Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Chalenge on July 01, 2013, 05:52:16 PM
-
Much as I hate to say it we will soon be struck with a significant imbalance when it comes to tanks. I know everyone thinks that the new tanks will be hangar queens almost overnight. I do not agree. Still, if the new additions are successful enough as assault tanks to see continued use then we have an awful lot of German armor and not enough British or Russian armor (and no Japanese at all). I understand why the Japanese armor is not popular enough to get requests for any of them, but what I don't understand is why we have such a vacuum when it comes to early armor. Then there is also the lack of anything in the Tank Destroyer category that can actually kill a heavy tank (outside of German armor, again).
I read where someone requested the M36 90mm GMC, yet it was shot down as having not actually been in the war. It WAS in the war. Add it.
That said, I want to see the early war tanks like the M7 Priest, M3 Lee, Grant and Stuart introduced. On the British side the Churchill (Infantry Tank Mk IV (A22)), and the Matilda, at least. I could name many others to choose from, but all you have to do is look at the more famous tank battles of the war and you can see there are many, many tanks that have been left out.
Now, I know that the idea is to make the kiddies happy with the 'cool' German stuff, but you've done that. Now let's fill in the holes of historical events!
-
well if they add stuff like the m3lee and the stuart, i hope they come with gold rounds only.
as for the matilda 1 with it's lightspeed of zero miles an hour (give or take 9) and the matilda 2 with its warp drive giving it 16 mph on road or 9 off road. I would say the scenarios would be over by the time they get anywhere. and even if they get there I am pretty sure a jeep or an m3 would tear them apart just by doing circles around them.
semp
-
so wait, Chalenge, let me get this straight...you're whining about the ground vehicle set being heavy with german vehicles yet, you ask for another u.s. vehicle?
i guess tank destroyers that were produced in much higher numbers and saw a lot more combat than the m36 are less worthy than u.s. and british early war targets...
-
The problem with tanks is that a Matilda II is incapable of destroying, or even really hurting, even the most incompetently used Tiger II. Contrast this with airplanes where a D3A1's two 7.7mm guns will quite happily punch little holes in an Me262 and, should the Me262 be incompetent enough, with enough little holes, destroy it.
The nature of tanks is different than airplanes because the armor gets to the point where it simply makes them immune to earlier tanks.
On another note, I have seen a surprisingly large numbers of requests for Japanese tanks, usually the Type 97 Chi-Ha.
-
The Type 3 Chi-Nu might actually get some kills in AH. It was armed with a 75mm gun and, per wikipedia, 144 were built.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Chi-Nu_4th_Tank_Division.JPG/762px-Chi-Nu_4th_Tank_Division.JPG)
The best Japanese tank was the Type 4 Chi-To, but only 2 were built and none saw combat.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Chi-To.JPG)
-
The Type 3 Chi-Nu might actually get some kills in AH. It was armed with a 75mm gun and, per wikipedia, 144 were built.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Chi-Nu_4th_Tank_Division.JPG/762px-Chi-Nu_4th_Tank_Division.JPG)
The best Japanese tank was the Type 4 Chi-To, but only 2 were built and none saw combat.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Chi-To.JPG)
None saw combat because they were slotted for home defense. Alas, they couldn't defend against atomic weapons.
-
so wait, Chalenge, let me get this straight...you're whining about the ground vehicle set being heavy with german vehicles yet, you ask for another u.s. vehicle?
i guess tank destroyers that were produced in much higher numbers and saw a lot more combat than the m36 are less worthy than u.s. and british early war targets...
Whining about off road performance when everything in AH is on road performance makes you look silly. Of course I meant the Matilda II, which can do 16 mph and mounts a 40mm gun. If an M8 can kill then so can a Matilda II.
You and Karnak both respond to tanks as if everything in the game is late war. We have two other arenas and the last time I checked historical events are not stuck to late war events either.
Your argument against American tanks is ridiculous also. America produced far more, so they should be represented in kind. Not that it matters, anything added will be available to all sides. If you want to argue numbers produced then we can cut everything back to Panzer IV, Sherman, and T-34 only. Enough of the M36 were produced for it to see combat. That's good enough.
