Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Tank-Ace on April 14, 2012, 06:59:55 PM
-
....... and make a thread asking for flacker icons to be increased. Wait, heres one!
Can we please get the icons for flacks increased slightly?
1200yds (MAXIMUM view distance) for the wirblewind
1000yds (again, MAXIMUM view distance) for the Osti
800yds (I repeate MAXIMUM view distance) for the M16
I also propose that we either decrease the view distance for friendly ground units to 2000yds, unless a storch is present, or make these hard set limits for both friendly and enemy units, and have it not be increased by the presence of a Storch.
Personally, I say no greater than that. If theres 1 tank, 1 flacker, and 1 plane up, then the plane should have the same odds of survival as the tank does. GV's weren't put here to be targets for those lacking the skills to make an A2A kill. Nobody's gameplay depends on being able to easily bomb tanks. As such, it should be impossible to easily bomb tanks; it should be a hard thing to do.
-
Is this really necessary? Your proposal introduces a bunch of additional inconsistencies into the game. Some questions which come to mind include:
1) Why would an AA vehicle be inherently more visible than a non-AA vehicle?
2) Why is the friendly vehicle icon range dependent on the presence of a Storch?
MH
-
shouldn't the osti have the higher view distance since it should be able to have a better chance of accurate fire with the 37 as opposed to the 20mm? o the wirb?
-
This is absurd.
Simply make friendly GV icons follow the same rules for aircraft as enemy GV icons do. Presto. No more running to Wirbels.
-
(post deleted)
-
TDeacon, it wouldn't be, but it would be for gamplay purposes.
Mercinary, this is because the Wirblewind is easier to land hits with than the Ostie is. Yeah, the 37mm has a longer effective range, but the higher ROF and volume of fire you get with the Wirblewind makes it a more effective AA weapon.
Karnak, because friendly aircraft will have a better idea of where friendly forces are than an enemy aircraft. And beyond that, they have the ability to be in radio contact with friendly forces. Even if they only get a message saying 'we have a FlaK unit about 2 miles NNW of you', its going to be more than the enemy knows.
-
Karnak, because friendly aircraft will have a better idea of where friendly forces are than an enemy aircraft. And beyond that, they have the ability to be in radio contact with friendly forces. Even if they only get a message saying 'we have a FlaK unit about 2 miles NNW of you', its going to be more than the enemy knows.
The same is true in AH. Icons are not needed to simulate any of that. You can just ask on VOX.
-
As such, it should be impossible to easily bomb tanks; it should be a hard thing to do.
You think it should be hard because Karnak is correct. You want it so GVs are virtually immune to being attacked by aircraft while being freely to engage aircraft at will without any risk to yourself. Someone should get you the tissue, not the other way around.
Also, it wasn't hard to bomb tanks in real life, that's why there are AA GVs to help protect the tanks from air attacks. You're basically the kind of player that because of various reasons keeps dying to something (airplanes) and instead of adapting, cries to have the game changed so they don't die as much.
So here are some tissues to wipe those tears and snot from your face.
(http://scottdesignworks.com/portfolio_images/w_toro_blk.jpg)
ack-ack
-
You are purposely leaving out half of the story though. GVs were not hard to bomb once they were spotted. Generally speaking it was infantry or other spotters that located the vehicles and then called in their positions. Spotting GVs on roads was an exception to the rule and since in AH they dont generally do that or convoy they should be hard to spot. Especially hard to spot are GVs that are not moving.
So to be totally consistent remove the icons for GVs altogether OR add icons on aircraft that are NOE. There is no reason an NOE aircraft should be able to be totally invisible while the GVs icon is broadcasting his position as you recommend.
Things are really just fine as they are. If I was to change anything it would be the auto-ranging 88s but they dont usually hit much anyway.
-
So because I think that I should have a decent chance of survival, I suddently want to be able to sweep aircraft from the sky with a jeep or something?
AKAK, you don't GV, and I understand how that can make it difficult to really KNOW what the GV'ers are saying to you. But you should be albe to understand the difference between being able to affect your own chances of survival, and being almost entirely reliant on someone else to save you.
When I'm rolling along in my Panther, what can I do to affect my chances of survival?
I can possition myself so that I'm not the first target spotted. I can maybe hug a flack, but its about even money that I just end up getting the flacker caught in the blast as well. And past that, I can open up on the aircraft with my pintle machine gun; it'll make me feel better for a few seconds, but the aircraft ain't what you'd call worried about it.
