Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Karnak on October 22, 2013, 09:57:57 PM
-
Hajo posted this desire in the "He111 is HERE!!!!!!!!" thread so I thought it might be fun to have a wishlist conversation about it.
A free for all Axis vs Allies arena with two countries, one using all of the American, British and Russian equipment and another using all of the German, Italian, Japanese and Finnish equipment. Yes, the Brewster is Finnish. Other than that change this arena would be set exactly like the Late War Main Arena and balance, other than the additional units, would be left alone with the players expected to accept imbalances.
Additional units I think would be needed:
He177A-5 'Greif': This would be the Axis' Lancaster equivalent. Decent speed, heavy bomb load and decent armament, but fragile and incapable of flying if it loses an engine.
H8K2 'Emily': This would be the Axis' B-17G equivalent. Tough (possibly even tougher than the B-17G), well armed, but with a lighter bomb load than the He177A-5)
B7A2 'Grace': This would give the Axis at least some useful striking power from CVs. Fast for a torpedo bomber, capable of dogfighting, but a lighter bomb load than the American CV aircraft.
M26 'Pershing': This would be the Allies' Panther/Tiger II equivalent.
For transports the Axis would get the SdKfz. 251, the LVT(2)A and the C-47. The LVT(A)2 is pretty much required as a balance issue even though the Japanese did not have a tracked landing craft. The Japanese did operate license built DC-3s as the L2D 'Tabby', which is functionally the same airplane as the C-47 thus making the C-47 completely appropriate for both sides.
-
Not that I mentioned it, but I found it while looking at Japanese landing craft.
No. 103 class landing ship:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/IJN_landing_ship_No149_on_test.jpg)
Per Wikipedia:
Capacity:
120 troops, 22 tons freight and
Example 1: 13 × Type 95 Ha-Go
Example 2: 9 × Type 97 Chi-Ha
Example 3: 7 × Type 2 Ka-Mi
Example 4: 5 × Type 3 Ka-Chi
Example 5: 220 tons freight
Example 6: approx. 280 troops
Armament:
No.104, 20 August 1944
• 1 × 76.2 mm (3.00 in) L/40 AA gun
• 16 × Type 96 25 mm AA guns
• 4 × 13 mm AA guns
• 12 × depth charges
Speed:
16.0 knots (18.4 mph; 29.6 km/h)
-
this is a nice wish...but completely out of the realm of possibility for a few reasons. ONE the b7 aichi was made in very low numbers late in the war...about 115 total.....and it is FOR aircraft carriers...BUT it never served on an aircraft carrier...and so should not be available on our aircraft carrieriers if it ever comes in game. TWO, the m-26 pershing was introduced very late war,i think only a handfull..something like 20-25 ever set foot in europe in ww2. the counterpart to the tiger 2 should be the js-2 russian tank. THREE the emily,while it looks good on paper,is a very large aircraft..how large? about 30ft longer than a b-24 and about 15ft wider than a b-24, they were not intended to be flown in formation and bomb strategic targets, they were made in low numbers..about 115 and used for maritime patrol as they are flying boats. i would like to see this aircraft introduced...and other flying boats, but they should not be able to fly in a 3-plane formation like the b-17. they should fly as a single aircraft like the a-20.and so it is not comparable to the b-17 and falls short on performance to the a-20. the he-177 would be a great addition to the plane set,and i am all for it being introduced.
-
this is a nice wish...but completely out of the realm of possibility for a few reasons. ONE the b7 aichi was made in very low numbers late in the war...about 115 total.....and it is FOR aircraft carriers...BUT it never served on an aircraft carrier...and so should not be available on our aircraft carrieriers if it ever comes in game. TWO, the m-26 pershing was introduced very late war,i think only a handfull..something like 20-25 ever set foot in europe in ww2. the counterpart to the tiger 2 should be the js-2 russian tank. THREE the emily,while it looks good on paper,is a very large aircraft..how large? about 30ft longer than a b-24 and about 15ft wider than a b-24, they were not intended to be flown in formation and bomb strategic targets, they were made in low numbers..about 115 and used for maritime patrol as they are flying boats. i would like to see this aircraft introduced...and other flying boats, but they should not be able to fly in a 3-plane formation like the b-17. they should fly as a single aircraft like the a-20.and so it is not comparable to the b-17 and falls short on performance to the a-20. the he-177 would be a great addition to the plane set,and i am all for it being introduced.
the only thing i'm going say is...ta-152, me-163, tiger 2, f4u1c...invalidate your arguments.
