reason for your post was to take a dig at my "arrogance." I say its because you lack the ability to compete argumentatively and dont like to be disputed. Tough!
I agree on the naysaying. In fact I believe the entire idea behind this thread is a GV-naysaying. Its ridiculous really. Might the GVers also say "lets just get rid of the airplanes."
The point is that everyone earns the perks under the same rules and so everyone should have the chance to use those perks as they are available to be used. The minute you deny someone the ability to use perks just because someone else spawned two microseconds earlier is the day you see customers start to reconsider their subscription. This idea in particular is bad for business. At one time GVs could land on any part of the field. Now its limited to concrete. Pushing this argument in the direction it is going is along the same line of thought as removing the GVs altogether which has already been voiced as the goal of one respondent.
Im sure if I can see right through your argument that Hitech already has and so I give it zero chance of moving forward.
-
I missed the memo that claims life is fair. If you GV in a hostile environment, you have to expect resistence. I realize it is frustrating
to drive a long distance only to die, but it's not like you can't just up another one somewhere else.
Except in the case of Tiger IIs that cost upwards of 100 perks. Your comment is false by ignoring the difference.
@zippo - Karnak doesnt drive GVs so he doesnt know a Tiger has a slow turret and very limited vertical elevation potential.
-
Seems the primary reason for your post was to take a dig at my "arrogance." I say its because you lack the ability to compete argumentatively and dont like to be disputed. Tough!
I agree on the naysaying. In fact I believe the entire idea behind this thread is a GV-naysaying. Its ridiculous really. Might the GVers also say "lets just get rid of the airplanes."
The point is that everyone earns the perks under the same rules and so everyone should have the chance to use those perks as they are available to be used. The minute you deny someone the ability to use perks just because someone else spawned two microseconds earlier is the day you see customers start to reconsider their subscription. This idea in particular is bad for business. At one time GVs could land on any part of the field. Now its limited to concrete. Pushing this argument in the direction it is going is along the same line of thought as removing the GVs altogether which has already been voiced as the goal of one respondent.
Im sure if I can see right through your argument that Hitech already has and so I give it zero chance of moving forward.
My argument has nothing to do with GVs and landing. It has to do with incentivizing the offensive use of tanks.
-
Like I said you are trying to take a Tiger from defense into offense. A Tiger is better at defense than offense for the reasons I outlined. It cannot maneuver or run. Its too easy to get a Tiger encircled. Then its just a delaying action until the first mudhen comes along. Changing the perk values isnt going to change that.
Then you went into the sublime comment and the arrogant comment... which didnt help your position.
-
The Tiger I can be used offensively if well handeled. Its not any slower or less manuverable than the Panzer IV is.
Hell, one of the more effective methods of defending a base is to start pushing up towards their spawn. AnglEyes and I helped save a base with a pair of Tiger I's. We upped, caught their tanks in a pincer move while a couple of Panzers and M4's were holding the center. Started pushing upto their spawn, and then dug in on a ridge line, Angl parked against the left wall of a canyon, me against the right. We held there for at least 20 minutes, with only two or three tanks helping us.
Both of us ended up landing over 20 kills.
Honestly, nothing slows down an attack more than calls of "we got a Tiger I knocking in our left flank. ****, he just took out our Panthers". Yeah, you might end up losing those perks, but it was a good use of perks when you get right down to it. Not only that, it was also an effective use of perks.
-
The Tiger I can be used offensively if well handeled. Its not any slower or less manuverable than the Panzer IV is.
Hell, one of the more effective methods of defending a base is to start pushing up towards their spawn. AnglEyes and I helped save a base with a pair of Tiger I's. We upped, caught their tanks in a pincer move while a couple of Panzers and M4's were holding the center. Started pushing upto their spawn, and then dug in on a ridge line, Angl parked against the left wall of a canyon, me against the right. We held there for at least 20 minutes, with only two or three tanks helping us.
Both of us ended up landing over 20 kills.