When you get right down to it, even the C-47 can do more to affect its own personall chances of survival against a fighter than a tank can against a heavy fighter. Thats not to say the C-47 is less vulnerable, but only that he can do more to affect his chances.
The C-47 can at least manuver against fighters; I've had 5 minute dogfights in C-47's before.
But the GV? All the tank can do is hope that he doesn't get picked out as a target, and really just fire the pintle gun to show hes not just going to give it up. Aside from that, a tanker really doesn't have much say in whether he lives or dies to a bomb.
So, since the tanker is FORCED to rely on others for survival, isn't it only fair that those people are actually capable of protecting the tanks? Or do you honestly think that, this being a game, that its pefectly fine for GV'ers to be nothing more than targets? Because thats what its come down to; you seem to think that unless aircraft can absolutely devestate a GV attack with little to no effort, that somehow the GV'ers are asking for imunity to bombs.
-
You should understand that there is risk. You act like the guys who up airplanes can just return to base at will. You act like a perk fighter such as an Me262 or Tempest is immune to being shot down.
Every time somebody ups they risk losing, even if it is perked.
Here is what I would do:
1) Change friendly GV icons to match enemy GV icons as seen from aircraft. This will help GVs a little bit even as an attacking aircraft wouldn't know if the tank they are lining up on is friendly or hostile until they are inside weapon's release range.
2) Set it so that GVs can only "land successfully" inside a vehicle hangar or if they are more than, say, 3,000 yards from an enemy GV or more than 1,000 yards from an aircraft.
3) Observe the resulting K/D ratios, usage levels and loss rates and adjust the perk costs of perk tanks as needed.
-
depending on your tank there is alot you can do. i dont know how many planes ive killed with my t-34
-
I dont see anything wrong with the way it is now. GV's can see aircraft icons out to 6K. Non Spotter Aircraft are severely limited in seeing the icons of what is on the ground. GV's can take cover and eliminate their icon totally from the air. Flackers and M16's have the upper hand on knocking down aircraft before the aircraft can get a "good" visual on them.
But... it is quite realistic that if one side has air support and superiority, and the other does not... the side that does not is going to get bombed... over... and over... and over again.
This is the normal progression of most tank fights in AH:
1) Tanks start fighting
2) Side A gets an advantage of position or numbers over side B
3) Side B brings in aircraft because of this
4) Side A ups Flackers because of this
5) Not enough flackers up, or they do not stay with the advancing tanks, so tanks still get bombed
5) Side A brings in aircraft because of this
6) Side B ups Flackers because of this
7) Not enough flackers up, or they do not stay with the advancing tanks, so tanks still get bombed
And so the cycle begins...
-
I dont see anything wrong with the way it is now. GV's can see aircraft icons out to 6K. Non Spotter Aircraft are severely limited in seeing the icons of what is on the ground. GV's can take cover and eliminate their icon totally from the air.
The problem I have with the current icon settings is that cowardly aircraft can see their friendly Wirbels 6,000 yards out and run to them while the aircraft they are running from can't see the Wirbel until 600 yards. Combined arms communications in WWII was not remotely that effective.
The solution, to me, is clear, just limit friendly GV icons in the same way that hostile GV icons are limited to aircraft.
-
The problem I have with the current icon settings is that cowardly aircraft can see their friendly Wirbels 6,000 yards out and run to them while the aircraft they are running from can't see the Wirbel until 600 yards. Combined arms communications in WWII was not remotely that effective.
The solution, to me, is clear, just limit friendly GV icons in the same way that hostile GV icons are limited to aircraft.
I wouldnt have issue with that either... seems only fair.
-
Since the change in the icon ranges, I think I've been shot down by an unknown wirby once. Once.
If people are having trouble comprehending or accepting the change, just remember that the allied players have comms, just like they real deal. Icons make up for one of those things.
As I say to my 7 year old daughter: "no more drama, just accept it and carry on". :aok
-
You should understand that there is risk. You act like the guys who up airplanes can just return to base at will. You act like a perk fighter such as an Me262 or Tempest is immune to being shot down.
Every time somebody ups they risk losing, even if it is perked.
