Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Mano on April 29, 2013, 06:45:49 PM
-
Make the storch fly around........look in the window of that barn......see if there is indeed a GV hiding in there.
Since there is no camouflage in any terrain for GV's to hide in, turn off the icons. Why make it easy for bombers or heavy fighters to find GV.s? GV's cannot hide under a bridge, a barn, nor under trees. The icon always gives away their location.
If we had the option to deploy camouflage, then a GV'er would have a chance of surviving.
Otherwise, I hear this all the time, "Go take down ords!"
-
No.
-
I think HTC went a long way in making things more realistic in terms of "seeing" gv's from the air. When stopped, the typical aircraft sees a gv at 600-ish yards. When the gv is moving the aircraft can see it roughly at 1200 yards. The Storch doubles that range and rightfully so.
I say leave it as is.
-
I hide jeeps and m3's all the time :headscratch:
-
Jeeps and M-3' Will go in the little door of the barns with the silo, but tanks cannot. No perks lost on jeeps or M-3's.
in RL tanks can hide in buildings, place camouflage, ect........but we don't have that option in AH. Storchs can find any jeep or M-3 because they can see the icon no matter how well it is hidden. If a base or town is flashing storchs find any GV that is close.
-
It's all about realism. The storch should have to get so close that you can shoot it with your main gun, like they did back in the war
-
Make the storch fly around........look in the window of that barn......see if there is indeed a GV hiding in there.
Since there is no camouflage in any terrain for GV's to hide in, turn off the icons. Why make it easy for bombers or heavy fighters to find GV.s? GV's cannot hide under a bridge, a barn, nor under trees. The icon always gives away their location.
If we had the option to deploy camouflage, then a GV'er would have a chance of surviving.
Otherwise, I hear this all the time, "Go take down ords!"
Sure, just as soon as Icon's are turned off from GV's looking at aircraft. Oh wait, you're a GV'er and want everything easier for you to play.
-
-2.5K
-
All we need is a Dot command. ".camouflageON" when we hide our tank and another dot command
".myIconOFF" and we are in business.
Let the storchs try and find me.
Piece of Cake.
:D
-
More camouflage would be nice and if an M-3 or tank is inside a building, you should not be able to see an icon from outside the building!
Some of the town buildings would work great for camouflage if you could drive into them but as it is now there are only two structures that a tank will fit into, the blown out grey house and the old red barn, if the newer big barn had a bigger door,that would help,,, also if you are under a large group of tight trees, your icon should not show up!
If your in a bomber and in doubt, drop an extra egg!
As far as icon range as it is,, I like it, I think it could even go back a bit while running and moving,, maybe back to 1500 or so, as long as it didn't show at all if hiding under adequate cover!
Just my opinion!
-
All we need is a Dot command. ".camouflageON" when we hide our tank and another dot command
".myIconOFF" and we are in business.
Let the storchs try and find me.
Piece of Cake.
:D
And can i get unlimited bombs?
-
+1 to this wish as long as GV's will be unable to see aircraft icons as well.
Oh, and I want GV's to have to leave their engines on if they want to rotate their turret.
-
It's all about realism. The storch should have to get so close that you can shoot it with your main gun, like they did back in the war
:rofl
-
+1 to this wish as long as GV's will be unable to see aircraft icons as well.
No, not a fair exchange. Aircraft are easy to see against the sky in AH.
-
While we are making suggestions, how about limiting the accuracy of the tank's main gun on fast moving AC. I had a tanker shoot my diving P-47 down 3 times in a period of 45 minutes the other day. Granted, the guy is good, but realistically??? <S> to that tanker, I gave up and moved on to other tasks.
-
While we are making suggestions, how about limiting the accuracy of the tank's main gun on fast moving AC.
When did they add LCG capabilities to tanks? I guess I missed that patch. ;)
I guess some players are better than others at estimating speed and direction, and appropriately leading their target.
-
While we are making suggestions, how about limiting the accuracy of the tank's main gun on fast moving AC.