-
this is a nice wish...but completely out of the realm of possibility for a few reasons. ONE the b7 aichi was made in very low numbers late in the war...about 115 total.....That doesn't disqualify it.
and it is FOR aircraft carriers...BUT it never served on an aircraft carrier...and so should not be available on our aircraft carrieriers if it ever comes in game.
An exception can be made for game balance purposes.
TWO, the m-26 pershing was introduced very late war,i think only a handfull..something like 20-25 ever set foot in europe in ww2. the counterpart to the tiger 2 should be the js-2 russian tank.
JS-2's rate of fire and ammo load make it an unsuitable counter. The limited numbers issue was made moot by the Ta152.
THREE the emily,while it looks good on paper,is a very large aircraft..how large? about 30ft longer than a b-24 and about 15ft wider than a b-24, they were not intended to be flown in formation and bomb strategic targets, they were made in low numbers..about 115 and used for maritime patrol as they are flying boats. i would like to see this aircraft introduced...and other flying boats, but they should not be able to fly in a 3-plane formation like the b-17. they should fly as a single aircraft like the a-20.and so it is not comparable to the b-17 and falls short on performance to the a-20. the he-177 would be a great addition to the plane set,and i am all for it being introduced.
Emily was used as a formation bomber at times. I grant that was rare, but it did happen. The size is irrelevant to being flown in formation. That it is a flying boat is irrelevant to it being used as a bomber as it was, technically, a maritime patrol bomber.
-
lol, this is funny. the limited number issue is relevent. other wise we would have the he-162,meteor,ar234C(four engined version)do-335,p-63,ki-100,bf-109T(aircraft carrier variant)re-2005,pantherII,t-44,kv-2,ki-84 w/ 4x20mm,and the list goes on. on several occasion hitech themselves have said that since an aircraft or vehicle was not made in enough number or see a substantial amount of combat.....then it wouldnt be added....i my self cited your very same argument in defence...showing the limited numbers and sometimes limited combat of some ingame rides...like the ta-152,p-47m,f4yc and-4 and the wirblwind. hitech seems to think otherwise. the js-2 was used in quantity in combat.has heavy armour and a giant gun...which is why it has a low rate of fire...but now our vehicles rates of fire are based on the vehicle..and reality .not on it being a game. the pershing barely made it to europe ,barely saw combat. only about 20-25 being used. it really should be in game.however if it is...i want to see a BRUMBAR,or whatever the tiger1 chasis with the big 380mm rocket projectile firing gun in game,they were used in combat more than the m-26 pershing,and made more of an impact in real life. and your argumnet about the emily is really working agaist you.... you say that it was a rare occurance for them to flown in formation to bomb...but it did happen...ok...then the same goes for the sm-82, it flew in combat,resonable numbers were made.it flew formation for bombing and should then be added.your argument there is..there are other planes better than the sm-82 for the job....and the same goes here,there are better axis bombers for the job, he-177,do217,he-219,piaggio 108. the japenese already have two bombers. if we go the flying boat route, there are many for many countries that should be added to balance the sides....and finally the japenese torpedo carrier plane that did not serve on a carrier. im all for it,if the bf-109t is added,heck if we are changing history we should go all the way,lets just let all aircraft and vehicles up from a carrier......NO. if it didnt actually serve on a carrier.....it shouldn't in game. there are many carrier based aircraft we dont have in game...if you want more,we should add one of them.
-
I like the suggestion but unforntunately I see it ending up like the WW1 arena. Awhile back I made almost this exact suggestion to the AvA guys to run it for a week when they asked some of us for ideas, but it ended up going nowhere due to lack of interest.
