Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: dirtdart on July 15, 2013, 09:30:45 AM
-
I would like to see the tank commander able to be pilot wounded (like the old days).
If for example you are shooting from the commanders view and you are hit, you should be spalled just like a real person. That commander's view gives you an unfair advantage because you have a gunsight that is above the tanks real gunsight. It is the equivalent of flying with no cockpit IMHO. To encourage guys to get behind the gun, there should be a price (risk) with fighting out of the hatch.
If you are getting strafed and you are on the pintle gun, again, risk. I believe in the current model you have to hit the gun itself and damage it to take out that position. If I am flying any airplane and I take a hit in the cockpit, within a certain area, I get wounded, GV should be no different.
-
I would like to see the tank commander able to be pilot wounded (like the old days).
When was that?
-
Since there is no "buttoned down" position, that would be rather unfair!
-
Why not wish to do away with firing from commander position like the m3 75? Mind you not saying that should happen,(I'd say it is what makes the cheap tanks competitive.)
-
Why not wish to do away with firing from commander position like the m3 75? Mind you not saying that should happen,(I'd say it is what makes the cheap tanks competitive.)
because firing from the TC's position is like firing from the hip.
-
Having served on tanks for nearly 5 years, I can honestly say that the tank commander has the ability to fire from his position as well as move the turret from the open hatch, your gun is not nearly as accurate from this view, as well the commander had a better battlefield view hatches up and I am pleased with how that is portrayed. now I am sure some of you will argue ww2 tanks could not be controlled form the commanders position, in most tanks probably not, but the tank commander did play a vital role in walking the gunner onto target, ie gunner traverse right, 2 o clock 1.5kms tiger in open, gunner gets onto position and then fires, as we can not have more then one person in the tank I believe imo this is portrayed rather accurately.
-1 :cheers:
-
Schen,
I don't think it's being ABLE to fire from the commander's position that's the problem, but the fact that there's no risk of operating from the exposed station.
-
Randomize exactly where in or near the gun circle the gun is pointing rather than always having it be dead center. That would make firing from the commander's position less reliable.
-
Having served on tanks for nearly 5 years, I can honestly say that the tank commander has the ability to fire from his position as well as move the turret from the open hatch, your gun is not nearly as accurate from this view, as well the commander had a better battlefield view hatches up and I am pleased with how that is portrayed. now I am sure some of you will argue ww2 tanks could not be controlled form the commanders position, in most tanks probably not, but the tank commander did play a vital role in walking the gunner onto target, ie gunner traverse right, 2 o clock 1.5kms tiger in open, gunner gets onto position and then fires, as we can not have more then one person in the tank I believe imo this is portrayed rather accurately.
-1 :cheers:
There is a reason, as you know having served in a tank, that commands are given, and repeated, between crew members. The tank commander has control over the entire tank via verbal command, the only thing physical he controls is the top MG. The TC does not fire the gun, the gunner does. The TC does not drive, the driver does. The TC does not load the gun, the loader does. Etc, etc. However, unless given the "at will "or "as needed" command, each member of the tank is locked in to receiving his orders and then acting on those orders from the TC.
I think HTC has it about right under the current standards. I think if they wanted to add in a bit of "realism", or fog of war, they'd have the TC come up through the hatch in any one of 5 compass positions in relation to the turret. 0°, 22°/-°22, and °45/-°45. They could also add in a delay in switching between positions representing the delay in TC movement, voice commands, etc. As it is, the "insta-action" is a bit off the mark and the situational awareness is rather giving while in a tank.
-
There is a reason, as you know having served in a tank, that commands are given, and repeated, between crew members. The tank commander has control over the entire tank via verbal command, the only thing physical he controls is the top MG. The TC does not fire the gun, the gunner does. The TC does not drive, the driver does. The TC does not load the gun, the loader does. Etc, etc. However, unless given the "at will "or "as needed" command, each member of the tank is locked in to receiving his orders and then acting on those orders from the TC.
in the m60, the tc can fire the main gun from his position...if needed. i haven't been in an abrams but, i'd be willing to bet the tc has override controls for the main gun.
-
I agree the commander should take damage but i can't speak for all tanks but the leopard 2 the abrams (same German gun) and the callenger 2 the tc can take over and fire the gun independent of the gunner he also has the ability to move the turret if he sees the need. A little off topic but i was just saying the ability to take control away from the tafk commander i don't agree with but to have him pw or killed only leaving the driver position or gunners i agree. I think it would be a neat feature if the driver pos had a hatches up position. Better for but more risk ie pw or killed leaving tank haulted.
-
An egg, an IL-2, a Hurricane IID, another tank, a field gun, a B-25H and this wish becomes irrelevant. Kill em, don't wound em.