But still, it's the early war stuff that would better suit historical events. It would simply be nice to have something that actually killed these latest assault tanks actually in the game.
-
Whining about off road performance when everything in AH is on road performance makes you look silly. Of course I meant the Matilda II, which can do 16 mph and mounts a 40mm gun. If an M8 can kill then so can a Matilda II.
You and Karnak both respond to tanks as if everything in the game is late war. We have two other arenas and the last time I checked historical events are not stuck to late war events either.
Your argument against American tanks is ridiculous also. America produced far more, so they should be represented in kind. Not that it matters, anything added will be available to all sides. If you want to argue numbers produced then we can cut everything back to Panzer IV, Sherman, and T-34 only. Enough of the M36 were produced for it to see combat. That's good enough.
But still, it's the early war stuff that would better suit historical events. It would simply be nice to have something that actually killed these latest assault tanks actually in the game.
i personally don't care about early war, mid war, late war...all the same to me.
you might want to look up the numbers of su-85 and su-100 produced, saw combat and were successful...the only tank that was produced in "far more" numbers was the m4 sherman and the t34 was very close in production.
-
We don't use GV's in anything major that would require a balance in them, IE FSO and Scenario's. I am going to highly doubt that even snapshot's use gv's with any frequency (haven't been to one in a long time). Any other event involving gv's is far too minor to warrant it.
Now before ye decide to eat my face, do not get me wrong. I am whole heartily for the addition of more EW type tanks. It is always best to have the option of using it than to not have it at all. :aok Also, I'd like to add the Crusader to your list. :D
-
awful lot of German armor and not enough British or Russian armor (and no Japanese at all). I understand why the Japanese armor is not popular enough to get requests for any of them, but what I don't understand is why we have such a vacuum when it comes to early armor. Then there is also the lack of anything in the Tank Destroyer category that can actually kill a heavy tank (outside of German armor, again).
I read where someone requested the M36 90mm GMC, yet it was shot down as having not actually been in the war. It WAS in the war. Add it.
That said, I want to see the early war tanks like the M7 Priest, M3 Lee, Grant and Stuart introduced. On the British side the Churchill (Infantry Tank Mk IV (A22)), and the Matilda, at least. I could name many others to choose from, but all you have to do is look at the more famous tank battles of the war and you can see there are many, many tanks that have been left out.
Now, I know that the idea is to make the kiddies happy with the 'cool' German stuff, but you've done that. Now let's fill in the holes of historical events!
Not sure why you think the M36 gets shot down its actually the Pershing that gets shot down, the M36 served nicely during the war once the allies realized the 75/76mm guns could not scratch the paint of the German tanks.
The only imbalance is the fact Germans made better tanks, only thing that would balance anything is adding Russian Su-85, Su-100, Su-122 and Su-152 vehicles.
To suit your request for historical events for scenarios and such (different Arenas as you state) you are talking about up to a dozen or more vehicles per arena. As of right now it looks like the Late War Arena is what is supporting Aces high. It makes sense to add the late war stuff first, considering it pays the bills.
True we have a few other arenas, however vehicles have taken a backseat on aces high for how many years? In my opinion I agree with it - sprinkle in some early/midwar stuff but focus on the late war stuff first until its finished.
I prefer seeing EW or Midwar tanks first, they fought the conclusive battles and did the grunt work, however in a video game where one arena pays the bills while the others don't - dont expect me to grunt if nothing but late war finishes first.
-
IS-2 is a solid contender.
-
Challenge, you're out of your realm of expertise. Yes more EW stuff, yes tanks from other countries, but not for any of the reasons you've listed.
-
IS-2 is a solid contender.
Lol, Panthers front armor with a cross between an 88 L/56 and a 75 L/70. Real solid...
The fact is that the Is 2 was really designed to HE spam while still being able to kill Tiger I'm and Panthers. And in straight up combat, it would lose to either out to around 1000yds, win out to 1500yds, and lose past that because of the shell flight time and reload time making long range aiming a b****.
Add it, just not before any EW Russian tanks, and all of their major TDs.