Here is what I would do:
1) Change friendly GV icons to match enemy GV icons as seen from aircraft. This will help GVs a little bit even as an attacking aircraft wouldn't know if the tank they are lining up on is friendly or hostile until they are inside weapon's release range.
2) Set it so that GVs can only "land successfully" inside a vehicle hangar or if they are more than, say, 3,000 yards from an enemy GV or more than 1,000 yards from an aircraft.
3) Observe the resulting K/D ratios, usage levels and loss rates and adjust the perk costs of perk tanks as needed.
the issue is that GV's can't affect their odds of survival in battle unless the aircraft are being profoundly stupid. A tempest or a 262, on the other hand, should only die if luck isn't on his side as far as people taking 1.5k high angle deflection shots on them, or if they screw up.
Fact is that the 262 or tempest has a better than even chance against every plane in the game, and GV's don't, so the comparison is fundamentally flawed.
If I'm being stupid, and upping a Panther in the middle of a busy bomb-fest, then yes, I deserve to lose my perks. But if I up a panther in a GV fight, and a single aircraft shows up 5 minutes later, then I deserve a chance to survive that. If that means that theres some exploiting going on...... well, we should deal with that problem in particular.
I'd be fine with:
a modified version of #1, where friendly GV icons are reduced to 2k, and theres a generic 'GV' icon until 1000yds, regardless of if a Storch is present. Friendly aircraft should be more aware of where I'm at than the enemy is, and you shouldn't be able to pick out the high-priority targets at 2k. Its both fair and realistic.
That means that you would have to be in fairly close proximity to a flacker in order to be able to run to it, and that people will have to venture danger-close to unknown vehicles to get an ID on them.
#2 provided ranges are 6000yds and 1500 respectively.
-
Nope, every time you up a Panther you might lose them. End of story. Perk costs would need to be adjusted as the stats right now are completely borked by the concrete sitters.
There are free aircraft that will pretty much mean a Spitfire Mk XIV's perk cost is gone if it meets that aircraft. You have a vastly overrated sense of aircraft survivability and vastly underrate the survivability of tanks.
You need to man up and accept that sometimes you'll be bombed, sometimes those bombs will even kill you.
-
a modified version of #1, where friendly GV icons are reduced to 2k, and theres a generic 'GV' icon until 1000yds
I like this.I don't know if any of you have done vehicle identifications at 1/2 mile or more with the naked eye, but I seriously doubt you could know which kind of GV you are seeing at that range.
A big +1 for a generic "GV" icon after a certain range. I feel this would be a great addition to the game. Make it a clipboard adjustable setting for changing during certain events & such.
-
The problem I have with the current icon settings is that cowardly aircraft can see their friendly Wirbels 6,000 yards out and run to them while the aircraft they are running from can't see the Wirbel until 600 yards. Combined arms communications in WWII was not remotely that effective.
The solution, to me, is clear, just limit friendly GV icons in the same way that hostile GV icons are limited to aircraft.
there is nothing more fun in this game that shooting a guy doing ring-around-the-roses with friendly gv's. almost as good as vulching a con taking off with full ack and about 20 gv's on the floor, it doesnt make it any better than that. and karnak we have all ran to base ack or friendly gv's and that includes you :).
semp
-
Nope, every time you up a Panther you might lose them. End of story. Perk costs would need to be adjusted as the stats right now are completely borked by the concrete sitters.
There are free aircraft that will pretty much mean a Spitfire Mk XIV's perk cost is gone if it meets that aircraft. You have a vastly overrated sense of aircraft survivability and vastly underrate the survivability of tanks.
You need to man up and accept that sometimes you'll be bombed, sometimes those bombs will even kill you.
Yeah, MIGHT is the key word there. It should be the case that I might NOT lose them as well. Flackers give us a method to put some chance of survival for GV's into the mix without screwing around with the effectivness of bombs on GV's.
Either we need to:
1) make it like aircraft, where survival is also largely affected by YOUR skill, not just how well/luckily the enemy aims at you, or
2) completly redo the perk prices, to reflect an assumed loss of the vehicle, as thats basicly what happens whenever vehicles get used offensively.
Unless perked aircraft have the same RISK of loss as a roughly equivelantly perked tank when both are attacking, then something clearly isn't right.
-
Simple answer to this icon change with GV's.
I too have stumbled on to the loan flacker that is sitting quietly engine off that I did not see while looking for him bang & off to the tower I go. Rather than change the icon & for those who are historically correct orientated.