-
Having served on tanks for nearly 5 years, I can honestly say that the tank commander has the ability to fire from his position as well as move the turret from the open hatch, your gun is not nearly as accurate from this view, as well the commander had a better battlefield view hatches up and I am pleased with how that is portrayed. now I am sure some of you will argue ww2 tanks could not be controlled form the commanders position, in most tanks probably not, but the tank commander did play a vital role in walking the gunner onto target, ie gunner traverse right, 2 o clock 1.5kms tiger in open, gunner gets onto position and then fires, as we can not have more then one person in the tank I believe imo this is portrayed rather accurately.
-1 :cheers:
Schen, if you served on tanks, then you also know you do no engagements from the open hatch, TC and Gunner are buttoned down. Also, you do have a button down position, it is called the Gunners view.
-
Schen, if you served on tanks, then you also know you do no engagements from the open hatch, TC and Gunner are buttoned down. Also, you do have a button down position, it is called the Gunners view.
you don't need the hatches closed to fire a tank...and a tc can be standing in the hatch with binoculars and giving the order to fire...in a battle it is recommended to batten down the hatches but it's not necessary.
if the tc has fire control at his station, nothing stops him from standing up in the commanders hatch and hitting the fire button...
-
Not sure how the states operates but the only time the commanders hatch buttoned up or he was not eyes up was when the airforce dropped close air support. The vantage point hatches up is way more informative as to sa on the battlefield. Not to say he would not drop Down undercertain circumstances.
-
you don't need the hatches closed to fire a tank...and a tc can be standing in the hatch with binoculars and giving the order to fire...in a battle it is recommended to batten down the hatches but it's not necessary.
if the tc has fire control at his station, nothing stops him from standing up in the commanders hatch and hitting the fire button...
There are no engagements in tank qualification fired with the TC standing out of the hatch. In fact, the SEP V2 you cant even see straight ahead because of the CROW.
So, back on point, first, I can hit a tank that is on the other side of a mild berm from the commanders sight, but not from the gunners. Pretty sure in all tanks, the commander reticles is a mirror of the gunners. Secondly, If you were in a tank battle and in contact, i doubt seriously you would be standing out of the tank. I know of some of some iraq vets that are missing limbs from being out of the hatch in contact. I never stood up in my bradley in contact. We did not have chicken shields either. TC hatch was turtled if anything to keep happy grenade guys out, gunners hatch closed. We could waste the discussion on credibility. The fact is, it is gamey.
A human, exposed to fire in an airplane is susceptible to being wounded. Not the case in GVs. This is a concession to compete with other games? Not sure. In my mind is simply a way to exploit the game. It is very easy to make a template or hash your reticle to make range changes and shoot exclusively from a position where you are situationally aware. For this, my argument is, there should be a risk and a price of failure.
The fix should be a crew approach to the tank. If the player is wounded or killed by aircraft while in the TC view, he loses that position. He then has to drive around in gunners view, since I think the drivers view with the exception of the WW, have all but disappeared a options. If anything it would make fighting GVs a bit more competitive because guys would maybe fight from the gunners view to cut down on the risk of being wounded.
-
I can think if a handful of personal experiences where the crew commander was half up. Not standing but half up and the commanders cupola on the leopard 2 is behind the crew commander and gunners aiht recessed in the turret his field of veiw is unrestricted. The commanders were only ever sitting during engagements where the gunners sight and hunter killer sight were employed. At the same time the hatch was still open. I can only think of a handful of times all the hatches were closed. In the event of an ied having a hole for the concussion to blow out was beneficial. Having hit 2 i can speak to that. As for the game i do not deny a pw be employed in some regard.
-
Well, if you're going to go there then the suggestion I have is to make sure that any commander that is actually hit is wounded, rather than take the commander view removed (or especially assign a wound based on the tank getting hit at all). Otherwise, if you suggest that the commander view be removed, then you are penalizing historical accuracy for what you perceive as gaming-the-game. Besides, just because you do it from the cupola, doesn't mean you couldn't make the same shot from the gunner's spot.
I don't think it should be considered a game-breaking event just because you can shoot over a berm, anyway! The tanks with better sights can shoot over the crest of a hill and kill tanks that have retreated from the edge even at extreme ranges. How many times did a TigerII actually kill something at 7k? 8k? 9k? I think this particular aspect of tanks should be considered a concession of the factors that are not present in the game, but that do actually support such events in the real world (such as a tank used as artillery with forward observers, fire control, etc.).
-1 in any case.
-
Never did I suggest removing the Commander's view, only that there needed to be an element of risk to fight from it. Again, airplane do not have a "no cockpit mode."
-
I agree with the above.