Honestly, nothing slows down an attack more than calls of "we got a Tiger I knocking in our left flank. ****, he just took out our Panthers". Yeah, you might end up losing those perks, but it was a good use of perks when you get right down to it. Not only that, it was also an effective use of perks.
this contradicts what you said earlier about tiger2s just sitting on their own base racking up kills with danger since they can .ef at any time.
semp
-
Tiger I, not Tiger II. You would have to be f***ing stupid to try expose your flanks in a 200 perk vehicle.
-
Wow, this thread is more about lame game play as bruv noted earlier. If the game allows it it can be done, I'm not a fan of concrete sitting and my only suggestion would be to place highly defensible positions just off the base to encourage the Perk tanks to move up on the line a bit. If you are sitting on the concrete waiting to type .ef at the first sign of trouble you are indulging in lame game play.
-
Wow, this thread is more about lame game play as bruv noted earlier. If the game allows it it can be done, I'm not a fan of concrete sitting and my only suggestion would be to place highly defensible positions just off the base to encourage the Perk tanks to move up on the line a bit. If you are sitting on the concrete waiting to type .ef at the first sign of trouble you are indulging in lame game play.
no because you might get bombed by a nasty plane and lose perks OMG LOSE PERKS it's not fair planes can kill you without any risk and don't lose perks i don't want to lose my perks PERKS PERKS PERKS adfsjkakfjasjdkgjag :cry
:rofl
-
In some MMO's when you want to disconnect you have to wait some seconds of confirmation (exactly because someone might come attack you in that time or to avoid just the kind of abuse we see here), why not do the same to end flights?
You click on end sortie or type .ef then a pop up window comes and counts down 10 seconds or so. of course this could be hell on the vulch aspect :D
-
In some MMO's when you want to disconnect you have to wait some seconds of confirmation (exactly because someone might come attack you in that time or to avoid just the kind of abuse we see here), why not do the same to end flights?
You click on end sortie or type .ef then a pop up window comes and counts down 10 seconds or so. of course this could be hell on the vulch aspect :D
Brilliant!
-
In some MMO's when you want to disconnect you have to wait some seconds of confirmation (exactly because someone might come attack you in that time or to avoid just the kind of abuse we see here), why not do the same to end flights?
You click on end sortie or type .ef then a pop up window comes and counts down 10 seconds or so. of course this could be hell on the vulch aspect :D
Bad idea precisely because in a lot of cases you are racing home to avoid the vulture that is racing after you for one run through the ack.
You guys really are desperate for kills arent you? :devil
-
You guys really are desperate for kills arent you? :devil
no not at all, I just don't like lame gameplay.
-
Now thats funny! You want to disable disabled gameplay. Like I said - desperate. You favor one form of weakness and not another. Plan better next time. Simple.
-
Bad idea precisely because in a lot of cases you are racing home to avoid the vulture that is racing after you for one run through the ack.
You guys really are desperate for kills arent you? :devil
Like in real life, ask desperately for help and once you reach the base land only when clear.
I know vulch is annoying, I hate it too but it's part of the game.
I would make it so if you just started the sortie you can end it just like we can now, there is a minimun time of say... a minute? just so you can avoid vulch on takeoff. after that doesn't matter what you are flying (driving) you have to wait some seconds before reaching the tower.
-
Wow, this thread is more about lame game play as bruv noted earlier. If the game allows it it can be done, I'm not a fan of concrete sitting and my only suggestion would be to place highly defensible positions just off the base to encourage the Perk tanks to move up on the line a bit. If you are sitting on the concrete waiting to type .ef at the first sign of trouble you are indulging in lame game play.
You wait?
Mate, you gotta create a macro for that :D
-
Bad idea precisely because in a lot of cases you are racing home to avoid the vulture that is racing after you for one run through the ack.
Well...
Plan better next time. Simple.
-
Make GVs have to log out IN a Hangar....
Problem solved.
-
Like I said you are trying to take a Tiger from defense into offense. A Tiger is better at defense than offense for the reasons I outlined. It cannot maneuver or run. Its too easy to get a Tiger encircled. Then its just a delaying action until the first mudhen comes along. Changing the perk values isnt going to change that.
Sure it will. I spawned a Tiger I into an adjacent spawn while a field was being attacked. I was able to get a few of them before they eventually got me. I was out 30ish perkies. Five guys were reliably spawing into a spawn defended by two. Neither one of us were anywhere near concrete. The point is it took four of them in mass to kill my tank, wheras if there had been one tiger attacking it may have only taken one.