How about this one thing I have read about in the past for Jabos who were looking for tanks to bomb & it was very easy to find them. Was tank tracks in the soil they followed them to the obvious end of finding said tank no matter what & they could be seen from a decent height.
So if a tank crosses terrain of green fields model in a period of time you can actually see his foot print.
I know the answer is to much for PCs to handle. Thought I would throw it out there anyway.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/vehicles/605px-El_Alamein_1942_-_British_tanks.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/vehicles/ongoing-tank-battle-between-russian-and-german-armor-during-wwii.jpg)
-
Simple answer to this icon change with GV's.
I too have stumbled on to the loan flacker that is sitting quietly engine off that I did not see while looking for him bang & off to the tower I go. Rather than change the icon & for those who are historically correct orientated.
How about this one thing I have read about in the past for Jabos who were looking for tanks to bomb & it was very easy to find them. Was tank tracks in the soil they followed them to the obvious end of finding said tank no matter what & they could be seen from a decent height.
So if a tank crosses terrain of green fields model in a period of time you can actually see his foot print.
I know the answer is to much for PCs to handle. Thought I would throw it out there anyway.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/vehicles/605px-El_Alamein_1942_-_British_tanks.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/vehicles/ongoing-tank-battle-between-russian-and-german-armor-during-wwii.jpg)
Very interesting, we already have "track dirt" that spits up - when I am Jabo'ing I find tanks on the move quite easily due to this, given you better be zoomed in on a location and looking for it.
Really only thing out of this thread worth mentioning is fact Allied planes can see allied tanks from a far distance, allowing enemy's to run into a wirbl - this is kind of gaming the system.
I have never been shot down by a wirbl, since the patch - although I have shot down a few doing this - not necessary the allied running to me, but unsuspecting newbies flying at 1k above ground near a base.
So if you don't want to get shot down, stay at least 2k above ground and there wouldn't be any reason for this thread period.
Fail to follow the 2k rule, and you deserve to get shot down.
-
Yeah, MIGHT is the key word there. It should be the case that I might NOT lose them as well. Flackers give us a method to put some chance of survival for GV's into the mix without screwing around with the effectivness of bombs on GV's.
Either we need to:
1) make it like aircraft, where survival is also largely affected by YOUR skill, not just how well/luckily the enemy aims at you, or
2) completly redo the perk prices, to reflect an assumed loss of the vehicle, as thats basicly what happens whenever vehicles get used offensively.
Unless perked aircraft have the same RISK of loss as a roughly equivelantly perked tank when both are attacking, then something clearly isn't right.
Currently perked aircraft are at a much higher risk of loss.
The system I described would give tanks a fighting chance to "land successfully" regardless.
One more thing, stop pretending that any airplane with a bomb means death to any tank. Tanks do not suffer 100% losses to aircraft in AH.
-
Fact is that the 262 or tempest has a better than even chance against every plane in the game, and GV's don't, so the comparison is fundamentally flawed.
No, it is reality. No, Aces High is actually worse than reality as aircraft are more numerous on average in AH and they can hunt with the biggest ord load they can carry. That doesn't mean the system is broken, tactical aircraft will always decimate the ground war, historically and even today. I'm sure the Iraqi tanks had the same whines when the Apache/A10s used them as fodder in light of complete air superiority in the area.
Instead of changing the nature of GVs ability to take damage, perk certain ord load outs instead or make the load outs depend on the number of ord bunkers at a field. Perhaps small fields only have a limited amount, or not the heavy loads while bigger fields may carry a greater variety and number of bombs. This could always be affected by the number of available ord bunkers at the field, but it is a good start.
Whining about survivability of aircraft when compared to tanks is completely 'apples and oranges'.
edit: I enjoy bombing GVs, usually in this order (perk tanks always first target);
1. Tanks on top of a mountain, particularly if it takes forever to drive there and it gives them a real advantage in the area.
2. Wirbels
3. M16s
4. Tanks shelling a field.
5. Tanks spawn camping
If your tank doesn't fit the above criteria, generally I don't bomb.
-
No, it is reality. No, Aces High is actually worse than reality as aircraft are more numerous on average in AH and they can hunt with the biggest ord load they can carry. That doesn't mean the system is broken, tactical aircraft will always decimate the ground war, historically and even today. I'm sure the Iraqi tanks had the same whines when the Apache/A10s used them as fodder in light of complete air superiority in the area.