I even found some artwork off the net and added a title to it back then
(http://i1164.photobucket.com/albums/q569/bryguyw/setupposter.png) (http://s1164.photobucket.com/user/bryguyw/media/setupposter.png.html)
Anyway, here's hoping we see a setup like this eventually; either AvA, FSO, scenario or arena. :salute
-
I like the suggestion but unforntunately I see it ending up like the WW1 arena. Awhile back I made almost this exact suggestion to the AvA guys to run it for a week when they asked some of us for ideas, but it ended up going nowhere due to lack of interest.
I even found some artwork off the net and added a title to it back then
(http://i1164.photobucket.com/albums/q569/bryguyw/setupposter.png) (http://s1164.photobucket.com/user/bryguyw/media/setupposter.png.html)
Anyway, here's hoping we see a setup like this eventually; either AvA, FSO, scenario or arena. :salute
I like this, I'm stealing what you stole. :D
-
noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooo!!!!!!! :cry :cry :cry
I worked very hard-ish on adding that text to somebody's original artwork for an ENTIRE 10 minutes and you just come along and take it from me :cry :cry :cry
Anyway; here is the original if that is more useful to you:
(http://i1164.photobucket.com/albums/q569/bryguyw/Axis_Vs__Allies_by_CheckMinus.jpg) (http://s1164.photobucket.com/user/bryguyw/media/Axis_Vs__Allies_by_CheckMinus.jpg.html)
gonna make a shirt out of it or something?
-
if i could afford it, i would...that would look pretty cool on a gray shirt.
-
nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!! :cry :cry :cry
I worked very hard-ish on adding that text to somebody's original artwork for an ENTIRE 10 minutes and you just come along and take it from me :cry :cry :cry
Anyway; here is the original if that is more useful to you:
(http://i1164.photobucket.com/albums/q569/bryguyw/Axis_Vs__Allies_by_CheckMinus.jpg) (http://s1164.photobucket.com/user/bryguyw/media/Axis_Vs__Allies_by_CheckMinus.jpg.html)
gonna make a shirt out of it or something?
Oh no.
-
I see it ending up like the WW1 arena.
WWI has particular issues which contribute to its current state:
1) Lack of play variety. All it is is a furball arena. No ground targets, no bombers (or even ordinance options for the fighters) to attack them with, no ground war, etc.
2) Lack of aircraft. The very limited plane set is going to severely impact player interest. No reason to not have the SPAD and/or Nieuport.
3) The Dr.I. Seriously. Every time I've flown in WWI, it's been 90% Dr.Is simply because the Dr.I so completely outmatches the other two unperked fighters. The Camel can sort of out-dive it (mainly because the Dr.I will break up a few MPH sooner than the Camel), but loses out in most every other performance category. The Brisfit is faster and has a tail gun, but the Dr.I otherwise outguns it, out maneuvers it, out-climbs it. And because manufacturer defects aren't modeled, the main drawbacks of the Dr.I (that it was prone to shedding wings if you looked at it funny) aren't present. The Dr.I BADLY needs to be perked, and another German fighter (*cough*Albatros D.V*cough*) added that will be more balanced with the Camel and F.2B.
-
Instead of the M26 Pershing let's go with the JS-II. Everything else sounds good to me but then what do I know. :old:
(http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/albums/mattoigta-World-War-2/abi.sized.jpg)
-
Instead of the M26 Pershing let's go with the JS-II. Everything else sounds good to me but then what do I know. :old:
(http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/albums/mattoigta-World-War-2/abi.sized.jpg)
I'm noticing a trend. ;)
-
Id much rather have an IS-2 for such an arena. Much less of a threat than the Pershing.
-
Id much rather have an IS-2 for such an arena. Much less of a threat than the Pershing.
It other words you want to preserve the GV imbalance.
That might be a good idea as the Allies would have a massive advantage in terms of CV aircraft and a still significant advantage in bombers. It is also unlikely that the He177A-5 and H8K2 would be enough to entice enough players to Axis to make it numerically balanced.
-
The odds of any additions being enough to balance numbers is unlikely in the extreme.
Too many people just want to fly the stars and stripes out the window of their P-51 or B-17. Or fly their spit 16 and blast the Nazis and the japs to hell, just like in the battle of Britain :old:.
Of course we would have a few Schlowys, but they number only a fraction of their counterparts.
And as you said, the Allies would dominate CV aircraft to such a degree that any carrier use by the axis would be almost irrelevant.