There is no way to do this without also making the tank guns less accurate against stationary tanks.
Frankly, such a change probably wouldn't even affect the tank main gun vs aircraft as it is as likely to diverge from a near miss to a hit as it is to diverge from a hit to a near miss. It would massively affect tank vs tank fights though as you could no longer really aim at a tank, but rather just in his general location.
If you got hit by a tank's main gun while diving on him in your P-47, your dive angle had to have been pretty shallow.
-
I quite like the way it is
If I could change stuff ...........
I would switch off icons for troops completely .......I dont think they need them.
I would not have this switch between storch and non storch....... I would have the icon range set as an inverse proportion to the ground speed of the ac. The Storch still wins hands down in this respect but it would mean that other ac driven slow enough also see icons outside flack range where as hi speed low level passes probably never see them.
I would make it so for both freindly and enemy gv's.
-
Make the storch fly around........look in the window of that barn......see if there is indeed a GV hiding in there.
you already have to get within 800 yds to see an icon of a stationary gv
-
When tanks hit a/c repeatedly, they are using HE rounds. You only have to be close with the shot. I have even downed an a/c by shooting at a tree as the plane
approached. Timing is the key. The round explodes and the plane flies through the explosion. You can kill them with HVAP and AP as well, but the HE rounds by far work the best.
There is no natural camouflage or building for the tanks to hide in without their icon being seen in any terrain. B-25's and IL-2's fly at tree top level looking
for that little red icon. They see the icon, not the GV.
GV's are still going to get bombed, it just won't be so easy. :neener:
:salute
-
you already have to get within 800 yds to see an icon of a stationary gv
In a Storch? I think the Storch is classified as an "observer" and not a "fighter/bomber/etc", and as such the icon range is longer (perhaps double?) than for other types of aircraft. All icon range settings are easily seen by anyone by going into the arena settings and looking.
-
+1 to this wish as long as GV's will be unable to see aircraft icons as well.
Oh, and I want GV's to have to leave their engines on if they want to rotate their turret.
I agree... Can't have it both ways. I want to hide my little GV and wait for that poor storch to get a littttttttttle closer... Realism means it's not easier just for one type of player.
.godmod
.unlimited bullets
.iconrange100miles
.frappacino
+1 to the GV's maintaining engine idle to rotate turrets :t sneaky GV's!
-
If your plane is getting hit by a gun that can only elevate 30 degrees or less, you are coming in too shallow.
-
Guys,
It has to be true that I had a shallow AoA or the tanker could not possibly have destroyed my AC with his main gun - but really? I would love to see actual reference"s" of tank crews destroying fighter AC with there main gun. Not the one fluke of it happening once - I am sure someone will post.
If this was Call of Duty or some other XBOX/console game - I would be totally at ease with it. But this is AH, which has hung its hat on making this the most realistic WWII sim in the business. I realize it is impossible to alleviate some "gaminess" given it's bits and bytes after all.. The tanker should jump to his turret mounted MG to have a chance it hitting an attacking fighter.
Disagree with me if you wish, but I don't think anyone can argue that I am wrong in stating that is a "gamey" aspect of AH GVs.
-
When tanks hit a/c repeatedly, they are using HE rounds. You only have to be close with the shot. I have even downed an a/c by shooting at a tree as the plane
approached. Timing is the key. The round explodes and the plane flies through the explosion. You can kill them with HVAP and AP as well, but the HE rounds by far work the best.
It's a projectile that is no different than a .30 or .50 caliber from the pintle/coaxial gun on a ground vehicle; just much bigger! All that is needed is for the aircraft and projectile to meet. An aircraft coming straight at a tank and under the max elevation of the main gun increases the chance the projectile and the aircraft will meet; especially as the distance closes under 1k.
-
Guys,
It has to be true that I had a shallow AoA or the tanker could not possibly have destroyed my AC with his main gun - but really? I would love to see actual reference"s" of tank crews destroying fighter AC with there main gun. Not the one fluke of it happening once - I am sure someone will post.