Instead of changing the nature GVs take damage, perk certain ord load outs instead or make the load outs depend on the number of ord bunkers at a field. Perhaps small fields only have a limited amount, or not the heavy loads while bigger fields may carry a greater variety and number of bombs. This could always be affected by the number of available ord bunkers at the field, but it is a good start.
Whining about survivability of aircraft when compared to tanks is completely 'apples and oranges'.
He doesn't quite understand the situation - again he hasn't played in so many months he hasn't seen the overall changes in game.
In a Panther - with the low ICON range, I control the battlefield now better then before, Jabo's can't see me - and I can free range and do my thing - the only time you get attacked if you sit in one position and don't move.
I generally have a few hundred sorties and have had up to 3000 sorties in the past year, sometimes massing over 3,000 kills in a tour as well, so I know all about tanking enough to debunk these little "Arguments".
Ground vehicles can survive as long as the tactics employed are met.
A) Spawning into an enemy base you need to have air support, even 1 fighter is enough to discourage an il-2.
B) defending wise you need air support to maneuver safely without being harassed.
Either way you need air support to stay alive, I would say 60% of the time - unless you are some base a few sectors away from any airfields. The game is quite fine the way it is right now, as it is you need at least 3 times the attackers to take out the defenders.
Usually the only time I die in a panther is trying to stop a horde and I will go through a good 20+ tanks before bombed/killed. Given I only have so much room to maneuver based on the maps - it makes it much harder for attackers, however once the VH gets blown up and I die -
then its easy push to take a base.
-
OK, I feel we've gotten off topic.
From what little I've seen through film, it seems as though the reduced icon range has sufficiently eased the life of tankers. Even if its still out of their hands, things still aren't too bad.
However Flak runners might be exploiting the reduced icon range. Reducing icon range significantly for everyone will hurt teamwork, which is something nobody wants. Its a big part of what makes the game fun.
We have proposed solutions.
Lets start discussing them.
I'd be fine with:
a modified version of #1, where friendly GV icons are reduced to 2k, and theres a generic 'GV' icon until 1000yds, regardless of if a Storch is present. Friendly aircraft should be more aware of where I'm at than the enemy is, and you shouldn't be able to pick out the high-priority targets at 2k. Its both fair and realistic.
That means that you would have to be in fairly close proximity to a flacker in order to be able to run to it, and that people will have to venture danger-close to unknown vehicles to get an ID on them.
#2 provided ranges are 6000yds and 1500 respectively.
I'm stuck on #2. 6000 yds is probably too great of a distance to let GV's escape from aircraft if there is valid need to do so (not unlikely that, if you anywhere to a fight, theres a GV with 6k of you). 3000yds, on the other hand, will let tanks bail out of a fight at the first near miss.
Also, what about if I get tracked outside of the hanger? Even if I got tracked by someone beyond Karnak's proposed 3k limit, I can no longer tower out, as I've already been hit and it will be registered as a kill. Perhaps we could elminate that particular feature for GV's.
I mean really, just getting out of the danger zone was all of a landing that a GV needed. They could operate from anywhere if they had fuel and ammo, and one patch of forest is as good as the next for camoflauge.
-
This is absurd.
Simply make friendly GV icons follow the same rules for aircraft as enemy GV icons do. Presto. No more running to Wirbels.
this
-
The C-47 can at least manuver against fighters; I've had 5 minute dogfights in C-47's before.
Zero base captures with the C47 tells me you were flying one in F3 mode to see cons before the storch showed up in game.
Got the film somewhere.
-
Somebody get Tank-Ace a tissue......
-
Surviving for five minutes in a C-47 against any fighter is almost entirely reliant on the inadequacy of the fighter pilot. Tank-Ace's Panther would have also survived against that pilot.
-
Somebody get Tank-Ace a tissue......
:lol I love watching his threads never has it not been comical.
:aok Sorry to interupt please continue.
-
Surviving for five minutes in a C-47 against any fighter is almost entirely reliant on the inadequacy of the fighter pilot. Tank-Ace's Panther would have also survived against that pilot.
Sometimes parents like their 5 and 6 yr old's fly, or someone on a 2 week trial with absolutely no experience.
-
Sometimes parents like their 5 and 6 yr old's fly, or someone on a 2 week trial with absolutely no experience.