That being said, I think the axis would (and should) have decided advantage in the ground, and in perk units.
Neither a Pershing it an IS-2 will ever, EVER be a match for the Tiger II, under any equal circumstances. Both are much closer in performance to the Panther. Infact, all three have highly similar armor strength to the front quarter, and their guns perform similarly out to around 800m, IIRC.
And the numerical disparity will shift perk cost in the Axis 's favor. The only issue is that they lack any midrange perk fighter. We would need a D-13, and perhaps even a Do 335 simply to provide something of an equivalent to the F4U-4 and Tempest.
In my opinion, here is the list of additions needed before such an arena could function properly:
He-177
H8K2
Meteor III
B7A
D4Y
Pershing/Is-2
Fw-190 ordnance update
Ju 52
Helpful stuff:
D-13
Ju-388
-
this is unrealistic. the fw-190 d13 was made in soo few numbers,it shouldnt be in game,same for the ju-388. what is needed are aircraft that served and were significant to real life history...not modern interpretations of percieved history... for instance,the do-335 has bee n asked for several times.....thats nice. it was still really in prototype form at end of the war,never was in combat,no proof it even fired its guns in anything near combat,so few made that probably 99% or more of the axis and allied didnt even know it exsisted....no it should NOT be in game no matter how cool it looks. some planes that really made an impact would be. PE-2,MIG-3,KI-44,KI-45,J2M5,JU-188,HE-177,JU-52,DO-217,HE-219,HS-129,JU-87D5,BAUFIGHTER,BLENHEIM,HANDLEY PAIGE HALIFAX,FAIREY SWORDFISH,GLOUSETER GLADIATOR,CR-42,G-55,SM-82,SM-79,CANT Z,RE-2000,G-50,IAR 81,D-520,B6N2,D4Y,Yokosuka P1Y,KI-21,I-153,RE-2005,SEAFIR III, THERE MORE, BUT YOU GET THE IDEA....ALOT OF AIRCRAFT AND SO FEW TO BE ADDED.....additionally there are ground vehicles needed as well. what a canundrum
-
HTC has said their only rule is that they prefer units that saw combat.
Who cares how many were made, how many F4U -4s saw combat?
-
HTC has said their only rule is that they prefer units that saw combat.
Who cares how many were made, how many F4U -4s saw combat?
Agreed. And to find something in the Allied ranks that could successfully tangle with the Tiger II might I also suggest the addition of these known "Cat Killers"
The Su-100
(http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/tank-destroyers/su-100/su-100-tank-destroyer-01.png)
and the JSU-152
(http://www.bronetehnika.narod.ru/isu152/isu152_10.jpg)
-
Only allied tanks that could be equal to the king tiger and the jagdtiger should be the centurion.
-
You mean the ones that never saw combat, and only had a 17lber?
-
Only allied tanks that could be equal to the king tiger and the jagdtiger should be the centurion.
I didn't say they were equal to the King Tiger in terms of armour thickness and firepower. I stated these two vehicles because they have historically been known to kill Germany's big cats. Both the Su-100 and the JSU-152 have the hitting power required to kill the Panther, Tiger and Tiger II. This is historical fact. I remember when I was in tanker school at Fort Knox one of my instructors showed us images of a King Tiger that had it's turret knocked off from a direct side hit from a JSU-152.
Whether either of these self-propelled guns could, in turn, survive a hit from the KwK 43 88mm L71 is irrelevant. Their offensive hitting power gives them the ability to successfully tangle with one if properly employed by the crew.
-
I would love this arena and would fly in it permanently
-
Blinder, the dynamics of the game play means that nothing the SU-100 (the best the Allies have) does will ever force a death on a Tiger II. Before it can do anything, the Tiger II first has to make a mistake.
While I want them added eventually, it's important to make clear that in EVERY single case from now until the end of the game, the Tiger II will have the ball.
-
Blinder, the dynamics of the game play means that nothing the SU-100 (the best the Allies have) does will ever force a death on a Tiger II. Before it can do anything, the Tiger II first has to make a mistake.
While I want them added eventually, it's important to make clear that in EVERY single case from now until the end of the game, the Tiger II will have the ball.