-
Some of you may not remember but the reason we drive from the TC position was to speed up the ability to produce tanks, we used to drive from the drivers seat but it took lots of extra time and resources to build the inside of the tanks, the trade off was to lose the inside graphics but gain more tanks at a faster pace,, in order to produce the " buttoned down" position,, the insides of the tanks would have to be modeled again,, the MG turret being knocked out is about as close as you can get to the TC being knocked out,,
-
When was that?
I remember hearing about a bug? that allowed a g'ver to receive a pilot wound. It might be based from that, and then translated by rumor.
-
Whiskey, that may be, the point I am making is that the tanks are shooting from points of view that would not have been available. It is the same as being able to see over the nose of a 109 for those slow tater shots. The #2 position allows a place for the "player" to duck and cover.
On the PW, I have been PWd in tanks before, years ago.
-
Whiskey, that may be, the point I am making is that the tanks are shooting from points of view that would not have been available. It is the same as being able to see over the nose of a 109 for those slow tater shots. The #2 position allows a place for the "player" to duck and cover.
On the PW, I have been PWd in tanks before, years ago.
But as Whisky also mentioned, it is a gameplay thing. It would be also unrealistic to only have the main gun sight available for viewing while buttoned up. Some tanks have vision slits cut in them, and some dont, each tank has very different visibilty from one to another. It is also multi-crewed, with each crew member having a different field of view than the other. I think of it as like F3 in a bomber. It makes sense for gameplay purposes since I am one person in a vehicle that should have more.
-
Whiskey, that may be, the point I am making is that the tanks are shooting from points of view that would not have been available. It is the same as being able to see over the nose of a 109 for those slow tater shots. The #2 position allows a place for the "player" to duck and cover.
On the PW, I have been PWd in tanks before, years ago.
what we don't have is the infantry on the ground around the tank either, or the ability to recon from outside the tank by the crew,,I think those disadvantages are a far greater loss than the extra view we do have. Just my opinion tho !
-
And thanks for it :salute . All valid points. My suggestion stems from guys exploiting the view to shoot from positions where the actual gunsight is masked by a berm, but the commanders view is not. It allows them to shoot from better cover and remain more concealed. I wish there were a work around.
-
And thanks for it :salute . All valid points. My suggestion stems from guys exploiting the view to shoot from positions where the actual gunsight is masked by a berm, but the commanders view is not. It allows them to shoot from better cover and remain more concealed. I wish there were a work around.
There is no exploiting!!!! Your enemy enjoys the exact same thing you do!!!
It is something I really enjoy.
I get to guess, and dial in my shot
I have to consider the ballistics of my adversary. A T34/85 shooting HVAP might not arc nearly as much as as an M4/75
I can "hunt" Knowing I can see them, but they can not see me is great fun as I try to approach for an attack.
If you feel there is an exploit feel free to close your eyes when your tank is parked on a hill overlooking the enemy. (I would call that a tactic) :noid
-
I was pilot (driver) wounded in a Jeep a few days ago. First for me.
-
There is no exploiting!!!! Your enemy enjoys the exact same thing you do!!!
It is something I really enjoy.
I get to guess, and dial in my shot
I have to consider the ballistics of my adversary. A T34/85 shooting HVAP might not arc nearly as much as as an M4/75
I can "hunt" Knowing I can see them, but they can not see me is great fun as I try to approach for an attack.
If you feel there is an exploit feel free to close your eyes when your tank is parked on a hill overlooking the enemy. (I would call that a tactic) :noid
Well, instead of dialing ... lol, make and overlay set to a specific zoom setting, viola, no need to go to gunners position.
Again, thanks for the feedback guys, I enjoy the civil discussion. <S>
-
I would like to see the tank commander able to be pilot wounded (like the old days).
If for example you are shooting from the commanders view and you are hit, you should be spalled just like a real person. That commander's view gives you an unfair advantage because you have a gunsight that is above the tanks real gunsight. It is the equivalent of flying with no cockpit IMHO. <snip>
How is this an unfair advantage? All GVs have this capability, don't they, so all should be equal in this respect. Furthermore, as has been alluded to above, this could be considered to cover the situation where the TC gets out and reconnoiters (spelling?). Finally, I don't think you can hit anything from the TC position that you can't hit from the gunner's position, and from the former you risk hitting the hill in front of you, wasting the shot, giving away your position, and creating a large crater terrain effect blocking your LOS.
If you are claiming that GVs have an unfair advantage against aircraft ... :rofl
MH
-
Deacon, it is not about shooting, it is about sighting. From the commanders view point you can see and aim higher up. Many times the gunners sight is masked by a berm, but not the commanders reticle. It allows a tank to conceal itself a bit better, reducing its risk to fire.