Yup, but he was using it as an example of how aircraft are more survivable than tanks. In a tank he probably wouldn't have even noticed he was attacked by that pilot as the bomb either wouldn't arm or would land a few hundred feet off target.
-
Yup, but he was using it as an example of how aircraft are more survivable than tanks. In a tank he probably wouldn't have even noticed he was attacked by that pilot as the bomb either wouldn't arm or would land a few hundred feet off target.
Aircrafts have ALWAYS had a higher survivable rate then tanks, ever since the first tank and aircraft were built. Aircraft's can climb to 40k to escape an enemy aircraft, where a tank has to rely on Armor protection, some relied on speed.
Only thing that helped protect tanks was mobile anti aircraft artillery, and even the Germans waited far to long to boost production on it especially the wirblwind and ostwind. Tactical Air support wasn't entirely a doctrine at the beginning of war, the Germans put it in practice
of having Artillery, Airstrikes and Tanks all into one cone during an attack, coordination on the attack is what made the blitzkrieg a terrorizing tactic.
Fighters can't always keep a CAP over friendly armor, so in this sense tanks will always be vulnerable - however in aces high I routinely provide cap over friendly V-bases in hopes to catch a few ground pounders looking for easy kills.
-
Operation Cobra and Goodwood are two examples showing how vulnerable tanks were to bomber attacks. Falaise pocket is another good example of what happens to tanks when caught in the open by attacking planes, same when the weather cleared up during the Battle of the Bulge and Allied air power was finally brought in.
Tank-Ace's wish is similar to his wish in the past to make the rear guns on bombers less effective. He wants to code the game so it's easier for him to kill but not so easy for him to be killed in return.
ack-ack
-
Fighters can't always keep a CAP over friendly armor, so in this sense tanks will always be vulnerable - however in aces high I routinely provide cap over friendly V-bases in hopes to catch a few ground pounders looking for easy kills.
I do this as well. It is one of the reasons I want the icon range for friendly GVs to be reduced to match that of hostile GVs. I don't like aircraft that cower around Wirbelwinds.
-
Tank-Ace's wish is similar to his wish in the past to make the rear guns on bombers less effective. He wants to code the game so it's easier for him to kill but not so easy for him to be killed in return.
In WHAT way would this allow me to kill anything easier?
-
I do this as well. It is one of the reasons I want the icon range for friendly GVs to be reduced to match that of hostile GVs. I don't like aircraft that cower around Wirbelwinds.
This is something that just needs to be brought up, its an excellent Idea - I figured this was going to be a bad deal when during the BETA we were messing around in tank town - people were flying 262's "free".
I had a friendly zip around my Wirb and I was picking them off left and right, certainly timid - but again it does have it draw backs - Enemy Planes can cower around enemy Wirbs.
-
TankAce, if you want protection from aircraft, then protect yourself. When I GV, I almost always take a T34 because of it's ability to easily shoot down many aircraft. I've been playing for less than a year and already I've probably gotten nearly 100 G2A kills in that thing. You may not like it because it's not your uber perked Tiger 2 or Panther, but with a little practice, you can shoot down A20s as they climb to alt and Il2s are a joke. Your claim about tanks being helpless against aircraft with bombs is completely unfounded.
-
<snip>
He wants to code the game so it's easier for him to kill but not so easy for him to be killed in return.
ack-ack
And of course, you don't...
I removed the portion of your quote containing irrelevant historical trivia, since this is a game. The focus of this game has always been on plane-to-plane and tank-to-tank individual performance-driven contests, within an arbitrary framework designed to enable these contests. It is by no means an accurate historical simulation of anything above those platform-on-platform contests.
MH
-
TankAce, if you want protection from aircraft, then protect yourself. When I GV, I almost always take a T34 because of it's ability to easily shoot down many aircraft. I've been playing for less than a year and already I've probably gotten nearly 100 G2A kills in that thing. You may not like it because it's not your uber perked Tiger 2 or Panther, but with a little practice, you can shoot down A20s as they climb to alt and Il2s are a joke. Your claim about tanks being helpless against aircraft with bombs is completely unfounded.
The people you shoot down in this way must not be very skilled. With respect to planes versus GVs in this game, it's very much easy mode for the planes, which is probably why most ground attack players prefer things the way they are (although the recent visibility mods helped a little).