-
Challenge, you're out of your realm of expertise. Yes more EW stuff, yes tanks from other countries, but not for any of the reasons you've listed.
Not hardly, kid. Meet me online sometime and find out how I do with tanks. Oh, wait. . . you don't subscribe.
-
Not sure why you think the M36 gets shot down . . .
Do a search for M36 and you will see gyrene's previous hit job on it. My favorite is the Pershing, but I would settle for Cromwell and Challenger.
-
We have two other arenas and the last time I checked historical events are not stuck to late war events either.
Well, as Lusche has said, the early war arenas are a mess where people use squaddies or second accounts to generate perks etc. Not saying that there isn't any combat happening there but the numbers are so low that hopes for healthy ground war are nonexistant.
As far as events go, evens that use GVs are few and far between. Bigger scenarios using GVs have been based on latish war eastern front events.
Considering the size of the ground war on the eastern front and the nature of AH ground combat, it's Soviet heavy armour what's missing.
Examples:
SU-76 (nothing heavy but was basically anywhere where Soviet army went, produced in huge numbers)
SU-85
SU-100
ISU-122/152
IS-2
-
Well, as Lusche has said, the early war arenas are a mess where people use squaddies or second accounts to generate perks etc. Not saying that there isn't any combat happening there but the numbers are so low that hopes for healthy ground war are nonexistant.
Just another example of selective reception. NEWS FLASH!!! Early war tanks are also about historic events.
-
Not hardly, kid. Meet me online sometime and find out how I do with tanks. Oh, wait. . . you don't subscribe.
Sit on the concrete in a tiger2 while asking for more EW tanks?
Dood, youre funny :rofl
-
Just another example of selective reception. NEWS FLASH!!! Early war tanks are also about historic events.
Adding planes historic events in mind is far more fruitful than adding tanks. As said, very very few events use GVs at all. People who participate speacial events want to fly.
Early tanks would be far bigger "hangar queens" than early planes.
-
Do a search for M36 and you will see gyrene's previous hit job on it. My favorite is the Pershing, but I would settle for Cromwell and Challenger.
you might want to get your eyeballs checked and work on that reading issue you have. it was the m-26 pershing that i poo poo'd. at the time it was justified, now, not so much.
i'm not saying the m-36 wouldn't be useful, but since you're talking "top heavy in tanks" as well as tank destroyers, i'm saying the russian su-85/100 should be added before the m-36. as for "special events", the last scenario that involved tanks turned into a whinefest of a joke. haven't seen any snapshots or sec's with tanks in the past year or more. so, what special events are you talking about, the sdl, koth or the ah racing league?
-
you might want to get your eyeballs checked and work on that reading issue you have. it was the m-26 pershing that i poo poo'd. at the time it was justified, now, not so much.
i'm not saying the m-36 wouldn't be useful, but since you're talking "top heavy in tanks" as well as tank destroyers, i'm saying the russian su-85/100 should be added before the m-36. as for "special events", the last scenario that involved tanks turned into a whinefest of a joke. haven't seen any snapshots or sec's with tanks in the past year or more. so, what special events are you talking about, the sdl, koth or the ah racing league?
I really tried to argue against the M-26, frankly I am just going to ignore it from now on - frankly in my best opinion it was just to late in the war to see action, we have dozens of russian/brit/japanese tanks to add first.
M-36, Su-85/Su-100, Comet and we have a rebalance of the ground war.
-
I really tried to argue against the M-26, frankly I am just going to ignore it from now on - frankly in my best opinion it was just to late in the war to see action, we have dozens of russian/brit/japanese tanks to add first.
M-36, Su-85/Su-100, Comet and we have a rebalance of the ground war.
Would probably need a separate vehicle for the Su-100, since IIRC it had slighlty thicker armor, and was based on the T-34/85 hull. And even if I'm mistaken, and there were no differences, we would still need to keep the 100mm out of the MW arena :bhead.
Also don't forget to add the Archer, and Valentine tanks, that way you get acceptable EW/MW coverage for the British.
And I'm just going to throw this out there; Panzer III. Its probably in the top 5 most historically significant vehicles we still need to add. It literally led the Blitzkrieg until about 1943.