-
Deacon, it is not about shooting, it is about sighting. From the commanders view point you can see and aim higher up. Many times the gunners sight is masked by a berm, but not the commanders reticle. It allows a tank to conceal itself a bit better, reducing its risk to fire.
How is this an unfair advantage? All GVs have this capability, don't they, so all should be equal in this respect.
-
Because not everyone has matching cover. Whe a guy can hit you, but all you can see is the pintle gun, well, that is an unfair advantage.
-
I don't see how that's unfair. if they both had to just look thru gun sight, and one had better cover, that would be unfair too?
-
Because not everyone has matching cover. Whe a guy can hit you, but all you can see is the pintle gun, well, that is an unfair advantage.
A regular hull down position of one tank while the other has none would be an unfair advantage as well, by that definition.
And by the way, my initial question still stands, or did I miss the answer somewhere?
-
Because not everyone has matching cover. Whe a guy can hit you, but all you can see is the pintle gun, well, that is an unfair advantage.
panzer V panzer or M-4 V M-4,,, the tanks are all equal,, the driver that can't or doesn't know how to find cover and use the terrain around him is the difference!,, recon with your pintlegun before you roll up and over a hill and you will stand a better chance of surviving an encounter with another,,
if you wish to shoot over the top of ridges,, learn what tanks have a greater drop in trajectory ,at what range and do so,,, then learn which ones fire flat strait rounds and engage them over the proper terrain .
If you need help I will meet you in the TA and we can work on it,, that is my job here, and I like to help :noid
-
Everyone knows our tank commanders are god, that is why they can't be killed. All they are missing is something sharp... :noid
Found something sharp...
(http://images.wikia.com/warhammer40kfanon/images/c/cd/Drive_me_closer_i_want_to_hit_them_with_my_sword.png)
-
Lusche, There are two perspectives. One from the Commanders view which is about three feet above the top of the turret. The second is from the gunners sight. The gunners sight is located next to the tank barrel. The vertical separation between these two POV could be 5-6 feet depending on the tank. If I am shooting from behind cover at targets I cannot see because terrain obstructs my main gun sight, from the commanders view, then I am shooting at things I could not target IRL. This allow me to expose several feet less of my tank to fire, at the same time, because of the little ring and the fact this is a game, target quite effectively from what amounts to a guy standing up in the turret with Binos.
My argument is that for this advantageous position, there ought to be a risk. There are many time I can think of ricocheting rounds off the top of a tank because their hull was concealed by terrain and all that was exposed was the roof. Call it being able to shoot from a turret down position.
Just imagine a guy standing up holding binos while 75mm HE or AP is hitting their tank. That is not happening.
Yes, all players can do this, that is not the point. My point is that the commanders feature, without risk, is extremely gamey and encourages static tank gunplay because your probability of surviving is increased because you can expose less of your tank then you did in the past. I will see about posting some illustrations.
-
Is there any particular reason you are ignoring my question?
:(
-
It already has been answered in the thread. I did not know it was a bug, I just thought it was the status quo. If you have never been pilot wounded in a tanks, well, you should have spent more time in tanks (old model).
-
It already has been answered in the thread.
I guess I'm just blind then :uhoh
I did not know it was a bug, I just thought it was the status quo. If you have never been pilot wounded in a tanks, well, you should have spent more time in tanks (old model).
But from that I conclude you meant "under the old Gv model" which would mean until about 2 years ago. And no, there were no regular "pilot" wounds in tanks during the time. The was an extrelemely rare bug that could cause that, but it almost never happend. It's similar to getting a kill credit for killing a manned gun on a ship, which also happens like one in a million.
For the record I had more than 1600 hours of combat time in vehicles with more than 3500 deaths under the old GV system in the LW. Literally hundreds of times I was doing the 'Tiger waltz', driving around in commander position and dodging bombs & strafers on Vbases and Ports (I actually preferred to up a Tiger in the face of CV plane attacks on ports than a Ostie/Wirbel). You would think I would have been wounded at least once during all that time... ;)
-
Seems to me that the tank commander should be vulnerable when in that position.
However the gv model requires that that view set be retained......
My preferred option would be that the position should (in the event of the "commander" taking a hit) lose its ability to traverse and fire the main gun.
We note on the 75mm M3 (where there is no commander position) this is the case already so the logic is consistent.
The effect would be to make the TC vulnerable to straffing and local HE hits from shell, bomb or rocket.
-
Seems to me that the tank commander should be vulnerable when in that position.
However the gv model requires that that view set be retained......
My preferred option would be that the position should (in the event of the "commander" taking a hit) lose its ability to traverse and fire the main gun.