You are pretend contempt for those who want to use their GV perks for more powerful GVs, but the Tigers are nothing compared to a plane with a bomb. A bit of hypocracy here on the part of some of the ground attack posters. Human nature, I guess.
MH
-
The people you shoot down in this way must not be very skilled. With respect to planes versus GVs in this game, it's very much easy mode for the planes, which is probably why most ground attack players prefer things the way they are (although the recent visibility mods helped a little).
You are pretend contempt for those who want to use their GV perks for more powerful GVs, but the Tigers are nothing compared to a plane with a bomb. A bit of hypocracy here on the part of some of the ground attack posters. Human nature, I guess.
MH
I don't think there are any ground attack focused players in this thread. Nice strawman though.
-
Agreed , also you should not be able to do voice with friendly ground vehicles when in a plane , they used different radios, unless maybe in a lysander or a storch
The problem I have with the current icon settings is that cowardly aircraft can see their friendly Wirbels 6,000 yards out and run to them while the aircraft they are running from can't see the Wirbel until 600 yards. Combined arms communications in WWII was not remotely that effective.
The solution, to me, is clear, just limit friendly GV icons in the same way that hostile GV icons are limited to aircraft.
-
I don't think there are any ground attack focused players in this thread. Nice strawman though.
Sure it is; read the OP again, and look at some of the following comments. The ground-attack-easy-mode-game versus GV-game difference of opinion is present in many threads, including this one. It motivates as much forum mis-behavior as does furball versus win-the-war.
By the way, Karnak, do you GV? I honestly don't remember, and am too lazy to search.
MH
-
And of course, you don't...
MH
No, I don't want the game coded to make things easier for me to kill. I want a challenge, though it sounds like your like Tank-Ace and really don't want a challenge yourself.
ack-ack
-
No, I don't want the game coded to make things easier for me to kill. I want a challenge, though it sounds like your like Tank-Ace and really don't want a challenge yourself.
ack-ack
Actually, no. I just object to hypocrisy, which is what your comments looked like. If I was wrong, I apologize. However, we need to remember that what is a "challenge" and what is "annoying" is a matter of opinion.
MH
-
TankAce, if you want protection from aircraft, then protect yourself. When I GV, I almost always take a T34 because of it's ability to easily shoot down many aircraft. I've been playing for less than a year and already I've probably gotten nearly 100 G2A kills in that thing. You may not like it because it's not your uber perked Tiger 2 or Panther, but with a little practice, you can shoot down A20s as they climb to alt and Il2s are a joke. Your claim about tanks being helpless against aircraft with bombs is completely unfounded.
I've killed numerous aircraft with tanks as well. Including a pure dumb-luck shot at 4k on a pair of B-17's. But most of those kills are on poorly flown aircraft, usually strafers such as the Il-2 and Hurri IID. The ones I have on bombing aircraft (A-20, B-25H, etc) are with few exceptions only on the ones that possed little to no threat, and rarely before they managed to release eggs (they either missed or dropped WAYYYY too late).
For all your talk of 'nearly 100' aerial kills with the T-34, you clearly display a lack of expierience (as would be expected with a new player, and especially one that doesn't remember what things were like before the icon changes). Ability to kill aircraft that are, again, poorly flown does not mean it is capable of effective deterence, or even retaliation, in most cases.
If a plane takes a hit from the main gun any time after take off or before landing, he's made a grevious tactical error, and has forefit all rights to complain. If you fly down a tank's gun barrel, expect to be shot.
No, I don't want the game coded to make things easier for me to kill. I want a challenge, though it sounds like your like Tank-Ace and really don't want a challenge yourself.
ack-ack
AKAK, you're not a GV'er, and thats fine, but it naturally prevents you from having usefull imput on the topic. Even if you USED to GV (I'm not going to go through 10+ years of statistics for you, and I don't know what you did before AH), well we all know what time does to memories and expirences.
Your one post that is actually relevent to the topic is irrelevent to the game. Who cares what the real life attrition rates of GV's to aircraft were when there are MANY more AA units to provide cover, MUCH greater abundance of ord, we have communications much better than those in WWII that let us coordinate, Spitfires fighting P-51's, Hurricane I's flying around with 262's, more tanks than were produced dying each month........ and hell, that flourecent icon that displays nationality, range, and plane type kind of hurt any 'realism' arguments.