The tank was designed for and has been used for since its invention as the tip of the spear in a ground attack. If we want to see the apex of those tanks used in that role in Aces High we have to find a way to incentiveize their use. Otherwise they are score potato toys.
-
I don't think incentivizing the offensive use of GV's is going to help a great deal with the perk GV issue, which is what started this whole thread. Honestly, if a perk GV spawns in to attack a base, its a guaranteed death for him unless things go perfectly (rare). The only advantage to using a perk GV offensivly, is that once you spawn up, theres no quick way to get out, so people are going to USE them.
Personally I feel we should both incentivize the offensive use of GV's, and reduce the penalty for using it as intended (that is, when things are tough and you need some mussle up there at the front).
Really, counting the threat from aircraft, the Panther isn't worth the 20 perks when you're attacking. The Firefly isn't worth its 15 or so, the Tiger I isn't worth the 30 perks when on the offensive. And the Tiger II certinally isn't worth 200. When you look at things overall, the perk price best reflects their value when on the defensive. In other words, when you have time to find a good possition that offers both cover and a wide field of fire, and are almost guaranteed some flank protection.
-
Dirtdart for every tale of events I have one to match. So much so nothing impresses anymore.
You guys talk about lame and yet these days you see stall-tuning Lancs at 500 feet... F4Us shooting the ocean so they turn better... 110s doing the same on takeoff AND during flight...
This conversation is over. Nothing new. Im sure Hitech has seen it one-hundred times already.
-
Dirtdart for every tale of events I have one to match. So much so nothing impresses anymore.
You guys talk about lame and yet these days you see stall-tuning Lancs at 500 feet... F4Us shooting the ocean so they turn better... 110s doing the same on takeoff AND during flight...
This conversation is over. Nothing new. Im sure Hitech has seen it one-hundred times already.
Clearly you are the man chalenge. The judge the jury etc....
This discussion is indeed about tanks and perks tankace. I just think that you spawn anywhere but the main hanger the cost of the vehicle is say half. That's all now the soothsayer that chalenge is would say the perk tanks would stay in the hanger less. I simply disagree.
-
Anything that might hurt score padding... you know who is against it.
-
Anything that might hurt score padding... you know who is against it.
What's the chalenge in score padding?
ack-ack
-
To return to the OPs proposal..
To restrict the availability of any vehicle/aircraft by how many are already in use by other players is a VERY bad idea, and opens the doors for abuse by all sorts of creative means.
Agree. Also, as stated by others, keeping people from using their perk points is in general a good way to destroy interest in the game.
MH
-
Limiting the tiger and tiger 2 in the method the OP has suggested is a very bad idea.
My normal MA ride is the Panzer IV F. When I want more range I switch to a Panther, when our base is getting the crap kicked out of it I switch to a Tiger or Tiger 2.
Limiting those vehicles, or requiring me to spend perks regardless of if I land the tank or not, is going to very quickly see me never ever using those tanks.
Why in the hell would I waste perks on a Tiger 2, which would require me to kill something like 50 other tanks in one sortie just to pay for upping it. When I'll just take the Panther, get the same sights, a slightly less powerful gun, same flank vulnerability, not quite as good frontal armor but enough to deal with most threats, and all for 1/4 of the price. Which means I can bring 4 of them to the fight instead of a single Tiger 2.
If you're annoyed with or have trouble with concrete sitters towering out. The solution is very simple.
Step 1. Blow up the hangars.
Step 2. Bomb the concrete sitters.
If they tower out, they can't re-up. Problem solved.
If you kill them, they're dead and can't re-up. Problem solved.
I recommend the A-20 with 8 500 lbs. bombs. Two bombs on target is a certain tank kill. Nice stable airframe, and very forgiving of learning dive bombers. Can even drop all ord and dogfight if necessary.
The only reason to complain about them is they are denying your capture of the base, so the hangars should be down anyways. If you're there for the fight and not the base capture, quit complaining and flank them.
-
Limiting the tiger and tiger 2 in the method the OP has suggested is a very bad idea.