We note on the 75mm M3 (where there is no commander position) this is the case already so the logic is consistent.
The effect would be to make the TC vulnerable to straffing and local HE hits from shell, bomb or rocket.
Purely from a game play perspective it would be a *bad* idea to have GV "pilot wounds", given the ubiquitous strafing and bombing aircraft (even in TT). A major "fun" killer, regardless of its alleged merits WRT real tanks.
MH
-
Purely from a game play perspective it would be a *bad* idea to have GV "pilot wounds", given the ubiquitous strafing and bombing aircraft (even in TT). A major "fun" killer, regardless of its alleged merits WRT real tanks.
MH
What he said.
-
Yep, it would, and it would add realism. Let me give you another example of why pilots or crew need to be modeled so they can be killed or wounded. You are diving on a tank in an IL2, the mad man on the tank pintle gun can wound you, through armor, with a 7.7mm. You on the other hand are firing 37mm AP rds and machine gun fire, and that guy happily clangs away on his gun without risk. Unless you hit the weapon directly with the correct damage, you will not disable the pintle gun. Making a crew man who has to duck into a hatch is the sort of realism the GV model is lacking.
Lusche, I can say I was wounded more than once back in the day, or the position became unusable, meaning the crew member was dead. The most common wounded guy I can remember was the driver, mostly I thought because I had my head all the way out of the hull. I thought this was a nice realism touch. Maybe I just had the bug, who knows.
Regardless, if the game touts realism as a prerogative, why are GVs allocated a "break" vice airplanes?
For the record, I am defending my point, so please do not mistake any of this dialogue as argument. Good discussion gents.
-
I would say that ah does a good job of making a compromise between realism and flya-playability. If one were to imagine an axis with realism on the right and playability on the left I would argue that ah lands on most people's zero. For comparison il2 on full realism is probably some where over on the right. Interestingly if you examine different aspects of the game and there placement along an absolute axis I think most people would find that a game is more enjoyable if some aspects are more realistic and others less so. In the case of il2 full realism vs AH2 MA I think that the combination of realistic flight model plus dummed down engine/propellor management makes for a more enjoyable experience. Of course people have different tastes so some might prefer the balance shifted one way or the other. What this means to me is that arguing for something on the basis of it being a better representation of reality isn't that strong an argument it's own.
-
GVs have a commander viewpoint for the same reason bombers have F3. Tanks versus IL2s is a pretty ridiculous argument actually, because you imply that the aircraft is limited in its attack angle, which is simply not true. You can get above the machine gun arc, and you should. If you want impunity then you are playing the wrong game and using the wrong aircraft. Maybe Lancs at 5k would better suit you?
-
GVs have a commander viewpoint for the same reason bombers have F3. Tanks versus IL2s is a pretty ridiculous argument actually, because you imply that the aircraft is limited in its attack angle, which is simply not true. You can get above the machine gun arc, and you should. If you want impunity then you are playing the wrong game and using the wrong aircraft. Maybe Lancs at 5k would better suit you?
he was talking about the game IL2 sturmovik...not the IL2 airplane.
I would say that ah does a good job of making a compromise between realism and flya-playability. If one were to imagine an axis with realism on the right and playability on the left I would argue that ah lands on most people's zero. For comparison il2 on full realism is probably some where over on the right. Interestingly if you examine different aspects of the game and there placement along an absolute axis I think most people would find that a game is more enjoyable if some aspects are more realistic and others less so. In the case of il2 full realism vs AH2 MA I think that the combination of realistic flight model plus dummed down engine/propellor management makes for a more enjoyable experience. Of course people have different tastes so some might prefer the balance shifted one way or the other. What this means to me is that arguing for something on the basis of it being a better representation of reality isn't that strong an argument it's own.
there is no such thing as realism in il2, full or otherwise...it's either no engine management on or off, there is nothing realistic about the aircraft flight models or the damage models. doesn't matter what setting you put it on, all the planes fly nearly identically. i once thought it would be great to have some engine management in ah but, after playing through il2, on what they call realism mode for a while and seeing the way things play out in the main arenas in ah, it would not be practical nor playable in ah.
-
GVs have a commander viewpoint for the same reason bombers have F3. Tanks versus IL2s is a pretty ridiculous argument actually, because you imply that the aircraft is limited in its attack angle, which is simply not true. You can get above the machine gun arc, and you should. If you want impunity then you are playing the wrong game and using the wrong aircraft. Maybe Lancs at 5k would better suit you?
My message was, the IL2 and the tank players should share the risk. They do not.
I speak spanish too, and a smattering of french and italian if that might help.