If this was Call of Duty or some other XBOX/console game - I would be totally at ease with it. But this is AH, which has hung its hat on making this the most realistic WWII sim in the business. I realize it is impossible to alleviate some "gaminess" given it's bits and bytes after all.. The tanker should jump to his turret mounted MG to have a chance it hitting an attacking fighter.
Disagree with me if you wish, but I don't think anyone can argue that I am wrong in stating that is a "gamey" aspect of AH GVs.
That is fine and all, but what can be done to stop it? Seriously, make a suggestion that is viable, don't just whine about it.
-
It's a projectile that is no different than a .30 or .50 caliber from the pintle/coaxial gun on a ground vehicle; just much bigger! All that is needed is for the aircraft and projectile to meet. An aircraft coming straight at a tank and under the max elevation of the main gun increases the chance the projectile and the aircraft will meet; especially as the distance closes under 1k.
This sums it up nicely.
Wiley.
-
That is fine and all, but what can be done to stop it? Seriously, make a suggestion that is viable, don't just whine about it.
Karnak, I am not whining, at least my intent is not to come across that way. I love the AH product on the whole. Also, I am not a programmer - so I don't even know if there is a viable solution for HTC if they agreed with me. I am just saying... <read above>
-
It's a projectile that is no different than a .30 or .50 caliber from the pintle/coaxial gun on a ground vehicle; just much bigger! All that is needed is for the aircraft and projectile to meet. An aircraft coming straight at a tank and under the max elevation of the main gun increases the chance the projectile and the aircraft will meet; especially as the distance closes under 1k.
Are you saying the main guns in a tank have proximity fuzes? I believe that technology came after WWII.
-
Spawn...shoot...shoot...shot.
Spawn...shoot...shoot...shot.
Spawn...shoot...shoot...shot.
Cuz I'm a GV fighter :rock
Is what our GV's do even considered fighting?
The most difficult thing about it is out clicking the other 30 greenies at the spawn camp :headscratch:
Put the icons back the way they used to be, and lets enjoy the reason GV's were added.....to be blown up by aircraft :cheers:
-
One possible solution to how
(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg229/WWhiskey/1_3c184a2586901cc7448864eca2a7dadc_zps8f6c8029.jpg) (http://s249.photobucket.com/user/WWhiskey/media/1_3c184a2586901cc7448864eca2a7dadc_zps8f6c8029.jpg.html)
Up for your consideration is one original WWII Backup Iron sight for the Sherman tank. YES that is right an iron sight. These sights were mounted on the outside roof of the turret and were to be used as a backup iron sight in case the main sight was damaged. I have been told that this sight was also used when the tank would use plunging fire at enemy positions or suspected enemy positions.
just a thought!
-
Are you saying the main guns in a tank have proximity fuzes? I believe that technology came after WWII.
proximity fuses were available to anti-aircraft weapons by 1943-44...not so much for tanks though.
-
proximity fuses were available to anti-aircraft weapons by 1943-44...not so much for tanks though.
Agreed - German 88MM AAA notably - however I thought (no research - just on the fly) the altitude of detonation had to be preset on the ground by the crew.
-
Agreed - German 88MM AAA notably - however I thought (no research - just on the fly) the altitude of detonation had to be preset on the ground by the crew.
that is not a proximity fuse you're thinking of...that's a set charge fuse, and yes it had to be set to explode at a specific altitude. an actual proximity fuse will detonate at any altitude that it can get to as long as it is within a specific range of a target and i believe the wwii types were factory made to explode within 75 feet or something like that. i think they were first developed by some think tank type phd in the u.s.
-
Agreed - German 88MM AAA notably
The 88 never had any proximity fuses, nor did any other German gun.
-
that is not a proximity fuse you're thinking of...that's a set charge fuse, and yes it had to be set to explode at a specific altitude. an actual proximity fuse will detonate at any altitude that it can get to as long as it is within a specific range of a target and i believe the wwii types were factory made to explode within 75 feet or something like that. i think they were first developed by some think tank type phd in the u.s.