Then the dynamics are historically inaccurate. The Tiger II was slow and prone to break down. A swarm of Su-100s, Su-85s, JSU-122s and even T-34/85s could overwhelm it easily if they got inside a certain range circle or out manueverd it. If the Tiger II was impervious then the Germans would have won WWII.
And like I said. The JSU-152 can kill it with an HE round. That is a fact.
-
Wasn't there a historical engagement where a single veteran T-34/85 ambushed and destroyed three Tiger IIs with HVAP at short range and through the front armor?
-
HTC reincarnation of a "normal" tank battle with all its parameters is simplified to a minimum. rough terrain, snow, visibility, dug-in tanks, in-passable terrains for tanks / mobile AT guns, mines, surviving a killed tank we do not have in AH.
The problem with Russian tanks where while they could kill a heavy German tank at shorter ranges, many times they where exposed to longer ranges IRL, and with abysmal reloading time of their main gun, and inferior optics and training, they relied mostly on mass-tactic even in 1945.
IS2/IS3 had very good frontal armour though, increasing survivability if tank where destroyed.
Latest American tanks had the hit power to kill a late German tank / tank destroyer, but lacked the protection of the German heavy tanks / tank destroyers.
Most crews of the late German tanks survived a kill of their tank, whereas a hit from a 88mm was very lethal to the American counterpart.
-
Then the dynamics are historically inaccurate. The Tiger II was slow and prone to break down. A swarm of Su-100s, Su-85s, JSU-122s and even T-34/85s could overwhelm it easily if they got inside a certain range circle or out manueverd it. If the Tiger II was impervious then the Germans would have won WWII.
And like I said. The JSU-152 can kill it with an HE round. That is a fact.
Aces High isn't WWII. We're not required to be as mobile as in real life, giving the Tiger II an advantage. Also, the Soviets actually have decent optics, reliably performing ammunition, etc.
It's a game.
Also, it's entirely questionable how effective a 152mm HE round would be. Even 203mm HE rounds need very close hits on Panzers.
Wasn't there a historical engagement where a single veteran T-34/85 ambushed and destroyed three Tiger IIs with HVAP at short range and through the front armor?
Way I heard it was the numbers were reversed, and it was side hits. If they penetrated the front, it was only due to poor quality armor on the Tiger II (not an issue here).
-
Also, it's entirely questionable how effective a 152mm HE round would be. Even 203mm HE rounds need very close hits on Panzers.
If Hi-Tech modeled the 152.4 mm ML-20S gun-howitzer correctly ... there would be no question. The in-game Tiger II would have a genuine threat from the ground.
So I say if anything is going to be added to this "game" then the JSU-152 and/or the SU-100 should be top priority if there is going to be Allied vs Axis sides. If not then we'll all jump into Tigers and Panthers and keep having Big-Cat Fest 2013.
-
Way I heard it was the numbers were reversed, and it was side hits. If they penetrated the front, it was only due to poor quality armor on the Tiger II (not an issue here).
Different story if yours has three T-34/85s against a single Tiger II or a single Tiger II destroying three T-34/85s. First was through the side, second was through the front of the turret ring and the last was in the rear apparently.
From here: http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/history-research-3-reich-ww2/3-king-tigers-vs-t-34-85-a-272607/ (http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/history-research-3-reich-ww2/3-king-tigers-vs-t-34-85-a-272607/)
One of the most memorable tank engagements of the war occurred towards the end of the Lvov-Sandomierz offensive in Poland. On the evening of 11 August 1944, Lt. Aleksandr P. Oskin of the 53rd Guards Fastov Tank Brigade (6th Guards Tank Corps) was ordered to patrol the Polish village of Ogledow where he was expected to link up with the unit's 2nd Battalion. The patrol included a team of tank infantry which had been riding on his vehicle through the Byelorussian and Polish fighting since June. On reaching the village, no friendly tanks were located, and German troops were approaching the opposite end of the town. Oskin informed the brigade commander and was told to take up a defensive position and monitor the German troops. The tank hull was already well camouflaged in a field of corn, and Oskin's crew and the tank infantry camouflaged the turret with corn stalks. A German tank column entered Ogledow that evening and shot it up, but halted after dark.