-
he was talking about the game IL2 sturmovik...not the IL2 airplane.
there is no such thing as realism in il2, full or otherwise...it's either no engine management on or off, there is nothing realistic about the aircraft flight models or the damage models. doesn't matter what setting you put it on, all the planes fly nearly identically. i once thought it would be great to have some engine management in ah but, after playing through il2, on what they call realism mode for a while and seeing the way things play out in the main arenas in ah, it would not be practical nor playable in ah.
I don't think I made my point clearly. I was trying to say that AH is superior than il2 in full realism mode because AH's flight model (realistic) plus its engine prop management (unrealistic) is much more enjoyable than the reverse (which is what il2 is). The larger point is that it works well to have some features realistic and others not and that therefore arguing that any given feature should be changed because realistic is better all on its own is not a good argument. For example if I was to wish for engine management like il2 for AH because it is more realistic I don't think that would be very persuasive, and I don't think most customers would like the change.
-
My message was, the IL2 and the tank players should share the risk. They do not.
I speak spanish too, and a smattering of french and italian if that might help.
I believe I understand your message and absent context it makes a lot of sense. The reason I disagree with it is that generally speaking a tank has to invest much more time to get within range of a base or town than an il2 needs to get to a tank. One saving grace of the game from a tank perspective is that ords are not very hard to bring down. I don't have any facts but I suspect that killing the commander position might cause less people to bother driving off the spawn. The skeet shooting is really just a little compensation for having to endure serial attacks by a20 stukag2 and il2 death birds,(assuming a competent pilot.)
-
Fair point. I seriously know nothing of gaming theory, and I don't hold meetings on what makes a game better. This point is just my 2 cents. :cheers:
-
Yep, it would, and it would add realism. Let me give you another example of why pilots or crew need to be modeled so they can be killed or wounded. You are diving on a tank in an IL2, the mad man on the tank pintle gun can wound you, through armor, with a 7.7mm. You on the other hand are firing 37mm AP rds and machine gun fire, and that guy happily clangs away on his gun without risk. Unless you hit the weapon directly with the correct damage, you will not disable the pintle gun. Making a crew man who has to duck into a hatch is the sort of realism the GV model is lacking.
Lusche, I can say I was wounded more than once back in the day, or the position became unusable, meaning the crew member was dead. The most common wounded guy I can remember was the driver, mostly I thought because I had my head all the way out of the hull. I thought this was a nice realism touch. Maybe I just had the bug, who knows.
Regardless, if the game touts realism as a prerogative, why are GVs allocated a "break" vice airplanes?
For the record, I am defending my point, so please do not mistake any of this dialogue as argument. Good discussion gents.
I discovered decades ago (in my 45-plus year gaming career) that "realism" needed to be secondary to game play value, given that we are playing these games for fun.
The fact is that, in AH, GVs don’t have a chance against AC (aircraft). The only thing which makes the GV game viable, unless what you enjoy is lemming-like human-wave attacks against bases, is the fact that AC are frequently not there, or are distracted. Allowing the GV to be crippled by machine gun fire, after possibly driving for 5-15 minutes to the battle, and then after possibly 5-15 more minutes maneuvering into a position of tactical advantage, will be extremely frustrating, perhaps terminally so.
MH
-
I think the new Jagdpanzer et al shows the way..............
If you are in the commander position and get hit then your power over the turret becomes the same as a Jagdpanzer.......... you can still drive with full 360 views, you can still fire from the turret you can still rotate the turret (from the turret). If you go play with the Jagdpanzer you'll see it is not a game play killer.
The GV's exist in an arena with AC (and vis versa) some arenas have a tank town, but basically they both live together and have to interface............there should be a consequence of straffing the Commander.
Just wait until I get my PTAB's..........
If you want more gameplay balance then lets make icon range speed related............. vis range(yards) =100000/speed(mph)
-
I think the new Jagdpanzer et al shows the way..............
If you are in the commander position and get hit then your power over the turret becomes the same as a Jagdpanzer.......... you can still drive with full 360 views, you can still fire from the turret you can still rotate the turret (from the turret). If you go play with the Jagdpanzer you'll see it is not a game play killer.
<snip>
Tilt, I see from the stats that you don't do a lot of GVing, which probably explains your position on this issue. FYI, it is very frustrating for a GV when even a single inexperienced AC is on your case, and it basically ruins GV gameplay until he goes away or until you die. The best you can hope for is to try to dodge his bombs and avoid his strafing when you are out of contact with other GVs. If in contact with other GVs, you are screwed, as avoiding the AC reveals you to the GV, and staying put makes you an even easier kill for the AC. I'ts basically lose-lose. This is not a "whine" but just a statement of fact. Alowing strafing of the TC to further degrade GV performance just moves things even more out of balance.