My normal MA ride is the Panzer IV F. When I want more range I switch to a Panther, when our base is getting the crap kicked out of it I switch to a Tiger or Tiger 2.
Limiting those vehicles, or requiring me to spend perks regardless of if I land the tank or not, is going to very quickly see me never ever using those tanks.
Why in the hell would I waste perks on a Tiger 2, which would require me to kill something like 50 other tanks in one sortie just to pay for upping it. When I'll just take the Panther, get the same sights, a slightly less powerful gun, same flank vulnerability, not quite as good frontal armor but enough to deal with most threats, and all for 1/4 of the price. Which means I can bring 4 of them to the fight instead of a single Tiger 2.
If you're annoyed with or have trouble with concrete sitters towering out. The solution is very simple.
Step 1. Blow up the hangars.
Step 2. Bomb the concrete sitters.
If they tower out, they can't re-up. Problem solved.
If you kill them, they're dead and can't re-up. Problem solved.
I recommend the A-20 with 8 500 lbs. bombs. Two bombs on target is a certain tank kill. Nice stable airframe, and very forgiving of learning dive bombers. Can even drop all ord and dogfight if necessary.
The only reason to complain about them is they are denying your capture of the base, so the hangars should be down anyways. If you're there for the fight and not the base capture, quit complaining and flank them.
1. What if hangers need to be maintained in order to ensure the captured base can be imediatley defended?...
I'm already thinking ahead of you, because your angle is as blatantly made clear in your post, as your knowledge of the superb "dive" bombing characteristics of a fully laden A20, and admiting that it's gaming the game to frustrate those trying to capture a field in it....
...because Vbases are routinely spaced with enough distance to allow a group of players to make multiple respullying M3 trips before enemy tigers and panthers roll in to secure the recently captured but undefended field?
2. Planes can cause notable damage to tanks via strafing, in real-life and in this game... but, why are you (and most everyone else in this game) only familiar with their threat if they come in raining heavy ordnance?...
The solution is very simple, you just plan ahead or coordinate/communicate for GV supplies.
-
Really, counting the threat from aircraft, the Panther isn't worth the 20 perks when you're attacking. The Firefly isn't worth its 15 or so, the Tiger I isn't worth the 30 perks when on the offensive. And the Tiger II certinally isn't worth 200. When you look at things overall, the perk price best reflects their value when on the defensive. In other words, when you have time to find a good possition that offers both cover and a wide field of fire, and are almost guaranteed some flank protection.
If you are spawning a panther into a base with NO friendly air cover, yeah you are an idiot, however I routinely attack with a Panther and have no problem - it surprises the enemy who think they can sit in a cushy panther and defend against only Panzer 4's.
You might not understand attacking to well, quite a number of times I've seen a Tiger, Panther on the attack you have to know whose around you and what support you have. Nobody will bindly run a Panther into a spawn without knowing whats going on.
-
I'm not saying they can't be effective on the offensive, or that they're not usefull; I was one of the most agressive players when I still had an account. I'm still a big advocate of offensive GV use.
But I'm saying that, counting the threat of air attack, the Tiger I isn't 30 perks effective. I could be more usefull by upping 15 M4's at 2 perks a piece, simply because I'm a lower value target, which means I last longer and have more time to make kills and do damage.
And again, thats not to say that tanks like the Tiger I and panther don't have their places; they can do things that an M4 can't, such as long-range engagments with heavy armor, slugging it out with other perk tanks, and going forward to shift some stuborn defenders.
However, they still don't usually do the same ammount of damage that 15 M4's couldn't do individually. They do it in a shorter span of time, and can push situations more, but they still don't equal 15 M4's worth of effectivness.
-
However, they still don't usually do the same ammount of damage that 15 M4's couldn't do individually. They do it in a shorter span of time, and can push situations more, but they still don't equal 15 M4's worth of effectivness.
And one panther can easily knock out 15 M4s in a short span. Hence why you need panthers/tigers to escort these wimpy tanks.
-
If the M4's decide to try and lemming-charge the panther, yeah. But if I can kill a Panther in an M8 while hes aware of me, I'm fairly certian that I can take on just about any Panther ever born in an M4.