Not hardly, kid. Meet me online sometime and find out how I do with tanks. Oh, wait. . . you don't subscribe.
Oh I do subscribe. And I've seen you fight in tanks before; unless you grew some small measure of intrepidity, you're not in a position to bluster. If memory serves, your GV'ing boil down to concrete sitting, bringing up the rear in a Tiger when the ordnance goes down, shelling undefended bases, and heavy use of perk tanks to offset tactical inferiority.
-
I really tried to argue against the M-26, frankly I am just going to ignore it from now on - frankly in my best opinion it was just to late in the war to see action, we have dozens of russian/brit/japanese tanks to add first.
the m-26 did see action. i believe something like 20-24 of them in different incidents. a couple were lost in battle.
Also don't forget to add the Archer, and Valentine tanks, that way you get acceptable EW/MW coverage for the British.
those things would be a ball against panzer 2s.
And I'm just going to throw this out there; Panzer III. Its probably in the top 5 most historically significant vehicles we still need to add. It literally led the Blitzkrieg until about 1943.
panzer 2 was the most numerous from 39 to 42 and was supplemented by panzer 3s and 4s from 1940 onward. by 43 it had been removed from front line duty and was replaced by the panzer 3 and 4.
-
the m-26 did see action. i believe something like 20-24 of them in different incidents. a couple were lost in battle.
those things would be a ball against panzer 2s.
panzer 2 was the most numerous from 39 to 42 and was supplemented by panzer 3s and 4s from 1940 onward. by 43 it had been removed from front line duty and was replaced by the panzer 3 and 4.
You miss what I'm saying. While it wasn't the most numerous tank, it was much more.... symbolic, shall we say. Untill 1943, when large numbers of Panzer IV F2's started rolling off the lines, that tank was what projected the image of German power, and literally helped project that power out onto the world.
The actual blitzkrieg was much less armor-centric than people imagine, but its still Panzers rolling across the low countries and Russia to most people. Not having the Panzer III is really like not having the Valentine, or the Cromwell.
-
You miss what I'm saying. While it wasn't the most numerous tank, it was much more.... symbolic, shall we say. Untill 1943, when large numbers of Panzer IV F2's started rolling off the lines, that tank was what projected the image of German power, and literally helped project that power out onto the world.
The actual blitzkrieg was much less armor-centric than people imagine, but its still Panzers rolling across the low countries and Russia to most people. Not having the Panzer III is really like not having the Valentine, or the Cromwell.
and i'm saying you're mistaken. :D it was the panzer 2 with the high r.o.f. 20mm main gun that had the role as the point of the spear when germany invaded poland and france in the beginng of the blitzkreig. the panzer 3s role starting with the ausf. a thru the ausf f. were intended to take on enemy armor with their 37mm main guns. it wasn't until the panzer 3 got the 50mm that it took on the role that the panzer 2 had.
-
the m-26 did see action. i believe something like 20-24 of them in different incidents. a couple were lost in battle.
Long as it is the EARLY M-26 and not the super pershing I am ok with it, problem is I have a nasty feeling the super pershing would get added.
Kind of like saying "Oh well, the P-80 was technically in Europe, lets add it too!"
-
oh hell yeah Butcher...the super pershing would be a big donut NO!
-
Adding planes historic events in mind is far more fruitful than adding tanks. As said, very very few events use GVs at all. People who participate speacial events want to fly.
Early tanks would be far bigger "hangar queens" than early planes.
This statement disqualifies you from any further contribution in tank threads for all time.
-
This statement disqualifies you from any further contribution in tank threads for all time.
Well that may apply in your own mind but as you aren't a moderator on this board you can't do much if I share my views, whether it's about tanks or planes. Why not provide a counter argument if you consider my points way off base?
-
Do a search for M36 and you will see gyrene's previous hit job on it. My favorite is the Pershing, but I would settle for Cromwell and Challenger.
Ok, you had me on your side with "Cromwell", but now I'm standing back and letting you get fish slapped because you said "Challenger".