Although Oskin did not know it at the time, the tank unit was a platoon from sPzAbt 501, the first German tank unit on the Eastern Front with Hitler's latest 'wonder weapon', the new King Tiger heavy tank. The unit had disembarked earlier at Kielce with 45 King Tigers but by the time it had reached the vicinity of Ogledow on the evening of 11 August 1944, it was down to only eight tanks. The rest had broken down during the 45 km road march, mainly due to reduction gear failures.
On the morning of 12 August, the King Tiger battalion was ordered into action to help crush the Soviet bridgehead over the Vistula River near Sandomierz. Sitting in his tank, Oskin saw the King Tiger s move out of the village. They appeared to be Panthers, but Oskin recalled an intelligence briefing in which the Soviet crews were warned to keep an eye out for a new German heavy tank. In the event, the Germans had not spotted Oskin's well camouflaged tank, and they were moving down a road where their more vulnerable sides would be exposed. Oskin ordered the loader, A. Khalyshev, to load one of his precious BR-365P hypervelocity rounds. When the King Tigers had closed to 200 m and were broadside, Oskin ordered his gunner, Abubakir Merkhaidorov, to fire. The round hit the turret side of the second tank, seemingly without effect. Actually, it had penetrated and killed some of the crew, but this was not immediately apparent to the Russians. Oskin's tank fired two more BR-365 AP rounds against the turret, and in frustration he finally ordered up another round of sub-calibre ammunition and told the gunner to hit the rear fuel tank. The King Tiger finally began to burn.
By this time, the lead King Tiger had begun to swing its massive turret looking for its tormentor, but in all the dust raised by the impacts of the 85 mm gun, they could not find a target. Oskin's tank fired three rounds at the front of the turret, which bounced off without effect. The fourth round penetrated the turret ring, and the lead King Tiger began to burn from an ammunition fire. The third King Tiger, blind in the smoke from the fuel fire on the second King Tiger, began to back off the road at top speed. Oskin detonated the MDSh smoke cans at the back of his tank to give himself some cover, and began chasing after the third King Tiger. The fleeter T-34-85 soon caught up and Oskin managed to manoeuvre around to the rear of the King Tiger where they knocked it out with a shot into the engine compartment through the thin rear armour. On returning to the road, one of the King Tigers had stopped burning, so Oskin fired at it again with his last round of hypervelocity ammunition. Two of the King Tigers subsequently suffered catastrophic ammunition fires which blew off their turrets. German losses were eleven dead of the fifteen crew including Lt. Karnetzki and Wieman, and some of the survivors were taken prisoner by Oskin's tank riders. The Tiger battalion did not know what had hit them, and their losses were attributed to 'massive anti-tank defences'.
The third King Tiger was later recovered and sent to the Red Army tank proving ground at Kubinka, where today it still rests in the armoured force museum. Lt. Oskin was decorated with the highest Red Army award, the Hero of the Soviet Union gold star.
Doing a google search for Lt. Aleksandr P. Oskin yields many more hits.
-
If Hi-Tech modeled the 152.4 mm ML-20S gun-howitzer correctly ... there would be no question. The in-game Tiger II would have a genuine threat from the ground.
So I say if anything is going to be added to this "game" then the JSU-152 and/or the SU-100 should be top priority if there is going to be Allied vs Axis sides. If not then we'll all jump into Tigers and Panthers and keep having Big-Cat Fest 2013.
HE rounds bounce in Aces High. I suspect that either the ship guns are modeled differently, or there exists a KE/thickness threshold necessary to penetrate armor with an HE round, or both.
The latter is certainly true for tank guns currently in game, given that you can penetrate the weaker areas of a tank with a high velocity HE round, but not a low velocity round, such as from an M4(75), or Panzer IV F1.
Anyway, given the thickness of the Tiger IIs frontal armor, it's probable, bordering on certain, that the Tiger II will still be nearly invulnerable from the front, it the modeling remains consistent.
If they model it as a ship gun, then it will be heavily perked.
-
HE rounds have a much higher tendency to bounce, but they don't always bounce. I have killed lots of tanks from a B25H with HE rounds. I have also killed other tanks at close range with HE from another tank. Have always wondered how the penetration of HE rounds is determined.