So, when you have a fair bit of recent GV expirence, then you'll understand what we're talking about. But untill then, kindly refrain from accusations of wanting EZ mode gamplay.
-
AKAK, you're not a GV'er, <snipped the rest of the drivel>
I can comment because like you, I am a paying customer and I do occasionally hop in a GV. True, not as much as I used to in past years but I still ocassionally like to hop into one when things get boring.
Also, since you said since I am not a dedicated GVer, I can't post in this thread, well then the same can be said to you when you post in aviation themed threads. Since you were not a dedicated or skilled flyer then you should refrain from posting in aviation themed threads since it naturally prevents you from having any useful input in the topic.
I also stand by my previous comment...you want to code the game so GVs are virtually immune to being attacked by aircraft while being freely to engage aircraft at will without any risk to yourself.
Try and deny it all you want but it's the common theme of your posts.
ack-ack
-
I can comment because like you, I am a paying customer and I do occasionally hop in a GV. True, not as much as I used to in past years but I still ocassionally like to hop into one when things get boring.
Also, since you said since I am not a dedicated GVer, I can't post in this thread, well then the same can be said to you when you post in aviation themed threads. Since you were not a dedicated or skilled flyer then you should refrain from posting in aviation themed threads since it naturally prevents you from having any useful input in the topic.
I also stand by my previous comment...you want to code the game so GVs are virtually immune to being attacked by aircraft while being freely to engage aircraft at will without any risk to yourself.
Try and deny it all you want but it's the common theme of your posts.
ack-ack
If you look at his kill stats even at the height of his tanking, its pretty below average for 90% of the veteran tankers.
-
I never said you couldn't comment, or anything to that effect. I said your imput isn't usefull because you lack expirience. Perhaps I should rephrase that: Because you have limited recent expirience in GV's (less than I do in fighters), your imput is of limited value because you don't fully understand what is being said.
And I stand by what I said. Theres a difference between imunity and a fair chance. Aircraft having difficulties locating GV's that are stopped under cover and running a decent risk of being shot down if a flacker is nearby hardly constitutes 'immunity'.
Yeah, I respond in jest to those asking for excessive vulnerability of GV's with equally or more excessive requests for invulnerability. Does that mean I really want to be invulnerable? No.
-
I think that Situational Awareness is the key factor in this discussion. While I am a relatively new player to the game.. I have played the earlier versions enough form the mindset that the Icon settings Ground vehicles as they are now nearly reflect true detection ranges. As a Soldier withe the Air Defense Artillery branch of the US Army I can tell you that SA plays a huge effect even more so in this game. Realistically, An ADA crew would likely spot an Attacking Aircraft long before that Aircraft will even realize that it is there(without all the Modern bells and whistles), unless that vehicle and crew are in the open (with out cover and concealment). The practical detection range for most ADA units is roughly 5 miles with a 2 mile engagement when using ballistic ammo. A spotter aircraft or vehicle enhances detection ranges often by terrain association.
At the start of the War the Germans were superior in the use cover and concealment ( and incidentally the first ones to use camouflage universally across the Wehr Macht.) What does this mean? it means that the Allies had to develop T.T.P's to detect, engage, and destroy those units. These T.T.P's (Tactics, Training, and Procedures) included nuances such as irregular outlines from near by terrain, object Shine(from headlamps and Windscreens/Shields not covered), or (as one mentioned earlier in the Wishlist thread), and Visible tracks; to finally dust or smoke from movement or firing . You're not going to see most units until they "open up" on your, or you detect them first. I think that applies here to an extent. This is why most C.A.S mission were, and should be flown in Tandem, and GV missions should always have an over watch, and why the Storch is a brilliant add to the game. Alternately,this is why " the Herring bone" is used as a defensive measure against air attack by ground units in Convoy, and individual units are spread out so as not to give away other units adjacent, but close enough to lend supporting Mass volume of fires.
I can tell a friendly unit at 800m to 1200m through Bino's or gunner optics If I know what to look for (icons negate this in game with respect to friendly positions as a form of SA). that being said, with the untrained eye that distance is reduced significantly and even negated under cover or concealment. Therefore i think the Icon ranges should be left as is. This opinion maybe due to my relative "newness' to being a GV'er, but again I think the icon ranges are more 'realistic' when it comes to a Ground to Air or Air to ground engagement.