Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: skorpx1 on January 13, 2013, 12:51:33 AM
-
This has been wished for many times in the past, and it has been rejected for many reasons. However I think I have a good idea for artillery to be placed in game.
The LVT-A4 was used as an artillery piece in WW2 and is quite useful in doing so. The rounds can travel well over 6k and are very effective against town buildings and other soft targets. I was told by Ack-Ack or some other information god that this was true a while ago, so i'm going off of that.
As for normal artillery pieces, we could put the M12 GMC 155mm Mobile Artillery in game.
Specs:
Armament: 155mm gun, M1917 or M1918
Armour: 10mm - 25mm
Engine: Continental, R975-C1, 9cyl. radial, air-cooled, gas, 400hp
Speed: 24 mph
Range: 140 miles
Crew: 6
Weight: 29.5 tons
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/155mm-GMC-M12-France-1944.jpg/300px-155mm-GMC-M12-France-1944.jpg)
I think that adding the M12 would be a great starting point for adding artillery to the game. Although only 100 entered service they did see combat and they were used in infantry support with multiple divisions. With the current shore battery/CV gun aiming settings we could give this to the LVT-A4 and the M12 without having to insert a whole new aiming system. This would drastically cut back on the time needed to get artillery in game, thus leaving less work to do on the M12 itself. I did a quick research on this vehicle due to it being late, so don't bite my head off if a few facts are wrong.
-
I'm gonna say -1 to artillery as it will only encourage sitting in the back and camping from 10 miles away with a giant gun.
But +1 to new Tanks and/or Tank Destroyers :aok
-
I'm gonna say -1 to artillery as it will only encourage sitting in the back and camping from 10 miles away with a giant gun.
But +1 to new Tanks and/or Tank Destroyers :aok
Using your 155mm HE gun against tanks wont do so well if we use the current CV/SB aiming system, you'd be lucky to get a spot on hit from any distance over 3 miles.
-
We already have 5" rockets on the M4 and we have dweebs (and you know who they are) that use them as agitation devices by firing a thousand of them in non-stop barrages, tower, repeat. . .
-1
-
We already have 5" rockets on the M4 and we have dweebs (and you know who they are) that use them as agitation devices by firing a thousand of them in non-stop barrages, tower, repeat. . .
-1
Artillery takes a long time to reload and to aim. Do you really think we could fire thousands of artillery shells in a minute? The M12 only carried somewhere around 20-40 rounds. The only way you could unleash "thousands of them in non-stop barrages" is to get 20 guys and have them constantly fire at once.
-
whay not start with the KV-2 and the BRUMBAR........... :rock
-
whay not start with the KV-2 and the BRUMBAR........... :rock
If you want the KV-2 with that giant 152mm, its a massive no. If it weren't for flat ground that thing would never be able to turn the turret.
-
BIG +1 to M12 and easier to use LVT-A4 I usually use the lvt when I need to gather Vehicle points to go kill a town or something like that just find a nice hill to set up on overlooking a town and boom there ya have it the prefect indirect fire postion :x
-
I hope you meant 140 mile driving range and not gun range :D I'm assuming this is a WoT inapired wish.
-
The LVT-4 has essentially a 75mm pack howitzer. The optics on the gun are the only thing preventing it from being used as true artillery piece. As it is now in its current form is does very well in what it was designed to do: direct fire support for infantry.
I've said it all along, if HTC wants to dive in to the realm of artillery than putting an arty cannon on an existing chassis would simply things in a big way. I think the easiest would be to add in the M7 Priest and give it the "click the map" capability. The 105mm has range of 11,000 yards +, has a 14.9kg projectile packed with 2.18kg of TNT. Compared to the 10kg projectile packed with just less than 1kg TNT on the 88mm on the Tiger. Oh, and the 8in naval gun has a 90.72kg projectile packed with 13.64kg of TNT. So I am guessing that the 105mm would have 312+ lbs of damage per shell so it could topple a town building with 1 hit. I'm not sure where the 5in naval guns stand in comparison, I have no data to reference but I'm guessing it is right in the same ballpark.
-
What would prevent me from upping at say...tank town and destroying the enemie's base from my base skorpx?
-
What would prevent me from upping at say...tank town and destroying the enemie's base from my base skorpx?
If you could aim that well, and do it with that few of shells and on top of that not get killed by the other tanks, then by all means try it. Its not any different than having hordes of idiots in P51's and P38's shutting down a base then taking it, then proceeding to pat each others backs like they did something that was considered "impossible" by the masses.
-
What would prevent me from upping at say...tank town and destroying the enemie's base from my base skorpx?
and with .dt, you'll know exactly what's up or not.
-
If you could aim that well, and do it with that few of shells and on top of that not get killed by the other tanks, then by all means try it. Its not any different than having hordes of idiots in P51's and P38's shutting down a base then taking it, then proceeding to pat each others backs like they did something that was considered "impossible" by the masses.
I do not think you understand what I meant. Bases are often already in range of each other. So what would prevent a player from spawning artillery at his base to shoot up the adjacent enemy base?
-
I do not think you understand what I meant. Bases are often already in range of each other. So what would prevent a player from spawning artillery at his base to shoot up the adjacent enemy base?
That is why I suggested the 105mm because it has a range of 11,000 yards which is usually only twice the range as a gv spawn point to town. A player could no up at a field and pot shot at a field 25 miles away.
-
That is why I suggested the 105mm because it has a range of 11,000 yards which is usually only twice the range as a gv spawn point to town. A player could no up at a field and pot shot at a field 25 miles away.
Many Vbases are in range of each other
-
I do not think you understand what I meant. Bases are often already in range of each other. So what would prevent a player from spawning artillery at his base to shoot up the adjacent enemy base?
What I meant was that any idiot with a few brain cells could figure out a way to take a base with minimal effort and minimal chance of failure. If you can be accurate enough, and be quick enough to down all the hangars with the very limited amount of rounds you have, then by all means do it.
-
I do not think you understand what I meant. Bases are often already in range of each other. So what would prevent a player from spawning artillery at his base to shoot up the adjacent enemy base?
You can already do this and it is done regularly. With or without rockets.
skorp: We have already seen people drive for hours to back door fields, strats, and HQ. Yes, people would up at a spawn and shell a base no matter how long it took and whether they had spotters or not. Since we already have the M4A3-75, which can shell nearly that far already, then we do not need 105mm or 155mm artillery pieces.
-
if we are going to not even try artillery then atleast give us the 105 for the sherman
-
You can already do this and it is done regularly. With or without rockets.
skorp: We have already seen people drive for hours to back door fields, strats, and HQ. Yes, people would up at a spawn and shell a base no matter how long it took and whether they had spotters or not. Since we already have the M4A3-75, which can shell nearly that far already, then we do not need 105mm or 155mm artillery pieces.
I know. That's why I said we already have bases in range. :old:
Our tanks lack a system for sighting at such ranges, especially the calliope on the M4. If the request is for artillery, then it would make sense for an accurate way to sight them. The problem I see is that if we had that then it would disrupt the gameplay we have.
So if we add artillery with the current way of aiming they are useless. But if we make a way for them to be effective our maps become useless. That was my original question to skorpx1.
-
How about those big bellybutton rail guns?