-
If the M4's decide to try and lemming-charge the panther, yeah. But if I can kill a Panther in an M8 while hes aware of me, I'm fairly certian that I can take on just about any Panther ever born in an M4.
Against a decent tanker, you have no chance to sneak up on a Panther, regardless of what you are in.
Against 8435039 in a panther, sure an M8 can kill even a King Tiger.
Ask LT, snuck up on his King Tiger in an M3 and pinged him 10 times but no kills from under 200 behind him, again decent tanker = forget it
-
The bottom line is that Tigers are very adept at base defense as well they should be.
At the end of the day, combined arms is what is going to win the base. The days of errant and frequent, 2-person base captures are long gone.
-
The bottom line is that Tigers are very adept at base defense as well they should be.
At the end of the day, combined arms is what is going to win the base. The days of errant and frequent, 2-person base captures are long gone.
It only happens during wee hours of the morning, but yeah 2 person attacks are quite rare otherwise.
I can remember the days of a pair of Me110s, a N1k and a goon/m3 to take a base.
-
It only happens during wee hours of the morning, but yeah 2 person attacks are quite rare otherwise.
I can remember the days of a pair of Me110s, a N1k and a goon/m3 to take a base.
So can I :D
-
1. What if hangers need to be maintained in order to ensure the captured base can be imediatley defended?...
If you can't hold the base long enough for the hangars to come back up you don't have enough people to take the base in the first place. You have nearly the same distance to spawn in and advance to the base as the other team, with the advantage of now holding the base and having buildings for cover. It can take nearly 10 minutes to drive a tank just within range to shoot a base, let alone move onto and secure it for capture. Plenty of time for the hangars to come back up.
I'm already thinking ahead of you, because your angle is as blatantly made clear in your post, as your knowledge of the superb "dive" bombing characteristics of a fully laden A20, and admiting that it's gaming the game to frustrate those trying to capture a field in it....
:headscratch: Huh? My point is that if you want to capture the base, and your ground forces are ineffective, and the enemy is sitting on concrete gaming the game, then the option and capability to remove his ability to game the game is there. Blow up the damn hangars, then force them to tower out or die.
Forcing me to buy a Tiger or Tiger 2 and then kill dozens of tanks just to pay for that single sortie is stupid. If I lose it, oh well I lost the tank, that's the game. I knew that risk when I pushed the button.
But punishing me for even taking it out of the hangar? Toejam that. Do that and you'll only ever see them in two locations, on a mountain overlooking V135 with 300 kills and a dedicated M3 to resupply them. ( Yay I now have 10 net perks... owait I could be down there in a IVF and have gotten 10 times that for 1/3rd of the kills and not be paranoid about every shadow.) Or 10Km away from V85 playing sniper and running everytime a CV gets close to shore.
...because Vbases are routinely spaced with enough distance to allow a group of players to make multiple respullying M3 trips before enemy tigers and panthers roll in to secure the recently captured but undefended field?
Actually... yes. You can get 1, probably 2 trips in with an M3 before a Tiger or Panther is in range of the Vbase. Depending on terrain. If they leave at the same time. If you actually have people who decide to resupply the base you can get a hangar up in one run.
And after capping a blown up Vbase... anyone who then towers out and runs off and leaves it undefended... deserves to have it retaken 5 minutes later.
2. Planes can cause notable damage to tanks via strafing, in real-life and in this game... but, why are you (and most everyone else in this game) only familiar with their threat if they come in raining heavy ordnance?...
There are only two aircraft I pay attention to when ordnance is down. Hurri 2d, or IL2. Anything else is ignored. Oh look you knocked out my pintle gun... like I ever use that against anything but a Storch and the co-ax is just as effective. I might get tracked, but the odds of that happening are pretty much nill. I've been tracked three.. maybe four times in the past year. Two from tanks, the others from near-misses by bombs.
.50 cals, 20 and 30 MM HE rounds, are pretty much useless against tanks. You might get a mobility kill here and there but for the most part it isn't worth the time. You're better off hunting M3's and M-18's with those rounds.
Bombs are certain kills if you know how to aim, can be dropped out of range of AAA, and are rather satisfying to throw at someone who has been camping a spawn for the past hour and a half.