BTW, there are a number of issues with the new TD UI, both in terms of game play, and also in terms of consistency. See my "Wishlist" item on this.
MH
-
he was talking about the game IL2 sturmovik...not the IL2 airplane.
Dirtdart was talking about IL2? I don't think so!
-
My message was, the IL2 and the tank players should share the risk. They do not.
I speak spanish too, and a smattering of french and italian if that might help.
I don't care what language you offer your BS in, the IL2 is certainly in a position of advantage. Like any mudhen he does not have to come in shallow and stupid where he can get hit with the main gun, or machinegun!
A wound on a tank is going to do what exactly? Offer an IL2 an extra kill when the tank realizes his spawn position will not allow him to land? Kill the tank for crying out loud! If you cannot already mudhen with success then you need to be in the mindless furball set and give up on ever being a mudhen. It really is that simple.
-
Well the IL2 should have an overriding advantage agin most tanks......... Specially when it's got PTAB's on board.
-
I don't care what language you offer your BS in, the IL2 is certainly in a position of advantage. Like any mudhen he does not have to come in shallow and stupid where he can get hit with the main gun, or machinegun!
A wound on a tank is going to do what exactly? Offer an IL2 an extra kill when the tank realizes his spawn position will not allow him to land? Kill the tank for crying out loud! If you cannot already mudhen with success then you need to be in the mindless furball set and give up on ever being a mudhen. It really is that simple.
Your personal attacks are the reason the BBs go to crap. Have an opinion, be civil, and keep direct personal comments out of these discussions. You are a typical BB "tough guy" who just need a real life reality check.
So the answer then in our simulation game is to create an unrealistic circumstance. You ever post some factual data again on the BBs, I will be there to remind you of your opinions to compromise on gamey features.
This is not another tank game that has a similar interface, this is Aces High. If I wanted the nintendo version of tanking, I would have gotten into it.
-
Continuing to clang the bell, isn't bringing anyone else to dinner!
You've made your point, you've said no one else's matter,, it's done,,, let it lay!
We disagree,,, I disagree,, to model does not need a pilot wounded tank driver.
-
Well the IL2 should have an overriding advantage agin most tanks......... Specially when it's got PTAB's on board.
I thought it already did have an overriding advantage. I mean, if you set up a "duel" between a tank and an armed IL2 in AH, which do you think would win?
MH
-
<snip>
So the answer then in our simulation game is to create an unrealistic circumstance. You ever post some factual data again on the BBs, I will be there to remind you of your opinions to compromise on gamey features.
This is not another tank game that has a similar interface, this is Aces High. If I wanted the nintendo version of tanking, I would have gotten into it.
Dirtdart, your "realism" argument has already been commented on by several other posters, but you keep returning to it. Surely you don't believe that just because something occurs in real life that it must be good for the game, without considering the game play factors as well. So your proper response should be IMHO to demonstrate why there is this overwhelming need to add TC wounds, even given the game play consequences mentioned. Instead you keep going back to "realism", which is a bit irritating.
MH
-
GVs have a commander viewpoint for the same reason bombers have F3. Tanks versus IL2s is a pretty ridiculous argument actually, because you imply that the aircraft is limited in its attack angle, which is simply not true. You can get above the machine gun arc, and you should. If you want impunity then you are playing the wrong game and using the wrong aircraft. Maybe Lancs at 5k would better suit you?
I would go beyond that (and have) to say that the "commander viewpoint" is prototypical, and not analogous to F3, as real tank commanders usually stuck their heads out of their commander's hatches (and as Dirtdart says, suffered for it). Where I disagree with him is in his ignoring the AH gameplay consequences of allowing TC wounds, taking into account the typical GV sortie dynamics with respect to attack aircraft.
MH
-
Dirtdart, your "realism" argument has already been commented on by several other posters, but you keep returning to it. Surely you don't believe that just because something occurs in real life that it must be good for the game, without considering the game play factors as well. So your proper response should be IMHO to demonstrate why there is this overwhelming need to add TC wounds, even given the game play consequences mentioned. Instead you keep going back to "realism", which is a bit irritating.
MH
A view I easily accept, I am sure there is a great deal of thought put into game theory and so forth as HTC develops what to make "realistic" and what not to make realistic. :salute This is something I do not know much about. That is why this is the wishlist thread, not the make it happen thread.
My recent invective is directed at the first guys to point out a lack of realism are now defending a lack of realism, something I find a bit hypocritical.
-
A view I easily accept, I am sure there is a great deal of thought put into game theory and so forth as HTC develops what to make "realistic" and what not to make realistic. :salute This is something I do not know much about. That is why this is the wishlist thread, not the make it happen thread.
My recent invective is directed at the first guys to point out a lack of realism are now defending a lack of realism, something I find a bit hypocritical.