I will admit that I am surprised that HTC chose the three AFV's that they did for their first fray in to turretless territory. I actually has my money on the StG III or the Su-100. I understand the Jagdpanzer IV thanks to the chassis and gun already being in the game, and the Jagdpanther too since that chassis and gun are both in game. It makes sense. I am most surprised at the Hetzer because that is a 1 trick pony. There are no viable offshoots for that chassis while the StG III can go multiple ways INCLUDING about two or three variants of the Panzer III (think early and mid war).
For a British tank, in addition to the Cromwell I think it makes sense to add the Crusader since it had variants with both the 2 Pdr and 6 Pdr guns, and iirc it also spawned AA and infantry cannon (25 Pdr) variants.
Oh, and fwiw the Pershing is #47 on the list of gv's and aircraft to be added in to AH. :aok
-
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6b9p6tlMU1rxhyfno1_500.jpg)
-
Ok, you had me on your side with "Cromwell", but now I'm standing back and letting you get fish slapped because you said "Challenger".
There's nothing wrong with the Challenger, and since I mentioned being top heavy it only makes sense. It's merely a modification of the Cromwell. There were not very many of them made, but they also took part in the war.
Maybe you were thinking of the Challenger MBT? Not something I would ask for, bub.
-
moin
as for the britisch tanks the crusader, cromwell and comet would be logikaly, because thay are technickaly the same family and if thay made one the 2 others would be relativly easy made out out of them.
These 3 vehicles would be realy use full, the crusader would play with towns and panzers, the cromwell with all the medium stuff and the comet with the big ones :-).
chalanger isn t a wwII tank.
cu christian
-
hey Arlo, is that in your house? :O :x
-
chalanger isn t a wwII tank.
I'm sorry to break it to you but yes it is. It's the Cruiser Mk. VIII Challenger with the QF 17 pdr gun.
Glad I could teach you something though.
-
hi
ah, jes, didn t have it in mind that this baby was called chalenger too. sure this is a wwII tank :-)
cu christian
-
There's nothing wrong with the Challenger, and since I mentioned being top heavy it only makes sense. It's merely a modification of the Cromwell. There were not very many of them made, but they also took part in the war.
Maybe you were thinking of the Challenger MBT? Not something I would ask for, bub.
Wasn't insinuating that you were asking for the MBT. This is a AH tank thread debating the merits of AFV's to be included in to the fray, not a WoT gamer's daycare. Adding the Challenger would add nothing, it offers only slightly more speed than the Firefly. The Cromwell would at least give us a fast moving, fast firing, heavy hitting HE/lackluster AP platform. That is something we don't have in AH currently. That would eclipse the T34/76 in all but frontal armor and short range AP (via T34/76 HVAP).
-
hey Arlo, is that in your house? :O :x
Hmm, pick, ho, and ram :t
-
hey Arlo, is that in your house? :O :x
Wife would kill me. I'd miss the Cavanaugh/Londoner furball.
-
Wife would kill me. I'd miss the Cavanaugh/Londoner furball.
True but we wonT miss her :old:
I've got great convergance :D
Talk abou spray and pray :rofl
Jk :angel:
-
Wasn't insinuating that you were asking for the MBT. This is a AH tank thread debating the merits of AFV's to be included in to the fray, not a WoT gamer's daycare. Adding the Challenger would add nothing, it offers only slightly more speed than the Firefly. The Cromwell would at least give us a fast moving, fast firing, heavy hitting HE/lackluster AP platform. That is something we don't have in AH currently. That would eclipse the T34/76 in all but frontal armor and short range AP (via T34/76 HVAP).
Sorry, but I don't think you can say that. The Challenger is a weaker (armor-wise) Firefly that has more maneuverability and greater speed. To say it has nothing to offer is disingenuous. It's historical. But, with all you said about day-care, I would expect you to cough up even more bias. So, I give you just a tad of credit for not going totally sarcastic. Oh, . . . wait.
-
Wife would kill me. I'd miss the Cavanaugh/Londoner furball.
You'd miss a lot more than that sitting in the slammer.
:D
-
Furball?
-
M26 Pershing? Not really needed for a scenario events but it wouldn't be a hanger queen.
-
(http://i43.tinypic.com/2nlhim1.jpg)
Don't care as long as we don't lose this one .....
.