Appreciate the clarification - we are stating the same, albeit your explanation is more clear. So, what were the weapons systems in WWII that had proximity fuzes? I am not aware of artillery projectiles that had proximity fuzes (my definition is active targeting)?
For the record - I completely understand proximity fuzes. My profession in the Air Force was an ammo troop; ie, munitions. Mostly PGMs, but have experience with everything the Air Force has in the inventory.
-
did some digging around and found...i just learned something new, and i thought i had heard everything there was about the battle of the bulge. not only anti-aircraft weapons but they were used in artillery, bombs and rockets...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH8caTR9gmk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH8caTR9gmk)
i never paid much attention to proximity fuses on much of anything except aa guns. quite an advanced idea too...radio doppler effect.
-
That is fine and all, but what can be done to stop it? Seriously, make a suggestion that is viable, don't just whine about it.
If it is true that the ability to explode a HE round against a tree top can cause damage to an ac flying over he'd then I would suggest that that at least should be looked at by HTC.
Maybe some COAD that classify s trees as soft but with the laws of physics changed such hat they seriously slow stuff down according to that things mass.
Then HE round don't explode but do get slowed down. Tanks can plough thru trees but are slowed inversely proportionally to their mass. Jeeps may get slowed to a crawl and even a stop.
-
Are you saying the main guns in a tank have proximity fuzes? I believe that technology came after WWII.
Guys,
It has to be true that I had a shallow AoA or the tanker could not possibly have destroyed my AC with his main gun - but really? I would love to see actual reference"s" of tank crews destroying fighter AC with there main gun. Not the one fluke of it happening once - I am sure someone will post.
If this was Call of Duty or some other XBOX/console game - I would be totally at ease with it. But this is AH, which has hung its hat on making this the most realistic WWII sim in the business. I realize it is impossible to alleviate some "gaminess" given it's bits and bytes after all.. The tanker should jump to his turret mounted MG to have a chance it hitting an attacking fighter.
Disagree with me if you wish, but I don't think anyone can argue that I am wrong in stating that is a "gamey" aspect of AH GVs.
[/quote]
It's a projectile that is no different than a .30 or .50 caliber from the pintle/coaxial gun on a ground vehicle; just much bigger! All that is needed is for the aircraft and projectile to meet. An aircraft coming straight at a tank and under the max elevation of the main gun increases the chance the projectile and the aircraft will meet; especially as the distance closes under 1k.
Nothing said about proximity fuses. My assertion is that whether it's a bullet from a turret mounted machine gun or HE/AP round from a tanks main gun, it's a projectile. A .50 cal bullet can punch through an engine block within a certain distance so imagine an AP round (that can destroy a tank) colliding with an aircraft- especially head-on. The HE round is a solid projectile until it makes contact with something dense enough to make it explode-be it a tree, building, plane, etc.
An HE round designed to explode on contact will cause damage if you fly within the blast radius(splash) same time it explodes. Granted, it's a smaller radius than a HE bomb but flying into that can/will produce catastrophic experience.
-
Wardog,
I'm not disputing what would happen if/when a large projectile strikes an AC.
-
Appreciate the clarification - we are stating the same, albeit your explanation is more clear. So, what were the weapons systems in WWII that had proximity fuzes? I am not aware of artillery projectiles that had proximity fuzes (my definition is active targeting)?
For the record - I completely understand proximity fuzes. My profession in the Air Force was an ammo troop; ie, munitions. Mostly PGMs, but have experience with everything the Air Force has in the inventory.
American 5" naval guns had proximity fuses and is the reason the 5" is so lethal in AH.
-
Ammo - granted it was 'lazer tag', the biggest killers of helicopters at the National Training Center are the tank main gun and 25mm Bushmaster. My 1st Plt Ldr / Gunner kilt 3 of them during our first 'fight' with the OPFOR. Granted the 'evile' Hinds did not have a high angle of attack. He could get a 'solution' and laze the beggers.