Well, we all get irritable at times. Hopefully there is no deep-seated animosity there...
MH
-
Your personal attacks are the reason the BBs go to crap. Have an opinion, be civil, and keep direct personal comments out of these discussions. You are a typical BB "tough guy" who just need a real life reality check.
So the answer then in our simulation game is to create an unrealistic circumstance. You ever post some factual data again on the BBs, I will be there to remind you of your opinions to compromise on gamey features.
This is not another tank game that has a similar interface, this is Aces High. If I wanted the nintendo version of tanking, I would have gotten into it.
Dirtdart you are the one that went there first. Don't blame it off on me. You get what you sow.
For the rest of your 'rant' I will tell you straight up it smells to high heaven. If you don't like being told 'factually' why you are wrong, then you should refrain from posting. Pretty much I posted my opinion, which is the way I see it. I know. You want to prevent rebuttals. Too bad. People are going to disagree. Well, I disagree. Live with it.
As to real life reality checks. Grow up.
-
Quality.
-
GVs have a commander viewpoint for the same reason bombers have F3. Tanks versus IL2s is a pretty ridiculous argument actually, because you imply that the aircraft is limited in its attack angle, which is simply not true. You can get above the machine gun arc, and you should. If you want impunity then you are playing the wrong game and using the wrong aircraft. Maybe Lancs at 5k would better suit you?
So where in my post do I imply an aircraft is limited in its attack?
A tank can shoot down an airplane in a shallow dive. Impunity is not what I am after I actually prefer gving these days. If you want I could use hand puppets.
My point, my only point, is that risk should be shared. A player space should be modeled into the tc position. This would not only force guys into the gunsights where tanks were actually aimed. It would force them to shoot visible lines of sight (the exact root of my wish). I disagree with tanks behind berms spawn camping from positions where the bulk of the tank and its realistic line of sight is concealed, because a game interaction feature allows them to do so. Now again I am trying to figure out where and why you decided to make this thread personal bu suggesting I would be better off lanc Stukaing tanks and calling things bs.
Tdeacon brings up angles I had not considered such as the effect on gameplay that change might have. One that I weighed, and thought about. Very few dedicated gvrs kill the ords at nearby bases just to tank, generally they hope a countryman keeps them down. I also felt that in a similar fashion, when you are being strafed, and all you would have to do was get into the turret position, that would not be so bad. But, in tank on tank fights having to shift between the two (like we did in the old days) would mess the play up. Wish withdrawn. Thanks for the thoughts deacon. (S)
-
<snip>
I disagree with tanks behind berms spawn camping from positions where the bulk of the tank and its realistic line of sight is concealed, because a game interaction feature allows them to do so.
<snip>
I always looked at this as being equivalent to "hull-down" or "turret-down" positioning, which was clearly historical for WWII. I am thinking of the Crisp memoir "Brazen Chariots" (Operation Crusader) in particular.
MH
-
I thought it already did have an overriding advantage. I mean, if you set up a "duel" between a tank and an armed IL2 in AH, which do you think would win?
MH
It does I was expressing the opinion that this was rightly so. Infact it should have even a greater advantage than it does now............... (no PTAB's yet)
back on subject.............
It seems that by use of Pan (F8) the top view would still permit full 360 degree visuals............. so I return to the opinion that strafing the TC (when the player was in that position) would bring about (IMO) the appropriate consequence of losing the link between the upper turret position and the ability to manipulate and fire the main gun.
It would be akin to the other crew members having to multi-task and there by lose some TC functionality.
-
It does I was expressing the opinion that this was rightly so. Infact it should have even a greater advantage than it does now............... (no PTAB's yet)
back on subject.............
It seems that by use of Pan (F8) the top view would still permit full 360 degree visuals............. so I return to the opinion that strafing the TC (when the player was in that position) would bring about (IMO) the appropriate consequence of losing the link between the upper turret position and the ability to manipulate and fire the main gun.
It would be akin to the other crew members having to multi-task and there by lose some TC functionality.
The f8 pan is too slow for good SA. You want near instantaneous. But I don't think that's the real issue here. What this boils down to is a ground-attack guy wanting GVs to be easier to kill. Game play consequences there...
MH
-
The f8 pan is too slow for good SA. You want near instantaneous. But I don't think that's the real issue here. What this boils down to is a ground-attack guy wanting GVs to be easier to kill. Game play consequences there...
MH
Would also make the TC vulnerable to just about any MG fired from a jeep or an M3?................ shouldn't a jeep at least keep the TC down under his turret? ........... should the TC be able to fire upon said jeep from his position totally invulnerable to any return fire? not to mention M16 or M8 etc etc.