I will grant you back in WWII there were no laser range finders and the optics were more challenging, but a low angle of attack plane combined with the multi (decades in many cases) years experience level of the GVs here, it doesn't sound impossible.
Regards,
-
Back to icons........would it be possible to turn them off for a Tour of Duty (or two) and see how it goes?
I don't know if it is a major code re-write or just a server setting that can be changed by a CM (like the wind).
I think it would add more realism to the game.
:salute
-
Back to icons........would it be possible to turn them off for a Tour of Duty (or two) and see how it goes?
I don't know if it is a major code re-write or just a server setting that can be changed by a CM (like the wind).
I think it would add more realism to the game.
:salute
No. The shortened icons are bad enough. Getting whacked by Wirbelwinds you couldn't see when you aren't engaged in air-to-ground is highly annoying. The balance has shifted much to far in favor of AA vehicles as it is.
-
No. The shortened icons are bad enough. Getting whacked by Wirbelwinds you couldn't see when you aren't engaged in air-to-ground is highly annoying. The balance has shifted much to far in favor of AA vehicles as it is.
The problem here (IMO) is building error on error. Wirbles and Osti's are far to easily available IMO. They should be perked at least to some extent. I know perking is not historical but these rides were rare yet here they are in AH as the first weapon of choice. Only 200 combined of these were ever made and they never left Germany.
At least the Mobelwagen saw sustained use with its near fully open top as did the Crusader III AA, and M16. Each of these should be as easy to take out with air borne cannon as a field based ground gun IMO.
Further equipping the IL2 with its main air to ground weapon (the PTAB) would seriously redress any idea that the balance would ever be in favour of the ground element.
Assuming that there could ever be balance in an air v ground engagement.
In the presence of enemy ground attack aircraft the overriding requirement to achieve balance was the presence of friendly intercepter fighter aircraft...... Not IMO some massed or deadly accurate Xwing type ground defence based upon stuff that hardly saw service.
Neither IMO should balance be reached through the use of illuminated magic icons lighting up the locations of freindly or enemy vehicles beyond what may have been visible in the heat of combat.
-
A Mobelwagon would be about as bad as the Wirbelwind from my perspective, given the current situation. I usually don't engage in air-to-ground work, yet I have been killed many times by AA vehicles that inserted themselves into my air-to-air dogfight. In that circumstance the durability of the AA vehicle matters not a whit.
GVers complained vociferously, and still do, about aircraft interfering with GV fights, but they object to any suggestion on ways to reduce the interference of AA vehicles in air-to-air fights. I am pretty fed up with them and seriously considering active anti-tank operations using aircraft. The only thing that stops me is knowing most of the actual GV players are not the guys posting and it wouldn't be fair to condemn them for statements they may not support.
-
The problem here (IMO) is building error on error. Wirbles and Osti's are far to easily available IMO. They should be perked at least to some extent. I know perking is not historical but these rides were rare yet here they are in AH as the first weapon of choice. Only 200 combined of these were ever made and they never left Germany.
At least the Mobelwagen saw sustained use with its near fully open top as did the Crusader III AA, and M16. Each of these should be as easy to take out with air borne cannon as a field based ground gun IMO.
Further equipping the IL2 with its main air to ground weapon (the PTAB) would seriously redress any idea that the balance would ever be in favour of the ground element.
Assuming that there could ever be balance in an air v ground engagement.
In the presence of enemy ground attack aircraft the overriding requirement to achieve balance was the presence of friendly intercepter fighter aircraft...... Not IMO some massed or deadly accurate Xwing type ground defence based upon stuff that hardly saw service.
Neither IMO should balance be reached through the use of illuminated magic icons lighting up the locations of freindly or enemy vehicles beyond what may have been visible in the heat of combat.
Unlike the other perked vehicles though, the wirblewind can't take a beating. If it was perked it should be low, like the m18 ~2 perks.